Forced treatment?

venusss · Dec 02, 2012, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Ah man, I see both sides of this issue, people who aren't taking their meds who break the law and end up in jail or prison. Something that could have been avoided if they'd been on their meds. Yet, there's a history of governments abusing the power to force people into treatment. Which is a greater infringement on the person's freedom - forcing them to take a medication that will help them stay out of jail or locking them up?

if they DO NOT WANT, then force them to do what they DO NOT WANT is infrigment of freedom.

being jailed for commiting crime is a consequence.

I was born to Eastern Bloc, so I cringe at for-your-own-good measures. People don't get freedom comes with responsibility. And should we who can handle it just fine be stripped of the freedom, because some people cannot handle it?

And do meds really prevent crimes? Really? Anybody want to link to that? (and no, "well, if they are zonked out and sleep 16 hours a day, that gives them little time frame to get in trouble"... that doesn't count in my book).

Maybe those people go off meds, because those meds do feel just like a jail.

Dec 02, 2012, 03:19 PM

This is a difficult issue. The one thing that keeps coming to my mind is that our mental illnesses don't exist in a vacuum. If I am in a severe depression and can't take care of myself, much less take care of my children for example, it isn't only me who is suffering; my children suffer the consequences of my illness. If the children of someone with a severe mental illness are neglected or in some way being victimized because of my mental illness and treatment would improve the situation not only for myself, but also for them, what do we do? We can remove the children from the home I suppose or just leave them there because we have a right to be ill and let that bleed over into the lives of our children I guess, but is that a better option than perhaps getting treatment that might improve my condition so I can care not only for myself but for my children and perhaps keep this family together?

Or, the case in a nearby town where a family had several members shot by their mentally ill son who refused treatment. They tried to get him help; they knew he had the potential for violence, but nothing was done and in the end 4 family members died at his hands because he was untreated and became homicidal and suicidal. It was a preventable tragedy that didn't just affect the patient; it affected everyone around him.

Or, a woman who after pregnancy goes into serious post-partum depression . . . Do we wait until after she has reached psychosis and has murdered her children?

I agree that if your mental illness is confined to affecting only yourself, then you should have the right to reject treatment, but when a person's mental illness reaches the potential to affect others in serious, profound, and lasting ways, I have more trouble knowing how this should best be handled. It's all good and well to say that mentally ill people who refuse treatments just have to be willing to suffer the legal consequences for their actions, but what about people who end up also victimized (intentionally or unintentionally) by someone who refuses treatment? Somewhere their rights to be safe and to live their lives also has to be factored in, and I think that is where the difficulty of the issue really comes in.

I don't know the answer.

venusss · Dec 02, 2012, 03:38 PM

there is another point of view (in my opinion cringeworthy)

http://blog.sharecare.com/2012/02/27...ent-treatment/

I'd comment more, but I kinda cannot right now without using lots of swear words and references to Stalin and colonial times.

(but yes, I see paralel. My country has been occupied... because we couldn't see how awesome Moscow-style communism was and how deluded we were to want it our way. So it was all for our good, to save us from ourselves... we agree that in politics, we don't attack preemptively, even if the oponent is sketchy. So why do it on personal level? Thoughtcrimes, anyone?)

Anika. · 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmergirl

This is a difficult issue. The one thing that keeps coming to my mind is that our mental illnesses don't exist in a vacuum. If I am in a severe depression and can't take care of myself, much less take care of my children for example, it isn't only me who is suffering; my children suffer the consequences of my illness. If the children of someone with a severe mental illness are neglected or in some way being victimized because of my mental illness and treatment would improve the situation not only for myself, but also for them, what do we do? We can remove the children from the home I suppose or just leave them there because we have a right to be ill and let that bleed over into the lives of our children I guess, but is that a better option than perhaps getting treatment that might improve my condition so I can care not only for myself but for my children and perhaps keep this family together?

