Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Public Sector Gulags
A Doctor's Fight: More Forced
Antigen:
Well, Fornits is not one person or one cohesive group. It's open [sigh] why is that so hard to understand? You seem to come here absolutely certain that you're perfectly correct about everything. Then when somone questions your holy doctrine, you cry foul and cast disparriaging characterizations of those who disagree.
How would you know whether Jeff Demann needs medication or if the one he's forced to get is helpful or worth the adverse effects or comepletely worthless?
Despite anyone's opinion, professional or not, as to what's not right w/ Jeff Demann, he's never hurt anyone. By our much vaunted Constitution, he hasn't forfeited his right to self determination. It could be anyone. Could be you.
I am not anti psyche or anti drug. Obviously, there is such a thing as insanity. But it's not all organic. Take Andrea Yates for example. I think she's a prime example of situational insanity. Drug her? By force? Never mind what the patient says or how it effects her, just do what the book says? I don't think so. I hope she does move from prison to some actual, quality care facility. But I think the odds are rather long. Prison medical care notoriously sucks. She may well be moving out of the frying pan and into the fire. It's just such a tragic story.
Look, there are many different causes and as many differnt helpful approaches to mental and emotional distress. Unless someone is actually harming nonconsenting others, no one has a right to force them to do any damned thing. By the same token, if your drug therapy is working well for you, by all means stick with it. I only wish you didn't have to pay so much to cover the regulatory costs of provision and that we all had more choices in the matter. But don't assume that what's good for you is good for everybody.
What if Andrea Yates had packed up the first 3 or 4 kids and hit the road years prior? In her case (and many like hers) I think a timely change of set and setting might have solved her problem. And her name would never have been splashed accross the headlines and we wouldn't be discussing her sad story.
The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.
--John Adams, U.S. President
--- End quote ---
Anonymous:
--- Quote ---On 2006-02-02 07:43:00, Eudora wrote:
"Well, Fornits is not one person or one cohesive group. It's open [sigh] why is that so hard to understand?
--- End quote ---
Thanks for that clarification ...
--- Quote ---You seem to come here absolutely certain that you're perfectly correct about everything. Then when somone questions your holy doctrine, you cry foul and cast disparriaging characterizations of those who disagree.
--- End quote ---
Nope, you have the wrong impression there.
Information & choices that is all.
It would be nice if information could be provided without being critical of other doctrines, wouldn't it?
--- Quote ---How would you know whether Jeff Demann needs medication or if the one he's forced to get is helpful or worth the adverse effects or comepletely worthless?
--- End quote ---
Good point, in fact, I would imagine this is an unverified anectodal story. No one would know unless his medical records where examined to veryify the facts.
I find it odd, in simplistic response to a non-detailed account that he is suicidal, and then being assigned ACT.
There are many suicidal people in this country, I don't believe that meets the criteria, unless there was more severity to his case profile.
--- Quote ---Despite anyone's opinion, professional or not, as to what's not right w/ Jeff Demann, he's never hurt anyone. By our much vaunted Constitution, he hasn't forfeited his right to self determination. It could be anyone. Could be you.
--- End quote ---
You are absolutely right, and hence the dilema here. This is the toughest of all tough issues.
Andrea Yates never hurt anyone until the murders correct. The lady at the Goleta post office apparently from early news reports never hurt anyone. She did exhibit being confrontational, and talking incoherently. So no problem for these two current examples. They where not rounded up and forced to do anything.
Was that good or bad?
There is no easy answer, ever, in this situation.
Every case of involuntary inpatient or outpatient treatment is heart breaking. No one want to do this, but what does one do when the disaster of mental illness strikes to the point of raising concern?
It wasn't a problem until the darn medications improved to the point that releasing the mentally ill from asylums became possible.
Now we have a relatively new situation, that the law needs to catch up on. Remember laws are made after the fact, not before.
Before, meds, both examples above would have been in state run insane asylums, now technology has advanced that people are free to do what they want in the community.
Great!
Unless they become a danger to themselves or others.
If only Andrea Yates, and the Goleta lady told someone prior to the murders, it would have made decision making a little easier.
As the article stated the involuntary treatment is used sparingly, so most likely they would have continued with their outpatient treatment, or refused it. Which is what may have happened in both cases.
So, the laws that people mis-interperate and hate so much are in place, and it doesn't stop many from committing a crime.
Saying that, and thinking while I am typing, what is the big deal. How many people does it really effect in the adult popuation?
Those that crossed the line and became violent and are jailed thus eliminating their chance of ACT have lost their rights period. How should you, or I feel about them.
Fry them as some individual often posts here.
Or just let the current laws be, and accept that there will be crimes, and so be it.
Either someone will commit a crime because they are not mentally ill and choose to, or they are mentally ill and their illness contributes to their decision making.
