[MotownJohnny]

And another thing that bothers me ... like some many aspects of this ... the loss of rights already, and the theoretical potential to lose more.

In my state, there a couple of "rights" or perhaps "priveleges under the law", not really sure of exactly where these things stand - that I lost AUTOMATICALLY under my state's statutes. Because I have "a diagnosed mental illness".

I worry about hypotheticals, and I have a strong sense of "justice and fairness and equality of opportunity" being core values of mine, and vital to our society.

I don't want to elaborate on the specific rights/priveleges, because ... they actually aren't relevant to the concept, and when I have discussed this before on other forums, it turns into a debate about the specifics, not a discussion about the underlying principle.

And, that is the IMPORTANT part of my post/inquiry. The principle that my status of "having a diagnosed mental illness" is sufficient under the law to deny me opporunities open to other citizens "in good standing" (in other words, NOT people like convicted felons). And, all without any due process or any individual consideration of my condition/my state of mind/my overall level of responsibility and functionality. Just AUTOMATIC.

That is what hurts. The average Joe Citizen has the legal right to do X. But, because I have a "diagnosed mental illness" I no longer have that right. And, if I lie about my mental illness, I am in trouble with the law, too.

So, that really hurts me. It is discrimination which is upheld by the courts under the "rational basis" test. But it is painting with a very broad brush -- there are so many "mental illnesses" - what under the law is justified to deny people X. A paranoid schizophrenic with a history of serious violence? Probably reasonable. A college freshman who goes to the school clinic for treatment of social anxiety and walks away with a prescription for generic Paxil? Probably not reasonable. But, the totality of the circumstances were not considered, no case-by-case basis for the reasonableness of denying X, a and there was no due process.

Then, there is the LIST of people who are denied X. Mentally ill people are only one of MANY people on the list. Others include convicted felons, pedophiles, sex offenders, dishoranably discharged veterans, etc. Doesn't that imply that we, as people with mental illness, are considered on the same level, legally, socially, morally, as sex offenders and convicts? I find that REALLY offensive - my own government is stigmatizing me. But hey, par for the course - did you know the official and proper term for someone mentally ill in the United States Code is "mental defective"? Nice, huh, I'm "defective" - like the toys on the Isle of Misfit Toys in Rudolph. All of that makes me feel SO GOOD ABOUT MYSELF at a time when I'm already at the lowest point in my life. Yeah, let's just kick people when they're already down. Let's just tell them "it's a medical condition, don't be ashamed" and then shame them under the law.

THAT is what offends and outrages me. And, it really bothers me because it tells me that the State looks down upon me as "unreliable" and "untrustworthy" and in my doomsday worst case scenario catastrophizing quasi-paranoid mind, it makes me wonder if I am "an enemy of the State"?

If you read all of this, thank you. These rants do help me to "get it out", so it serves at least that purpose.

[-jimi-]

If I wanted to go to USA as a tourist before I would have needed a VISA. It asks very specific questions and I would have been denied one because of MI. Things have changed a little so we no longer need a VISA just to go as a tourist which lightened things up a bit, you don't have to provide as much info and you will just be denied to come as a tourist if your MI might be a threat to others or property.

When I tell this people go "No way, everyone was always allowed to come visit the land of the free, unless you are a criminal!"

Yea, right.

[venusss]

Yeah, Prozac Nation has that question on the visa application. Ironic, kinda.

[MotownJohnny]

It no longer feels like the "Land of the Free" to me. In fact, it feels very "alien" now. Part of that is my condition itself, the paranoia/quasi-paranoia/hypervigilance whatever the heck it is. Part of that is that I became suddenly aware of entire levels of existence in the MI/Mental Health spectrum I had no clue about, and hundreds of new and scary things entered my life suddenly, whether I wanted them to or not.

I think that a rational and fair approach to dealing with issue of X above would be case by case, to have each person with a mental illness evaluated independently by two doctors who could decide whether or not their MI was serious enough to merit denial of the right to X. But our law makers didn't see it that way, it was just blanket denial. Which is discriminatory and stigmatizing.

[Pikku Myy]

I was told I can not purchase a gun. Which is a good thing Never wanted one.