Or, the case in a nearby town where a family had several members shot by their mentally ill son who refused treatment. They tried to get him help; they knew he had the potential for violence, but nothing was done and in the end 4 family members died at his hands because he was untreated and became homicidal and suicidal. It was a preventable tragedy that didn't just affect the patient; it affected everyone around him.

Or, a woman who after pregnancy goes into serious post-partum depression . . . Do we wait until after she has reached psychosis and has murdered her children?

I agree that if your mental illness is confined to affecting only yourself, then you should have the right to reject treatment, but when a person's mental illness reaches the potential to affect others in serious, profound, and lasting ways, I have more trouble knowing how this should best be handled. It's all good and well to say that mentally ill people who refuse treatments just have to be willing to suffer the legal consequences for their actions, but what about people who end up also victimized (intentionally or unintentionally) by someone who refuses treatment? Somewhere their rights to be safe and to live their lives also has to be factored in, and I think that is where the difficulty of the issue really comes in.

I don't know the answer.

I don't know the answer either, or how they are supposed to know who is who and what is what.

When I have been depressed I still get out of bed, get dressed, attend to my children and do everything that depression say it doesn't feel like doing. I was taught that depression gets better faster when you continue to do what you normally would be doing. As much as I might not feel like it or want to I have to. And for me it does seem to work quite well. I realize not everyone does this, but I think it's a scary thought tho think about someone saying "well if you are depressed you are damaging your children, you are obviously not taking care of them so you MUST do this" When it could be completely untrue. I had PPD, I didn't murder my babies, I have had psychosis with bipolar.. never hurt anyone, I have enough insight to be able to reel myself back in. I know how to compare and contrast what is real to what is not likely possible so that I can get back to reality. So I am not sure how we decide who is a danger and who is not... symptoms alone are not enough.

Thing is we do not all handle ailments the same, I have always felt a great conviction to meet my children's needs no matter what may be going on with me internally. I have to, I just don't see any other option, and this probably comes from my own childhood. So while maybe it's the norm for depressed people to not be taking care of themselves, or others, we can't assume it's the case for everyone.

However all that said I can see your point quite well, my father was also bipolar, and we suffered at his hands a lot, physically and emotionally... on the other hand later in life when he was treated for it.. he was exactly the same... zero change. Some of those behaviors are more than mental illness or less than.. some are the actual person, personality, and so forth... he had a lot of therapy, but we know that therapy doesn't work if you don't make it work, Honestly he would have had to wanted to be different.. forced treatment is not going to do the work for him. If he had forced treatment when we were young I doubt it would have been any different, he didn't want it to be. He later did commit suicide.. I don't know what the answer is... I really don't, I just know it's complicated and what we have know isn't working.

We can say all we want that the crime is because the person is untreated, what can't do is look into a crystal ball and know that with or without treatment that the person would not have done what they did. People have killed themselves and hurt others because of being treated.. in the case of side effects from medications... which we cannot exactly ignore if we are talking about outcomes of treatment. The worst psychosis I had was when I was 17 and placed on prozac and sleeping pills. It was beyond what I experienced untreated. If I would have hurt someone or myself they would have said .. Well she WAS being treated. They would likely not want to admit the treatment was the cause.

TheDragon · Dec 02, 2012, 04:51 PM

I challenge those who would consider forced treatment to be justified to consider this - One of the pillars of Western society is the freedom of choice. This includes the freedom to make mistakes and suffer, if we so choose. There are certain extremes that are outlawed, such as controlled substances, but generally speaking, the West upholds the idea of freedom of choice. Does forced treatment not go against this? I do not disagree that there are times individuals need to be detained, due to their danger to society, but should one be subjected to matters beyond that? If one is a danger to others due to the fact he is deemed ill and need of treatment, but genuinely and rationally believes otherwise, would forced treatment not be a form of brainwashing, comparable to "reeducation centers" in North Korea?

Or perhaps, it is more simple to ask this - at what point can we consider someone so insane, or invalid, that we can make a decision in their stead? Should anyone ever have that decision over another, regardless of circumstances? One may argue that on a larger level this is necessary, but how many individuals do we sacrifice through this process?

