Psychiatric Fascism
 

The USA government are unique in the world in having a psychiatric system that is an arm of government control.

In the USA, you don't have to be a criminal or a terrorist to be locked away. No, thanks to a policy instigated by President JFK, someone who is simply a social nuisance can be dragged from the streets, imprisoned, drugged - on the basis that this person is said to be mentally ill.

Ronald Laing, a long-time critic of the USA psychiatric system, commented on the definition of mental illness by the American Psychaitric Association (APA) as 'fitting just about most people walking down the street'. Year on year, the APA revises its diagnostic criteria to include even more labels which can be used to justify imprisoning people against their will without trial.

Have you ever been a victim of the mental health services in the USA or elsewhere. Have you read the works of Thomas Szasz?

All polite replies welcomed! :D

     Here is my polite reply:     Please back this statement up by showing the direct connection between the US Goverment and the psychiatric system or this entire thread is nothing more than you attacking the US with what appears to be a blatant lie. I await you response.
     Thank you.

Sorry, I might be a little confused here, but who pays for the psychaitric services in the USA? And who pays for the rest of the health service? I mean, do you need medical insurance before they lock you up?

Quite the contrary, dude. The mental institutions have been closing in droves. Now these wackos are homeless on the streets.
They're sooo much better off. You don't have a clue, do you.:rolleyes:

     LOL, you are more than a little confused on this subject. Beginning with the idea that people get pulled off the street and sent to an institution. I've lived here all my life and the only person I know that was ever sent off was a neighbor lady that frequently had conversations with people that were not there (well, I guess they were for her...) and I, with no connection other than that of passerby had to stop from hurting herself on more than one occasion. Also, she was not taken away by the goverment, her family brought her in for treatment. Oh, and they paid for it, the family I mean.
As far as the specifics of cash go, Wolf? This is your department.
     So, Tasneem why do you hate the US so much? I'm really curious, this is a pretty wild accusation. And only one of a string of assaults coming from you on this site. What's with all the hate?

Of course. I suppose Bush must be slashing the psychiatric services' budget to pay for his new bombs!

     I doubt it Tasneem, he's to busy trying to figure out how to piss of the, what? Three or four countries he has not alienated yet.

TP, you have one of the largest perception filters I've ever seen. You're worse than a Christian!

Juju, your brilliant. You hit it right on the button. TP!

People do not end up in psychiatric hospitals because of some vague or mysterious government agenda. This isn't the former Soviet Union where psychiatric "treatment" was a means of bringing you back into line with the party's desires.

They end up there because they represent a clear and present danger to themselves or someone else. A good proportion of these folks understand that they are in need of assistance, come for an evaluation and sign themselves in.

There are, however, some folks who don't get that.

And still need help.

And, as a consequence of being severely mentally ill, represent a clear and present danger to themselves or someone else. The specific criteria for dangerousness vary from state to state, but contain usually four essential elements ... attempt of homicide or physical harm to another, attempt of suicide, attempt of self multilative behavior, or being so debilitated by the mental illness that the person is unable to meet their needs for food safety of shelter to such an extent that grevious bodily harm will occur if such behavior goes untreated.

You can't put someone in the hospital because they are wacky, or merely because they talk to people you can't see. You also can't (state laws vary) put someone away just because they are drugging or drinking or retarded or senile.

Any attempt to hospitalize someone against their will is a multi-step process. There are some general similarities.

First, someone having directly observed the potential patient's behavior goes to the commitment authority ... sometimes a common pleas court judge, sometimes a specialist designated by the mental health administration of the state or county. They file paperwork which is then reviewed against the legal standard specified for both mental illness and dangerous behavior. If it meets the criteria specified in the law, a warrant is issued and then the individual is picked up and brought before a psychiatrist for evaluation. That doctor decides whether the patient, on the basis of the interview is indeed dangerous to themselves or others, and is hospitalized for a brief period of treatment and observation.

Not every one who is evaluated is admitted.