[tradika]

What “rights” are you talking about? A suicidal/homicidal person does not need to own a gun. Someone who experiences psychosis should probably not be employed in some fields. This is for the safety of the masses. It has nothing to do with discrimination.

[MotownJohnny]

I said I don't want to debate specifics, it is the underlying principle of lack of due process in an environment of "one size fits all" law that really bothers me.

I think it always should be on a case by case based on the opinions of qualified and objective medical personnel.

I don't want to make this some raging debate, so I'm gonna stop there with this line of discussion.

I just want to know what rights or state-granted priveleges people have been denied because of a mental health diagnosis.

[Pikku Myy]

For my safety when suicidal....

[MotownJohnny]

I'm done here, no offense. I just don't wanna debate guns.

Happy to engage in discussion about state-sponsored discrimination against the mentally ill and the way it stigmatizes.

[Hellion]

Originally Posted by tradika

What “rights” are you talking about? A suicidal/homicidal person does not need to own a gun. Someone who experiences psychosis should probably not be employed in some fields. This is for the safety of the masses. It has nothing to do with discrimination.

As far as I know it could be as simple as having a diagnoses of depression...in an sense a case by case basis would make more sense to me. But yeah I think the people creating the policies would like people to think it has nothing to do with discrimination...and lay down and take it, until they come for everyone's rights when it will be too late. Even sort of afraid to publicly express that thought, since it implies doing otherwise.

Never felt like the land of the free to me.

...

People will always find ways to limit each other.

Originally Posted by MotownJohnny

I think that a rational and fair approach to dealing with issue of X above would be case by case, to have each person with a mental illness evaluated independently by two doctors who could decide whether or not their MI was serious enough to merit denial of the right to X. But our law makers didn't see it that way, it was just blanket denial. Which is discriminatory and stigmatizing.

As fair as this would be for the individual being questioned, the first response to that idea would be to worry about funding. It's always about funding...

Not sure if I'm going off track, thought to keep it light.

[-jimi-]

Originally Posted by tradika

What “rights” are you talking about? A suicidal/homicidal person does not need to own a gun. Someone who experiences psychosis should probably not be employed in some fields. This is for the safety of the masses. It has nothing to do with discrimination.

It's discrimination when someone with anxiety or similar get treated like they are dangerous and are going to murder people.

[tradika]

Motown, I don’t think anyone wants to have a gun ownership debate. I certainly don’t. I just specifically asked what you felt was taken away. I gave a couple examples of what some consider having their rights taken away, and that I disagreed with them on at least these two situations. I am not saying there isn’t discrimination against the mentally ill, but there are multiple sides to everything.

[MoxieDoxie]

How do they know you have been diagnosed with an Mental illness? Are they checking health insurance records? That is not public nor are your medica records unless you have knowingly signed a waiver. I would just answer no to that question on a form.

[Ripose]

I know that if are MI you do not have the right to have the police believe anything you say. They automatically assume that you no longer have any sound judgement.
How do the police know? Because they did a records check and it is in my records stemming back from an incident in 1988 when I had to undergo mental testing to work in sensitive areas during the Calgary Olympics. Because of that I was also entered into the FBI database since they did background checks for the Olympics.

[unlived]

Originally Posted by MotownJohnny

I said I don't want to debate specifics,

Why are you asking the question if you dont want to know the answer?

The guns thing applies to some people.

[Hellion]

Originally Posted by unlived

Why are you asking the question if you dont want to know the answer?

The guns thing applies to some people.

I think the point is they don't want to debate about specifics, but rather what people think of the idea of limiting rights based on mental heath diagnoses. I can see how some 'specifics' could easily lead to entire derailment of the thread and getting away from the discussion of the principle of the idea.

Should someone be denied a right other people have simply because they have a certain diagnoses? seems to be the basic question...if people want to discuss specific rights being violated and opinions in more detail there is plenty of room for other threads.