In both the cases of forced treatment and "assisted outpatient assistance," it is a gross violation of our basic freedoms that are fundamental to the West. There is some mention about the "freedom" to get better, but does freedom not entail choice?

Simply put, I agree with DocJohn.

lizardlady · Dec 02, 2012, 06:00 PM

I'd like to clarify, I did not mean to say or imply that folks who don't take their meds commit crimes. Venus, you make a good point that forcing someone to take meds is an infringment on their freedom. Farmergirl makes a good point about the consequences others might face if someone refuses treatment.

Anika, forcing you to sign an agreement when you were not in a place to understand the consequences of what you were signing was wrong in my opinion. BTW, Doc John was the one who compared treatment for mental health problems to treatment for terminal cancer.

Folks, I don't know the answer. I mentioned what happened to my mother. I was royally p!ssed about it. Like I said I'm sitting on the fence.

Anika. · Dec 02, 2012, 06:09 PM

Yes but I think the comparrison it fine. People with terminal cancer sometimes can get better. I think I wasn't very clear on that

No getting me to sign it wasn't right. Even the idea that it was an option was also not right. There was never nor has been a reason for it in my case.

I dont have the answer either, but I think if we keep trying the same thing and keep getting the same results, maybe time to try something new.

pachyderm · Dec 02, 2012, 06:28 PM

How we treat other people I don't have the answer. I just know that for me the idea of being forcibly treated was terrifying to me; it felt as though it would be just like the continuation of my childhood experiences.

di meliora · Dec 02, 2012, 07:20 PM

So, forced treatment is wrong. What now? Are those who reject treatment entitled to remain at a facility and have their basic needs provided for? May the facility decide the slot occupied by the one who rejects treatment should go to one who seeks treatment and force the other to leave the facility? If so, is the one forced out entitled to have his basic needs provided by an outpatient facility?

If the police find the one forced out of the facility acting in a manner the police consider dangerous to himself or others and take the person to a facility, may the facility refuse to accept the individual if the individual continues to refuse treatment?

Prisons have taken the place of facilities formerly treating those with disorders. If treatment facilities will not accept this person, is prison the answer if the police can show the individual committed a crime and also is a danger to himself or others?

I understand states in the US may already have procedures to answer these questions. Nonetheless if treatment facilities and prisons cannot treat or will not treat one who refuses treatment, what has changed from the days when treatment facilities simply housed significant numbers of those who had nowhere else to go?

Anika. · Dec 02, 2012, 11:30 PM

If someone is refusing treatment why would they be in a treatment facility.. I am a bit confused about that. I am not talking about prison, but I can't think of a case why someone refusing treatment would be in a treatment facility if it were ok to refuse help.

Lauru · Dec 03, 2012, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenusHalley

if they DO NOT WANT, then force them to do what they DO NOT WANT is infrigment of freedom.

being jailed for commiting crime is a consequence.

I was born to Eastern Bloc, so I cringe at for-your-own-good measures. People don't get freedom comes with responsibility. And should we who can handle it just fine be stripped of the freedom, because some people cannot handle it?

And do meds really prevent crimes? Really? Anybody want to link to that? (and no, "well, if they are zonked out and sleep 16 hours a day, that gives them little time frame to get in trouble"... that doesn't count in my book).

Maybe those people go off meds, because those meds do feel just like a jail.

I agree with you wholeheartedly

Lauru · Dec 03, 2012, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmergirl

I agree that if your mental illness is confined to affecting only yourself, then you should have the right to reject treatment, but when a person's mental illness reaches the potential to affect others in serious, profound, and lasting ways, I have more trouble knowing how this should best be handled. It's all good and well to say that mentally ill people who refuse treatments just have to be willing to suffer the legal consequences for their actions, but what about people who end up also victimized (intentionally or unintentionally) by someone who refuses treatment? Somewhere their rights to be safe and to live their lives also has to be factored in, and I think that is where the difficulty of the issue really comes in.