If the treating physician during the admission feels the person needs further treatment, before the expiration of the original commitment (depending on the state, usually between 72 and 120 hours later) there is a hearing before the mental health court to determine the need for further inpatient treatment. Additional court reviews occur from that point at specified intervals.

At each step it becomes HARDER for the hospital to prove justification for continuing inpatient treatment. The legal standard requires that care be provided at the "least restrictive setting."

The majority of funding for inpatient (and outpatient) psychiatric treatment comes from insurance payments. Many of these are private insurers. There is also insurance coverage provided to people who are on state or federal benefits. Medicaid and Medicare both have provisions for psychiatric funding. Some folks don't qualify for such programs, still need help, and receive it through funds earmarked by the counties for inpatient psychiatric stays. Self-pay for inpatient treatment is rare, but happens on occasion. A lot of treatment goes unpaid and unfunded. Hospitals eat the cost.

***

The problem with both Laing and Szasz, is that they were psychiatrists who did not believe in psychiatric illness ... kind of like a botanist who doesn't believe in dutch elm disease. It's clear to EVERYONE ELSE that the tree has dutch elm disease. Saying it doesn't have it won't change the matter.

Phew! I was wondering when you would arrive, wolf!

I was at a friend's house. I'm hooked on Zelda/Windwaker, but refuse to buy a game system for just one game. So I play it there. Priorities man. I have to keep my employer thinking I'm relatively normal by engaging in some face-to-face interactions occasionally.

But you've got Mario Sunshine, wolf. That's 2 games. Plus, you could play Metroid Prime. So there's 3. Mmmmmmmmm. Metroid.

And the Resident Evils for crunchy zombie-killing goodness.

(Me? I'm hooked on Dynasty Warriors 3 and just bought Silent Hill 3 for my wife, so I need a second PS2 or something. Or maybe that's the excuse I need to drag the Cube into the back room and start on Metroid Prime.)

Szasz goes far too far in his claims; he takes a very real absence of evidence for what psychiatrists claim is the cause of certain mental illnesses, and tries to parley that into evidence of absence not only of that cause, but of the conditions themselves.

As for involuntary commitment, it doesn't really matter what the APA says; not every diagnosable condition can lead to involuntary commitment.

Here's a page on PA's involuntary commitment process: http://www.mces.org/302FAQs.html

(now, there is a grave injustice in that being "302"ed permanently deprives you of certain rights even if the evaluation determines that you were NOT mentally ill by the definition of the statute. But that's another matter)

A guy I worked with 15 years ago told me some years before that he was reading the Sunday paper in his underwear while his wife and kid went to church. They came and took him away because the wife had convinced her doctor he was acting strangely. The doctor signed papers on her word to have him committed. When he got out three days later the wife, kid and worldly possessions had left the state. Cute trick.
When anyone would tell this guy "you're crazy" he'd come back with "I've got court papers proving I'm sane, do you?".

From that source:
Section 302 is the part of the Act relating to treatment without consent for observed behavior constituting a clear and present danger to the individual and/or others. The behavior must have occurred in the past 30 days. Under Section 302(a) any responsible party can petition for an involuntary evaluation by stating that an individual may be severely mentally disabled.

I know a guy here in Pennsylvania who rants and raves about how priests' abuse of children is equivalent to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84862,00.html">"basic homosexual relationships"</a>, that upholding the right to consensual sex leads to <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84862,00.html">bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery</a>, and who brought a deceased five-month-old fetus home for his <a href="http://www.signorile.com/articles/nyp75.html">kids to hold</a>.

How does one start the process of petitioning?

I had a friend in high school that had some serious problems. Once they figured out what was going on and how to treat it, they released him from the psych ward. Somehow, he managed to get his admission documents including the papera saying that he was nuts.
The last time I saw him he had both those and his release papers framed and mounted side-by-side in his office at home.
Hee hee.

umm.... hellllllooooooooo...let's not paint us with ConspiritorMan's brush, plz.

now if he had been reading the paper THROUGH his underwear, that would have been another story.... heh heh.