[Curiosity77]

I have been held involuntarily in hospital, and now I am taking medications, among other requirements, as a condition of being able to work - even though the assessing pdoc wrote in his report that job competence and ethics have never been an issue. IMO this is discrimination against me for having an MI. These restrictions would not be put on someone with physical
Illness, even if they were refusing treatment in a life threatening way. We are somehow held to a standard of not being able to make health care decisions for ourselves, even when not psychotic. It's crap.

[splitimage]

In Ontario, if you're suicidal or just in extreme emotional distress, and you or someone calls 911, the police come automatically. The document the incident in a contact report. That contact report, is automatically uploaded to the RCMP Criminal database - even though you haven't done anything wrong, and is therefore available to both US and Canadian Customs Border Agents.

There have been many documented cases of Canadians denied entry into the US, as a possible threat to the US, simply because they were suicidal at some point in the past.

How is that fair?

To get into the US after that happens, you have to go to one of the US' approved Doctors for a full medical evaluation which will determine if you are eligible for entry. This costs hundreds of dollars which insurance will not cover.

That's one of the reasons why I've told my roommate that if I'm ever SU and she's worried about me, to call me a cab and tell the cabby to take me to the ER rather than calling 911. It's also why every time a Dr. has recommended I go in for an evaluation / IP treatment, I insist on going in voluntarily so that 911 isn't involved.

It's a system that really sucks.

splitimage

[Abe Froman]

Here's what I know, my T hasn't told me a diagnosis, so I guess if prompted on any form I can honestly say no I have not been diagnoses with anything.

Funny, because I've been curious to ask her. I'm sure I'm bound to find out when insurance paperwork comes in.

[hamster-bamster]

There is a US federal right of patients to their medical records, but an exception exists for MH records. A practitioner of MH can deny access to records to the patient (they still must forward the records to other practitioners, but the patient would not see his or her records), so that is discrimination. It may be sometimes necessary, but on the surface, at least, it is discrimination.

[bigblackdog]

Originally Posted by Ripose

I know that if are MI you do not have the right to have the police believe anything you say. They automatically assume that you no longer have any sound judgement.
How do the police know? Because they did a records check and it is in my records stemming back from an incident in 1988 when I had to undergo mental testing to work in sensitive areas during the Calgary Olympics. Because of that I was also entered into the FBI database since they did background checks for the Olympics.

One could argue that no one has the right to have the police believe anything you say.....not sure there's a loss here.

[hamster-bamster]

Originally Posted by bigblackdog

One could argue that no one has the right to have the police believe anything you say.....not sure there's a loss here.

+ there are issues with racial profiling, age, even looks - if you look disheveled, you are less trustworthy in the eyes of the police, etc. If you appear to be under the influence of substances, the police would distrust you as well.

Note that predominantly, people with mental illness are not in any database linked to law enforcement

[Middlemarcher]

It doesn't make sense to me not to discuss specifics. The restrictions of rights / privileges are generally intended to ensure the welfare either of the public, or the individual with MI. Thus, my interest lies in whether the laws are truly necessary, whether they might accomplish that intended goal, and whether the laws place an absolutely onerous burden on the individual.

Legally blind individuals are barred from driving in most states. It is not their "fault" that they are legally blind, and in most parts of the US, it can be restrictive to build a life when you can't drive. Some legally blind people have worse vision than others, and studies suggest that under certain very limited conditions (daylight & under a certain speed), some legally blind individuals might be able to drive safely. But do I think that it's best for the safety of all involved that all legally blind individuals be banned from driving? Yes, I do. Do I think that it would be fair if legally blind individuals were not allowed to leave their homes, or have children, or vote? No, because those things are not necessary for anyone's welfare.

I do understand the broader point that's being made. I just don't agree philosophically with separating the general from the specific.

[bigblackdog]

Originally Posted by hamster-bamster

There is a US federal right of patients to their medical records, but an exception exists for MH records. A practitioner of MH can deny access to records to the patient (they still must forward the records to other practitioners, but the patient would not see his or her records), so that is discrimination. It may be sometimes necessary, but on the surface, at least, it is discrimination.

To clarify, the MH records can be withheld or redacted if reading them could be considered detrimental to the patient's health.

Is it discrimination if it's for legitimate medical reasons.....also, even medical records are not revealed in toto if you request them.