I don't know the answer.

So, if a person has a history of violence and has been in prison, then wouldn't he also pose a high risk and threat to others? Shouldn't we then keep those people imprisoned for their whole lives so that they cannot hurt others in thefuture? Which they may or may not do? Should we just force them to take mass quantities of tranquilizers so they are not coherent long enough to hurt others? And why is the presumption that if you are mentally ill there is a greater chance of you hurting others? The vast majority of violent offenders are not mentally ill.

Nammu · Dec 03, 2012, 04:26 AM

One of my biggest problems with this is how can you make law about a medical issue? We are talking about a medical illness and one that is still largely subjective and the treatments that are a shotgun guesswork. The same case will not always get the same diagnoses from country to country, nor Dr to Dr, nor the same treatment. In America the poor will most often get more medicine than therapy even though evidence based facts have shown that therapy alone or both together will work just as well.

I'm with those that are against forcing any treatment on anyone for their own good. Only if someone is a threat to someone else should they be forced to a safe place, a hospital for the safety of others. But I don't know that I would force them to take dangerous medicine unless they consented to take it. Once it was known that there is a medicine that helps if a person becomes delusional or manic and they sign an order consenting to meds when they are in that state then yes, they can be forced, because they themselves agreed to it. The dangers of many psych drugs are not something that should ever be forced on anyone. The great unwritten rule of the medical profession is; first do no harm.

Until we better know how mental illness works, and the evidence seems to be pointing at a more whole body route not just brain chemicals which may be why the current medicines are such a hit or miss affair, I say the law has no right to have any say in medical matters.

Anika. · Dec 03, 2012, 05:25 AM

In the case of forced treatment involving medication, what happens when someone who was not a threat and is placed on a drug that causes them to either commit suicide or harm someone else. Who's hands is the blood on, who is guilty for someone being harmed ? The person in question if they harm someone else will have to live with what happened, we cannot take it off their conscience. Also other consequences like prison for what happened as a result of the mind altering substance that they did not take by choice.

To me that is a real flip side that should also be explored if we are debating forced treatment.

These are just some adverse side effects of psych drugs:
-- Depression of the central nervous system
-- Stimulation of the central nervous system
-- Anxiety
-- Insomnia
-- Euphoria
-- Hallucinations
-- Hostility
-- Paranoid reaction
-- Psychosis
-- Dizziness
-- Akathisia - not limited to agitated body movement but also mental agitation together create psychomotor agitation.
-- Increased suicidal thoughts
-- Depression
If you have some of these going on at the same time that can become quite dangerous obviously.

KUREHA · Dec 03, 2012, 06:17 AM

I think everyone is missing something, meds or hospital - it isn't going to help.

The DSM - Dr Cameron was involved.

It's all a cover up for the future MK Ultra.

Everyone gets depressed. I lost my house, they jump off a bridge.

If you go shooting some where from mind control, you're screwed.

Meds make it easier for them to get control.

TheDragon · Dec 03, 2012, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by di meliora

So, forced treatment is wrong. What now? Are those who reject treatment entitled to remain at a facility and have their basic needs provided for? May the facility decide the slot occupied by the one who rejects treatment should go to one who seeks treatment and force the other to leave the facility? If so, is the one forced out entitled to have his basic needs provided by an outpatient facility?

If the police find the one forced out of the facility acting in a manner the police consider dangerous to himself or others and take the person to a facility, may the facility refuse to accept the individual if the individual continues to refuse treatment?

Prisons have taken the place of facilities formerly treating those with disorders. If treatment facilities will not accept this person, is prison the answer if the police can show the individual committed a crime and also is a danger to himself or others?

I understand states in the US may already have procedures to answer these questions. Nonetheless if treatment facilities and prisons cannot treat or will not treat one who refuses treatment, what has changed from the days when treatment facilities simply housed significant numbers of those who had nowhere else to go?

I don't know what your country does, but I'll go by what Canada has.

"Are those who reject treatment entitled to remain at a facility and have their basic needs provided for?"