Should anyone care, should the laws and the medical community try to help.
Or just allow people to refuse treatment?
We have that now, and all agree that is best.
Until, there is a danger to self or others, then
this whole issue comes up again.
Damn, if these people would just not become a danger to themselves or others we wouldn't have a problem and we could discuss something more meaningful.
--- Quote ---
I am not anti psyche or anti drug. Obviously, there is such a thing as insanity. But it's not all organic. Take Andrea Yates for example. I think she's a prime example of situational insanity.
--- End quote ---
I understand your position, and the guess that Andrea Yates most likely has a situational psychosis.
BTW - I am reading your reply and typing, because I have to depart. If it is a disjointed, or poorly written response, then sorry about that. I am trying to be timely ...
--- Quote ---Drug her? By force? Never mind what the patient says or how it effects her, just do what the book says? I don't think so. I hope she does move from prison to some actual, quality care facility. But I think the odds are rather long. Prison medical care notoriously sucks. She may well be moving out of the frying pan and into the fire. It's just such a tragic story.
--- End quote ---
Absolutely, I don't know the answer either. All these type cases are tragedies. Plus we have the benefit of hind site, knowing a crime was committed. This whole topic sucks, worse than prison health care. The problem is the problem is real. I wish it never existed.
Another perspective.
Is it better to force treatment on 10 isolated home school moms, who have assholes as husbands to avoid one Andrea Yates, or do as exactly what was done with her. Which is the norm throughout the country?
I don't know the answer here either, I am uncomfortable with force, just as I am horrified when choice results in tragedy. Normally the tragedy is a horribe life. In these legendary crime cases it is the crime. Either way, the problem is there is no hindsight to guide decision making.
I agree with the folks that posted hoping a new law would come about making the husband partially responsible, or something.
But, that is more goverment intervention and that blows too!
Perhaps there is no answers that will be satisfactory.
Except, these cases are going on all over the country today.
For instance, and obviously, the Goleta lady was just a disables person doing good/bad/awful until she got herself to her old apartment complex and job site and committed a spree murder.
Should something have been done before?
Could something have been done before?
Who knows?
Should we try and learn from each case and make improvements for the future?
My guess is yes, but the process is highly volitile and no one ever comes away happy, and
the real problem is it requires foresight and many may be treated impropertly, to save an unkown amount from tragedy.
I don't know?
Perhaps a totally lawless society is better and let the survival of the fittest law of nature take its course?
--- Quote ---Look, there are many different causes and as many differnt helpful approaches to mental and emotional distress. Unless someone is actually harming nonconsenting others, no one has a right to force them to do any damned thing.
--- End quote ---
I agree.
The law is "harmful to others or self"
It looks like the law agrees also.
Now, there is another problem. People carry out the law, there may be abuses, and on and on it goes.
Remember the case of the crystal dealers in that persons neighborhood. It wasn't a mental situation, but should something have been done, or nothing, as was being done?
Same dilemma.
--- Quote ---By the same token, if your drug therapy is working well for you, by all means stick with it. I only wish you didn't have to pay so much to cover the regulatory costs of provision and that we all had more choices in the matter.
--- End quote ---
I agree.
--- Quote ---But don't assume that what's good for you is good for everybody.
--- End quote ---
I never assume that.
--- Quote ---What if Andrea Yates had packed up the first 3 or 4 kids and hit the road years prior? In her case (and many like hers) I think a timely change of set and setting might have solved her problem.
--- End quote ---
I absolutely agree!
--- Quote ---
And her name would never have been splashed accross the headlines and we wouldn't be discussing her sad story.
--- End quote ---
Reality bites in this case!
--- Quote ---The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.
--John Adams
--- End quote ---
Timely quote, with no answer ...[ This Message was edited by: Eudora on 2006-02-02 10:09 ]
Anonymous:
Sorry about the mess that I made on
the formatting of my response.
Antigen:
No problem. I didn't have time to read your response either, just skimmed as I was fixing formatting. I too have to "go". I'll be in this same chair, but my head will be all wrapped up in this website http://HelpAtAnyCost.com/ I look forward to taking my time w/ this discussion later on tonight.
BTW, the error in your formatting was that you left out the slash from the close quote. Using curly braces instead of square ones (so you can see it w/o peeking at the source) it's like this:
{quote}
Quoted Text.
{/quote}
But, really, the error is in my code. It's supposed to count start and end tags and, if they don't add up, to ignore them all. Just another li'll bug I should get around to squashing.
screening pre-school kids for anti-social behavior is about as useful as screening the Christian Coalition for sanctimonious behavior.
Sanho Tree
--- End quote ---
Antigen:
Well, this is not really a new dilema at all. Are you familiar w/ Blackstone's ratio?
War is God?s way of teaching Americans geography.
--Ambrose Bierce (died 1914)
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version