4 ms·
> If the people advocating for the homeless and mentally ill have a better solution than leaving them on the streets to rot The comment you are replying to put
by bolanyo 4y ago
> If the people advocating for the homeless and mentally ill have a better solution than leaving them on the streets to rot
The comment you are replying to put forward exactly such a solution: that treatment should be helpful enough and sufficiently respectful of users' rights, that people who need it don't refuse it.
- pc86 4y agoYou can't reason the person smearing shit on themselves and screaming at people into treatment.
- cwmoore 4y agoThe eagerness to reason from the headline anecdata on this topic is a signal that it is not just the mentally ill who exhibit severe thinking problems. No, you can't reason with that one person at that moment. Get them sedated, cleaned up, new clothes and a haircut, and then ask them what is going on with them. For each one like that there are another 10,000 people in various forms of quiet desperation.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- UncleOxidant 4y ago> Get them sedated Kind of tough to get them to that first step willingly. Got any other ideas?
- cwmoore 4y ago<del>Willingly was your idea.</del> As for other ideas, some are in the comment. What about the 10,000 who might be willing if society offered them treatment options even a sane person would accept? EDIT: because sibling comments are willfully ignoring my point EDIT2: public disturbances are frequently halted with police arrest, not whatever willingness could be brought about ahead of time with better systems in place
- pc86 4y agoWillingly wasn't necessarily their idea, that's the whole point of this thread - getting people into treatment by their own choice vs. forcing them: > > > ... treatment should be helpful enough and sufficiently respectful of users' rights, that people who need it don't refuse it
- cwmoore 4y agoThe list of people who need help is so much longer than any one causing an event that makes it into the newspapers or anecdotes. Why is it such a fantasy that treatment options should be appealing to the people committing themselves to them?
- smcg 4y agopresumably, in order to obtain consent. non-consensually committing someone raises issues that must be addressed to prevent abuse. I live in a state with 72 hour minimum emergency involuntary committal. (further requires a court order) this is a compromise that addresses the above concern. ideally it is enough for the patient to get on a routine of taking meds and making sure there aren't adverse reactions from them.
- UncleOxidant 4y agoWe used to fairly easily commit people to asylums. There was lots of abuse of this power. Mental institutions were very bad places (see One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest). Finally the pendulum started swinging the other direction starting in about the 50s (in the 60s JFK called for reform) and culminating in the 80s when Reagan effectively emptied the mental institutions (but more for budgetary reasons than any concern for the mentally ill). And now we've reached the other extreme where we're too afraid to violate the civil rights of the mentally ill so we let them stay on the streets because that's what they "want" to do.
- cwmoore 4y agoI think too many basically sane people are close enough to losing their minds at all times that they would fear for their own civil rights. The mentally ill on the streets are only a small sample of a spectrum. I understand the history well enough to note that a wide swath of (also) expensive alternatives have not been tried yet, or the basically sane people mentioned above would be willing to undergo treatment that works.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- afthonos 4y agoThat’s…not a solution. That’s a goal.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]