Entitled? I don't think anyone is entitled to anything. However, if you're involuntarily hospitalized, or on a "form" then you don't get to leave the facility.

"May the facility decide the slot occupied by the one who rejects treatment should go to one who seeks treatment and force the other to leave the facility? If so, is the one forced out entitled to have his basic needs provided by an outpatient facility?"

If one hospital runs out of space, they'll just transfer you to another hospital. This goes for voluntary and involuntary until the end of your treatment.

"If the police find the one forced out of the facility acting in a manner the police consider dangerous to himself or others and take the person to a facility, may the facility refuse to accept the individual if the individual continues to refuse treatment?"

If the police bring you to a psych ward, you're put on a form, which means involuntary inpatient. So no, the facility cannot initially refuse to accept an individual the police brings in. When your form is up (anywhere from 72 hours to 6 months), it is either renewed, or you're "voluntary" inpatient. However, you can refuse treatment, and have your form renewed, and it happens more than you'd think.

"Prisons have taken the place of facilities formerly treating those with disorders. If treatment facilities will not accept this person, is prison the answer if the police can show the individual committed a crime and also is a danger to himself or others?"

Once again, facilities here are legally obligated to take in someone the police brings in. If one location is full, they'll transfer you to another, even if it's out of city limits.

"Nonetheless if treatment facilities and prisons cannot treat or will not treat one who refuses treatment, what has changed from the days when treatment facilities simply housed significant numbers of those who had nowhere else to go?"

What exactly are you trying to say here because I wasn't aware that facilities stopped housing significant numbers who had nowhere else to go, if you're still talking about mental health facilities and mental health. Facilities never get to the point where they "cannot" treat someone, who's deemed to need treatment whether they refuse it or not. You'll simply be transferred, as previously stated. As for "will not", those are rare cases where only people who want treatment, but are not considered in dire enough need to receive intense treatments that would be akin to inpatient or "assisted outpatient treatment." If you're trying to suggest that at the end of the day, if people refuse treatment they're left to go as they will, when they're put under involuntary treatment, you're way off the mark.

And yes, forced treatment is wrong.

Dec 03, 2012, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lauru

So, if a person has a history of violence and has been in prison, then wouldn't he also pose a high risk and threat to others? Shouldn't we then keep those people imprisoned for their whole lives so that they cannot hurt others in thefuture? Which they may or may not do? Should we just force them to take mass quantities of tranquilizers so they are not coherent long enough to hurt others? And why is the presumption that if you are mentally ill there is a greater chance of you hurting others? The vast majority of violent offenders are not mentally ill.

Laura, I said absolutely none of the above. Please don't put words in my mouth. In fact, I didn't even take a side on this issue. I simply proposed questions/situations that are part of the equation. I don't know the answers, but there are two sides to any issue that the world looks at. But to misrepresent what I said like you did was not appropriate.

di meliora · Dec 03, 2012, 09:24 AM

Quote:

“In the United States there are now more than three times more seriously mentally ill persons in jails and prisons than in hospitals,” concludes a May report by a national group of psychiatrists and law enforcement officials. "Arizona and Nevada have almost ten times more mentally ill persons in jails and prisons than in hospitals. It is thus fact, not hyperbole, that America’s jails and prisons have become our new mental hospitals.” http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/for...l-institutions

The town I previously lived in is the home of the state hospital that provides psychiatric and chemical dependency treatment to state residents who require in-patient or specialized residential care. As a former lawyer, I represented many hundreds in commitment proceedings.

Since I have not been involved in civil commitments for well over a decade, I expect the commitment laws have changed. Nonetheless, I do not think significant changes would have been made. In fact, TheDragon, what you describe is quite similar to the laws in my state.

My state's legislature held a forum to discuss the needs of those with mental disorders. Representatives from public and private entities that dealt with the mentally ill took part. Forced treatment was discussed, including the circumstance when the individual was deemed incapable of making informed decisions. The questions I posed here were among those discussed.

