3 ms·

This seems to be the opposite of asylums - put people in temporary care, give them treatment beyond just sedation and anti-psychotics, help get them stabilized,

This seems to be the opposite of asylums - put people in temporary care, give them treatment beyond just sedation and anti-psychotics, help get them stabilized, put together a care plan, and then send them home or to the next stage of treatment.

hanniabu 3y ago
> and then send them home In a lifetime of debt
- dingusdew 3y ago
  [dead]
- bicx 3y ago
  You haven’t experienced the full inadequacy of the US health system until you’ve paid out the nose for a night of “observation” at the hospital.
- ksenzee 3y ago
  Contrary to the stereotype, most Americans have health insurance that covers inpatient and outpatient mental health care. That's why we can't get a universal socialized system implemented: too many Americans already have good enough insurance that they don't want to change it.
  - zer8k 3y ago
    The problem is the people who need help most won't seek it because it will get them labeled. There are plenty of mental illnesses that create situations where doctor-patient confidentiality has to be breached (legally). This restricts their care. A more mundane example, in some states with red flag laws a lawful gun owner could potentially introduce liability by seeking a diagnosis for depression or anxiety. Even if they don't present as a threat to themselves or others. The diagnosis alone can form a legal basis for disarmament given the right DA. We need to fix the legal system to allow people to get the help they need. If you even remotely think asking for help will get the cops sent to kick down your door and shoot your dog you won't go get help. Often times when you do get help it's too late.
    - mvncleaninst 3y ago
      The people who need help most can be legally compelled by a court to receive it Saying that someone with anxiety "needs help most" is unconvincing given the presence of psychotic homeless who aren't receiving treatment because of limited capacity or lack of financial incentive I really don't understand your comment: why does a violent, untreated psychotic "need help less" than a neurotic who rejects the help for legal reasons?
      - zer8k 3y ago
        My point was the breach of doctor-patient confidentiality. Which destroys the foundation of trust therapy requires. Being "legally compelled" to get help does not mean that help will be received. Forced compliance has never worked. There's plenty of history to back up that statement. I don't understand if you're trying to show how much you know about mental health or something but it appears you missed the greater point.
        mvncleaninst 3y ago
        I'm not disagreeing with your point about confidentiality, it's good for people to have that kind of outlet where they can speak without consequences. The liquidation of that confidentiality is very very bad because it destroys an important outlet for emotional support The disagreement we have seems to be based on what the actual goal is of mental health intervention. It sounds like (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're saying the purpose is emotional growth. A neurotic is in more of a position to benefit from therapy than a psychotic. But I'm not considering things in terms of that, more so in terms of public safety
  - anonymoushn 3y ago
    Sure you just go to the hospital and show them your insurance then they ignore it and send you to collections half a year later and you get to spend weeks on the phone fixing their "mistake"
lazide 3y ago
Technically that is already what is supposed to be happening. Temporary holds however seem to have temporary effects, except for the trauma, legal side effects, bills, etc. anyway. 5150 holds are a bad joke.

hanniabu 3y ago

> and then send them home In a lifetime of debt

dingusdew 3y ago
[dead]
bicx 3y ago
You haven’t experienced the full inadequacy of the US health system until you’ve paid out the nose for a night of “observation” at the hospital.
ksenzee 3y ago
Contrary to the stereotype, most Americans have health insurance that covers inpatient and outpatient mental health care. That's why we can't get a universal socialized system implemented: too many Americans already have good enough insurance that they don't want to change it.
- zer8k 3y ago
  The problem is the people who need help most won't seek it because it will get them labeled. There are plenty of mental illnesses that create situations where doctor-patient confidentiality has to be breached (legally). This restricts their care. A more mundane example, in some states with red flag laws a lawful gun owner could potentially introduce liability by seeking a diagnosis for depression or anxiety. Even if they don't present as a threat to themselves or others. The diagnosis alone can form a legal basis for disarmament given the right DA. We need to fix the legal system to allow people to get the help they need. If you even remotely think asking for help will get the cops sent to kick down your door and shoot your dog you won't go get help. Often times when you do get help it's too late.
  - mvncleaninst 3y ago
    The people who need help most can be legally compelled by a court to receive it Saying that someone with anxiety "needs help most" is unconvincing given the presence of psychotic homeless who aren't receiving treatment because of limited capacity or lack of financial incentive I really don't understand your comment: why does a violent, untreated psychotic "need help less" than a neurotic who rejects the help for legal reasons?
    - zer8k 3y ago
      My point was the breach of doctor-patient confidentiality. Which destroys the foundation of trust therapy requires. Being "legally compelled" to get help does not mean that help will be received. Forced compliance has never worked. There's plenty of history to back up that statement. I don't understand if you're trying to show how much you know about mental health or something but it appears you missed the greater point.
      - mvncleaninst 3y ago
        I'm not disagreeing with your point about confidentiality, it's good for people to have that kind of outlet where they can speak without consequences. The liquidation of that confidentiality is very very bad because it destroys an important outlet for emotional support The disagreement we have seems to be based on what the actual goal is of mental health intervention. It sounds like (correct me if I'm wrong) that you're saying the purpose is emotional growth. A neurotic is in more of a position to benefit from therapy than a psychotic. But I'm not considering things in terms of that, more so in terms of public safety
- anonymoushn 3y ago
  Sure you just go to the hospital and show them your insurance then they ignore it and send you to collections half a year later and you get to spend weeks on the phone fixing their "mistake"

lazide 3y ago

Technically that is already what is supposed to be happening. Temporary holds however seem to have temporary effects, except for the trauma, legal side effects, bills, etc. anyway. 5150 holds are a bad joke.