Very true. The behavior has to rise to that level of the person representing a clear and present danger to themselves ... for example, you don't see a lot of people with anxiety disorders hospitalized, because, as a dear friend used to put it, "they don't do stuff." Stuff, to an extreme degree, is what results in hospitalization.


That page, while near and dear to my heart, is rather abbreviated. There are specific legal definitions for the types of behavior which can be taken into consideration for issuance of a mental health warrant. If anyone is really interested I can grab the pieces of the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act that provides said definitions, but I can give you the short versions here ...

Clear and present danger to others means that the person has physically assaulted someone or threatened to do so and taken some act in furtherance of the threat. (Threats alone are not sufficient for the warrant, you gotta do "stuff".)

Clear and present danger to oneself takes three forms under the PA law ...

1. Suicide attempt, or threats with acts in furtherance (like having a plan to hang yourself, acquiring the rope, making a noose and throwing it over a rafter in the garage).

2. Self mutilative behaviors (cutting or burning oneself without an intention of ending your life) or threats to do so with acts in furtherance.

3. Inability to care for oneself as a consequence of being severely mentally ill to such an extent that grievous bodily harm will occur if the person is not provided treatment. This includes stuff like not eating for days or weeks on end because of a delusional belief that food is poisoned, not bathing for extreme periods (lemme tell yah, nothing is worse than the smell of someone who hasn't bathed in a year, okay, mebbe dead guy is worse), dressing inappropriately to the weather (going out naked in the snow, or wearing multiple layers of woolen garments in the current weather situation). Inability to care is kind of a catch-all category with a very wide range of behaviors considered.

If the evaluation determines that you are NOT in need of psychiatric treatment, you do not lose any rights. (notice I didn't say that you are NOT mentally ill ... you can be crazy as all hell, but not meet criteria for inpatient admission on a 302.)

If you ARE found in need of treatment on a 302, yes, there is a right that is abridged. You get entered into the Pennsylvania Insta Check System per Act 77, and, if the system works right, you cannot legally buy any new firearms through an FFL holder. You also lose your concealed carry permit. Firearms that were owned by the person prior to admission remain their property, although in many instances the family will secure or dispose of the weapons.

A 302 admission is NOT an assessment of legal competency. You retain the right to manage your own affairs, to marry or make contracts while in the hospital.

Oh, and here's a nuance that a lot of people don't understand. Although a person may be involuntarily committed, they RETAIN the "right to accept or refuse treatment." Their liberty is curtailed, yes. And unless they cooperate in treatment their length of stay is likely to be longer, but unless the treatment is "deemed to be necessary to protect [the patient's] life and health or prevent [them] from physically injuring others" medication, etc. cannot be provided against that person's will.

Is there some other specific right to which you refer?

Coupla problems with your attempt, vsp.

1. the behavior has to have occured within the last 30 calendar days.

2. must have been directly observed by the petitioner. Hearsay is not taken into consideration for the issuance of the warrant.

3. there must be clear statements in the petition regarding both major mental illness and dangerousness in order for a warrant to be issued.

4. the petition is to be filed within the jurisdiction where the behavior occured and/or the jurisdiction of residence. In PA, warrants are ONLY valid in the jurisdiction of issuance. (yes, patients who are wise to the system and who are aware that a 302 warrant is active on them have successfully evaded warrants by hiding out in other counties).

Getting Rick Santorum committed because you don't agree with him would be a very tough sell. You're probably better off voting against him.

Why would the US gubment bother trying to prove your crazy. Why not just stop you and mysteriously find 3.5 kilos of cocaine and a couple of unregistered (and stolen guns) in your car. That would be a lot easier to prove than mental illness.

Or better yet why not just say you have a 'compound' and that you are hurting children and let the ATF boys have some matches (after you knock a couple of holes in each side for proper ventilation that is)

Not that I'm one of those wacko conspirecy theory people or anything.