On two occasions, following hearings to determine if the involuntary commitments of the individuals should continue, the court ruled the state hospital could not detain them since they no longer met the criteria of persons requiring treatment.

These individuals got quite upset with me. They had no place to go and had no means to care for themselves. They blamed me for their predicament. They solved their dilemma by going back to the state hospital and voluntarily committing themselves.

Forced treatment is a challenging topic. My state follows this procedure:

25-03.1-18.1. Court-authorized involuntary treatment with prescribed medication.

1. a. Upon notice and hearing, a treating psychiatrist may request authorization from
the court to treat a person under a mental health treatment order with prescribed
medication. The request may be considered by the court in an involuntary
treatment hearing. As a part of the request, the treating psychiatrist and another
licensed physician or psychiatrist not involved in the current diagnosis or
treatment of the patient shall certify:
(1) That the proposed prescribed medication is clinically appropriate and
necessary to effectively treat the patient and that the patient is a person
requiring treatment;
(2) That the patient was offered that treatment and refused it or that the patient
lacks the capacity to make or communicate a responsible decision about
that treatment;
(3) That prescribed medication is the least restrictive form of intervention
necessary to meet the treatment needs of the patient; and
(4) That the benefits of the treatment outweigh the known risks to the patient.
b. The court shall inquire whether the patient has had a sufficient opportunity to
adequately prepare to meet the issue of involuntary treatment with prescribed
medication and, at the request of the patient, the court may continue the
involuntary treatment hearing for a period not exceeding seven days or may
appoint an independent expert examiner as provided in subsection 4.
2. a. Evidence of the factors certified under subsection 1 may be presented to the
court at an involuntary treatment hearing held pursuant to sections 25-03.1-19 and
25-03.1-22, or at a separate hearing after motion and notice. The court in
ruling on the requested authorization for involuntary treatment with prescribed
medication shall consider all relevant evidence presented at the hearing,
including:
(1) The danger the patient presents to self or others;
(2) The patient's current condition;
(3) The patient's treatment history;
(4) The results of previous medication trials;
(5) The efficacy of current or past treatment modalities concerning the patient;
(6) The patient's prognosis; and
(7) The effect of the patient's mental condition on the patient's capacity to
consent.
b. Involuntary treatment with prescribed medication may not be authorized by the
court solely for the convenience of facility staff or for the purpose of punishment.
3. If the factors certified under subsection 1 have been demonstrated by clear and
convincing evidence, the court may include in its involuntary treatment order a
provision, or it may issue a separate order after notice and hearing, authorizing the
treating psychiatrist to involuntarily treat the patient with prescribed medication on
such terms and conditions as are appropriate. The order for involuntary treatment with
prescribed medication, however, may not be in effect for more than ninety days.
4. If a patient has requested an examination by an independent expert examiner under
this chapter, and if the treating psychiatrist has requested authorization for involuntary
treatment with prescribed medication, only a psychiatrist may independently examine
the patient as to the issue of involuntary treatment with prescribed medication.

TheDragon · Dec 03, 2012, 12:36 PM

Well considering the fact that the US has the highest incarceration rate by far, based on that number alone it makes sense that there are more in prison with mental illness, than those who are in hospitals. The vast majority of those in prison with so called mental illness will fall short of anything that would be considered so severe as to require forced treatment.

However, Canada has a significantly lower number of prisoners, and anyone can access a hospital for free since it is covered by our healthcare, so there are no complications due to the difference between state hospitals and private hospitals. This definitely isn't the case in Canada.

"On two occasions, following hearings to determine if the involuntary commitments of the individuals should continue, the court ruled the state hospital could not detain them since they no longer met the criteria of persons requiring treatment.

These individuals got quite upset with me. They had no place to go and had no means to care for themselves. They blamed me for their predicament. They solved their dilemma by going back to the state hospital and voluntarily committing themselves."

So...what does this have to do with FORCED treatment? And like I said, a lot of times people wanting treatment but aren't deemed in dire enough need get kicked out. And if they choose to go back, then the issue no longer becomes forced treatment.

