The foundation of the new policy is that New York state will be able to authorize first responders to forcibly hospitalize mentally ill New Yorkers who cannot meet their own basic needs such as food, shelter or medical care.
Involuntary psychiatry is a violent practice that strips its victims of all human rights and effectively all due process. It is an unimaginable horror that can possibly lead to coercive psychiatry or medicalized rape.
“who appear to be mentally ill and who display an inability to meet basic living needs” could be taken against their will to a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.
Not being able to provide for your needs is not mental illness. An appearance of mental illness is not proof that somebody needs involuntary commitment. First responders are not equipped to diagnose mental illness - this is a stripping of rights and imprisonment.
If somebody is unable to provide for their needs, give them the ability to do so. Provide food, real housing, actual medical care, and an option for outpatient mental health care for them to recover if they are not in crisis.
I understand some people are severely mentally ill, are in crisis, and are a DANGER to themselves and others and need care ASAP, but this is just targeting impoverished individuals, who may be homeless, based on what is effectively hearsay.
We can do better than this as a society.
It does bring up a tough question though: what do we do with people who need treatment but refuse to accept it?
Find a way of treating them and helping them to adjust to society without the use of coercion or a violation of their rights. That means giving them real legal representation, giving them access to courts that are open to public observation (mental health courts are NOT sufficient), giving them access to second opinions, and exhausting social supports (e.g. housing them in a safe environment) without imprisoning them.
The bar for being declared incompetent and unable to consent to treatment (which leads to forced psychiatry) is not high enough. Even coming from a psychiatrist, it is effectively hearsay in my opinion. There is not enough due process and outside oversight.
There are real side effects to psychiatry - it’s called iatrogenic illness. When somebody is in crisis, what do they prescribe? They prescribe powerful drugs, usually neuroleptics. For example, tardive dyskinesia can affect up to 20% of people who take neuroleptics. It could be permanent - look up YT videos of those afflicted. It’s easy to stereotype somebody as mentally ill if they develop TD.
It could be that somebody reacts nicely to the drugs they are prescribed. But what happens when they are released and can’t afford treatment or become non-compliant with treatment? It can lead to disastrous withdrawal and terrible side effects, that can result in more hospitalization or a worsening of their illness.
Knowing that, why would you take away somebody’s ability to not consent to treatment? Why can’t we give them access to intensive therapy, that they consent to, that properly addresses the root causes of their illness and inability to care for themselves? Why do we treat traumatized individuals by inflicting MORE trauma on them? Being kidnapped, imprisoned, and medically raped is traumatizing. Why are individuals not given the option to not consent to medication, but only consent to therapy?
I invite you to look at Soteria Houses, which is a different model of care, that successfully achieves remission in those that are experiencing first-episode psychosis/schizophrenia. If they can achieve remission with little to no psychiatric medication (and likely no life-long prescriptions) in a severe illness, without coercion or locked doors, why don’t we give more people the chance to experience that? What if they have the capacity to heal in a supportive environment that doesn’t strip them of their rights - an environment that respects their will and autonomy?
Find a way of treating them and helping them to adjust to society without the use of coercion
But this is what I’m asking - what happens to those who will never accept help without coercion?
But what happens when they are released and can’t afford treatment or become non-compliant with treatment?
So you might say that they cannot meet their own basic needs?
I’m sorry but you can’t just let all mentally ill people go free to do whatever they want, and you definitely can’t just throw money and houses at them and expect the problem to go away. That’s not how mental illness works. You might not like it, but there are people with mental illnesses who either need someone to be a full time carer for them - and that is either a friend/family member/care worker, or it’s in an institution. The other option is you just let them die on the streets, maybe killing some other people along the way.
Contesting forced treatment orders, such as forced ECT, is an up-hill battle. Even if the practice is more humane nowadays, it still results in damage if improperly prescribed in those deemed treatment-resistant.
I am speaking up for the people who are not served by the system and are effectively silenced. Psychiatrists are generally not legally responsible for iatrogenic illness/harm - proving damage is near to impossible, even in cases of clear malpractice and neglect.
I implore readers to look at https://www.madinamerica.com/ and consider reading Robert Whitaker’s books. He is not a psychiatrist, but there are plenty of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals who write or indirectly contribute to that website. I consider him qualified, but please don’t treat his voice as an authority and please use discernment when reading his works or reading anecdotes from that website. It takes a strong heart and stomach to be able to read some of the stories. If accurate and true, there are many crimes against humanity documented on that website.
There are many success stories to psychiatry. I don’t want to discount the stability and healing some individuals receive from proper intervention. Please don’t let what I write stop you from seeking out care if you are in need. There ARE good facilities that practice a leading standard of care - that do their best to not violate your will and treat you as a human.
And then there is gangstalking… The purpose to make people look insane when they are just regular people. Just because they may know something you don’t want them to know.
It’s psychological warfare. And it goes deep.
Thank goodness. Ever since we got rid of the asylums, things have been going downhill, and I’m glad to see that someone’s getting sense back.
Can we nominate people? There’s an Orange that comes to mind.
This seems like it’s a very, very good thing…so lets see how people on here spin it as something absolutely deplorable.
In a vacuum it would be better. During a manufactured housing crisis that is only getting worse though…
During a manufactured housing crisis that is only getting worse though…
I’ll admit I don’t know enough about the NY housing market to comment on this - what do you mean by this?
All the residences are owned by the same tiny handful of companies/oligarchs (and their million shell companies that they hide behind) who use software to manipulate the price and keep it inflated (there was literally a court case about this)
To give an example, when one of my landlords raised my rent by 30% he shrugged and said that was the new market rate. My partner and I looked up his company and found that he owned ~500 buildings in the same neighborhood. The asshole WAS the market
Impoverishment and homelessness are issues that society, and capitalism at large, refuse to address with real solutions. Those solutions are too expensive to those that make policy.
A housing crisis, a depression of wages and rise in cost of living, inaccessibility of timely and cost-efficient health care interventions (mental or otherwise), inaccessibility of drug rehabilitation and a system that punishes drug use criminally, and having no social safety net (to prevent such occurrences of homelessness and lack) is the recipe that creates the situations that these individuals experience.
The headline is not accurate, read the article.
None of what you just talked about is relevant to any of this. The rising cost of living doesn’t cause schizophrenia.
Nowhere in the article does it suggest that one needs to be psychotic or schizophrenic, only that they appear mentally ill to first responders. They are not able to diagnose this.
Even if you refuse to read the article, the subtext here on Lemmy reads:
The foundation of the new policy is that New York state will be able to authorize first responders to forcibly hospitalize mentally ill New Yorkers who cannot meet their own basic needs such as food, shelter or medical care.
There are economic and societal reasons for individuals to not be able to meet those needs.