But why dont' you go buy some land out in western oklahoma or texas, drill a well for your own water, grow your own vegetables and meat and don't socialize with people on a regular basis.

I bet you get some visitors in the first year.

Sorry, my info was out of date; this change was added in 1998. The original act of 1995 revoked firearms rights in all cases for someone evaluated under section 302.

Been there. Tried that. Twice. Unfortunately, this _is_ Pennsylvania.

(Remind me to put a big red SARCASTIC HUMOR badge up the next time I post something like that.) ;)

You missed my dry wit and humor badge also ... ;)

(but it is harder to do in chester county, anyway)

Until Act 77 went into effect (I'll take your word for it that it was '98, which sounds about right but I'm too lazy to look it up myself), there was no reporting of involuntary admissions to a psych hospital ... any info regarding hospitalization was voluntarily provided by the purchaser ... although there's many a habitual drunkard who answers no to that question, just as people who have been committed under "legal section 302, 303, 304, 305, 402" may answer "no" on the paperwork.

But even before act 77, evaluation and commitment were considered separate.

Also, you don't lose your ability to purchase firearms over being voluntarily hospitalized or in outpatient treatment.

Make that Doctor/Lawyer Wolf.:thumb:

:blush:

I'm not a doctor/lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. Tasneem "I'm probably never going to visit The Cellar again" Project just happened to blunder into my medico-legal speciality. After all, I really DO commit people.

(and I've been committing a damn lot of them lately. It's not the full moon ... one of our guys actually did a study disproving this, published in Skeptical Inquirer. The boss thinks the weather fronts are responsible, I'm hanging onto the idea that it's related to the Mayan Calendar (Arguelles' Dreamspell count))

obligatory disclaimer: any information I provide regarding psychiatric commitment is specific to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Other state laws vary widely regarding commitable behaviors, length of stay, and court procedures. Check with your own local crisis center if you have an out of control or suidical nut on your hands, although I'm always happy to give pointers.

Maybe so but you do know your shit.;)

Well, yeah ... ;)

Yeah, where did that bitch go? The puke won't even come back to do battle...what fun is that?

Obligatory ugly-American comment:

When you have to pray five times a day, that doesn't leave you a lot of time to post to internet accessible BBSes.

It's easier to troll for converts where there are fewer people who know what they're talking about.

Didn't dare to stick around and face it. Little eurotrash sissy could probably feel the smackdown coming, even from all the way across the Atlantic. Such is the power of the Cellar Troll Response Team.

Our ad-hoc efforts produce admirable results on the rare occasions when one actually makes it inside the wire- Cairo and He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named are but two recent examples. But I've often thought that our countertroll responses could be made even more effective if they were organized. Maybe we need an... mmmm... Office of Homeland Security? :p

I'M SORRY
 

Oh my god, HB used a smiley in his last post! I am so, so sorry! I take full responsibility for the wussifying ^H^H^H^H softening of this guy. Even though he still can be the nastiest son-of-a-bitch in the Troll Response Team, you have now glimpsed the kind, gentle soul buried deep within.

I don't know what to say, except please forgive me. I'll stop baking his favorite desserts right away, maybe that'll toughen him back up.

Eh, he's used a couple smilies recently.

I personally thought his evil was growing worse. Has he been a kindler, gentler Hubris at home?

Mmmmm, hmmmmm! ;)

It's a trap;)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;See? Now I feel bad. I was busy responding to the guy and undoubtedly getting in the way of the Cellar Troll Response Team. If I had known the CTRT was at the ready I'd've made space. Let the pros go to work. If it makes anyone feel better I did piss him off a bit. Also, he suggested I was articulate. Made me feel good.

Don't feel bad Bait...er...Whit. I enjoyed your dialog.:beer:

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Why thank you Bruce. I was actually quite happy when TP got insulting with me. I hadn't been called any names in awhile and was afraid I was going to have to change my user title soon.

JFK? Hmmph. Anybody who banged Marilyn Monroe can't be all bad.

Thomas Szasz? I never trust anybody who can't spell his own fucking name.