That state's procedure probably doesn't differ that much from most states, and seems to have the general gist shared by most Western countries.

I can't see how we can justify forcing treatment upon others, be it medications or incarceration. Considering that out of the 7 things looked at in that specific state for involuntary treatment, only 1 looks at the potential impact of individual vs society, and the rest are all personal, the issue still comes back to choice, so forced treatment is an infringement on personal freedom.

di meliora · Dec 03, 2012, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Recent studies suggest that at least 16 percent of inmates in jails and prisons have a serious mental illness. In 1983 a similar study reported that the percentage was 6.4 percent. Thus, in less than three decades, the percentage of seriously mentally ill prisoners has almost tripled. http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.o...tals_study.pdf

The two who returned to the state hospital as voluntary patients had previously rejected treatment. The state hospital eventually released them.

There still are people without the capacity to make a choice whether to be treated. Many without the capacity to choose demonstrably are a danger to themselves and others.

I am not debating the issue of forced treatment so much as pointing out it not so clear cut as it might appear. Personally, I favor choice, provided I have the capacity to make decisions.

costello · Dec 03, 2012, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmergirl

Laura, I said absolutely none of the above. Please don't put words in my mouth. In fact, I didn't even take a side on this issue. I simply proposed questions/situations that are part of the equation. I don't know the answers, but there are two sides to any issue that the world looks at. But to misrepresent what I said like you did was not appropriate.

Hi Chris:

I don't think Lauru was saying that you said those things. At least that's not how I read her. I think she was pointing out that there are other people besides the mentally ill who are a risk to society. They may have a history of violence, and therefore it's probable that they'll hurt someone in the future. Nevertheless, we don't confine them because there's a risk of future bad behavior.

By extension we shouldn't use arguments of potential future violence to justify using assisted outpatient treatment for mentally ill people.

Dec 03, 2012, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by costello

Hi Chris:

I don't think Lauru was saying that you said those things. At least that's not how I read her. I think she was pointing out that there are other people besides the mentally ill who are a risk to society. They may have a history of violence, and therefore it's probable that they'll hurt someone in the future. Nevertheless, we don't confine them because there's a risk of future bad behavior.

By extension we shouldn't use arguments of potential future violence to justify using assisted outpatient treatment for mentally ill people.

No, she quoted my post and then twisted around my words in a tone of anger. I don't appreciate that at all.

costello · Dec 03, 2012, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmergirl

No, she quoted my post and then twisted around my words in a tone of anger. I don't appreciate that at all.

I guess I didn't read it that way.

Lauru · Dec 04, 2012, 01:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by costello

Hi Chris:

I don't think Lauru was saying that you said those things. At least that's not how I read her. I think she was pointing out that there are other people besides the mentally ill who are a risk to society. They may have a history of violence, and therefore it's probable that they'll hurt someone in the future. Nevertheless, we don't confine them because there's a risk of future bad behavior.

By extension we shouldn't use arguments of potential future violence to justify using assisted outpatient treatment for mentally ill people.

Thank you. Yes, this was exactly my point.

Lauru · Dec 04, 2012, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by farmergirl

No, she quoted my post and then twisted around my words in a tone of anger. I don't appreciate that at all.

First of all, I responded to the portion of your response that I was referring to. When I read that portion of your post, I was responding to exactly what costello said. I did not use a tone of anger and frankly I don't know how you can assume I was angry since you cannot see my body language or hear my tone of voice over the internet. I never said you said what I said. I did not twist your words around at all. And frankly, I don't appreciate you accusing me of doing these things. I am simply debating a controversial issue. If you can't handle it, well then that is not my problem. Frankly, I don't care what your position is. I thought this was a place for ideas and free speech. I thought we were allowed to discuss and debate issues without it becoming personal. I never made it personal about you. I don't appreciate you making it personal about me. Please refrain from personally verbally attacking me and my motives.

Menu

Forced treatment?

My Support Forums