Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Mom Confessions Mom Confessions

Mandatory testing for people with mental illness

Posted by Anonymous   + Show Post

 

Poll

Question: should the mentally ill who raise children, require weekly testing through a doctor, to see if their body contains medication they were told to take. should they loose custody of their children, if they don't take the medication

Options:

YES i agree

NO i don't agree


Only group members can vote in this poll.

Total Votes: 47

View Results

 do you think people with mental illness, who are raising children, should be required to undergo weekly testing through their doctor, to see if their body contains the medication they were told to take. to make sure they are still taking their medication. and if testing proves they don't have any medication in their body-they were told to take. should they have their children removed from their care?

Posted by Anonymous on Apr. 4, 2013 at 7:44 PM
Replies (61-65):
mommytoacloud
by on Apr. 13, 2013 at 1:47 PM
1 mom liked this
I think they should just be left alone unless their hurting the kids
lancet98
by Platinum Member on Apr. 13, 2013 at 3:40 PM

 

Your opinion of what you need or don't need isn't the final word if you're to the point where you're irrational and a danger to yourself or others.  

LOTS of people get real ornery at the idea of more oversight, and some of them need oversight anyway.

If you're fine - fine.   If you're not fine - then you're not fine and you need more oversight than you may be getting OR may want.   There are times when a person is no longer the best judge of what they need in the way of mental health treatment.

I've worked with psychotic people who not only wouldn't take their medication, but also abused street drugs - or even - falsely reported symptoms so they were given antidepressants or other meds that made them MORE psychotic, because they liked the feeling of omnipotence.

You may be fine making your own decisions on your health care, and someone else may not be.

Take for example James Holmes.   Now that man made some pretty bad decisions about his own mental health care.   Normally, his psychiatrist would have him committed to a hospital til he was stabilized on appropriate meds.   And the psychiatrist would know when he was not taking his medication, and have him committed to the hospital again, and eventually, he'd accept the fact that he needed medication or he'd get to the point - well - you know what point he got to.

 

Quoting Anonymous:

My point remains the same. The question was anyone with mental illness. People with severe disorders are already being supervised on some level if they're diagnosed. The government doesn't to be involved anyone's business any more than absolutely necessary. I have PTSD. I don't need to be policed. Like I said, I wouldn't want to live in a society where the government had that much control. I didn't serve 21 years in the military to be babysat and tested to make sure I take my medication. That's ludicrous.


Quoting lancet98:

 


On the other hand, if a person has killed 5 people in 5 separate car accidents in which they were clearly the cause by driving blind drunk, yeah, I'm getting to the point where I want to make sure they do not have a driver's license.


It isn't really 'either or'.


People who need some intervention need it, and people who don't need intervention, don't.   It's that simple.


A person with traffic tickets pays 50 dollar traffic ticket fines.   Giving the SAME treatment to the guy who killed 5 people doesn't make any rational sense either. 


People who are endangering their kids thru providing an unsafe environment, failing to feed or clothe them, by beating them senseless, those people are going to have their kids removed from the home.


The reason may be addiction.   It may be mental illness.   It may be something else. 


 The law judges only whether the kids are being provided for adequately.   If there's decent food on the table 3 times a day and tummes are full, the law does not care if Mommy is mumbling under her breath as she serves it.  


On the other hand if Mommy is muttering under her breath and beating the kid senseless, that's another matter.


The same as if heroin was in the house and little Jimmy ate a couple ounces of it and wound up in the hospital, he would not be going back to that house.


Or if the house is a hot spot for crime, like a meth lab or a heroin cutting factory.   That is regarded as not an   environment for children.  


But insisting that ALL mentally ill parents should have identical treatment, NO MATTER WHAT that identical treatment would happen to be, is a problem.  The root of the problem is that all mentally ill people simply are not affected in the same way.


Even ppl having the same diagnosis.   I know schizophrenics who are trial lawyers, for example, they aren't running around shooting people.   They got on medication when their symptoms started.   They stayed on medication, and they were lucky enough to not have as severe symptoms as the guy who refused medication and ran up onto the roof to throw himself and his son off the roof.  


 There is a DIRECT correlation of severity of symptoms to willingness to stick with medication, with psychotic disorders like schizophrenia.   It's the much sicker people who refuse medication when they become psychotic, and that becomes a vicious circle.   The more they refuse treatment the sicker they get.   It's like a double whammy.


Among people with less severe psychosis there is more understanding that they are ill and need help so they are more able to accept treatment.  


 You see a MARKEDLY different course in people with milder psychosis.


How you could possibly advocate treating ALL these people alike, which such different illnesses and such different severities of those illnesses, is beyond me.


 


Quoting Anonymous:

Why stop there? We should have a IQ minimum and for those falling below the minimum standard should have weekly CPS visits to ensure the stupid person hasn't accidentally killed their kids. Or anyone with traffic tickets should have to have undergo weekly driving tests to make sure they are capable of safely transporting their kids. How could anyone think this kind of control would be a good thing? No thanks. I prefer living in a free society where adults are given the autonomy to make their own decisions.


 


 


 

 

delilahsmom1177
by on Apr. 13, 2013 at 3:42 PM

It depends on the situation. If they live alone with the child YES to all. If they have help it is iffy for me on taking the child away. 

I'm tattooed,pagan,pro-choice,pro-legalizing marijuana,pro-gay marriage,anti-war,non-vaxing,tree hugging,animal loving,book reading,animal testing free,depression battling, trying to raise a free spirit and letting her be who she is but still teaching her important life lessons,fighting for equal rights at the same time,don't like it get over it.

Anonymous
by Anonymous 17 on Apr. 13, 2013 at 6:25 PM
No need to write a dissertation. I'm not disagreeing with you so I'm not sure what exactly you're trying so hard to get across. The question was not specifically directed at people with severe, unstable mental illness. I gathered she was saying mental illness in general. If that's not what she meant then the OP needs to be changed to reflect that. Your interpretAtion of what you THINK she meant is irrelevant.


Quoting lancet98:

 


Your opinion of what you need or don't need isn't the final word if you're to the point where you're irrational and a danger to yourself or others.  


LOTS of people get real ornery at the idea of more oversight, and some of them need oversight anyway.


If you're fine - fine.   If you're not fine - then you're not fine and you need more oversight than you may be getting OR may want.   There are times when a person is no longer the best judge of what they need in the way of mental health treatment.


I've worked with psychotic people who not only wouldn't take their medication, but also abused street drugs - or even - falsely reported symptoms so they were given antidepressants or other meds that made them MORE psychotic, because they liked the feeling of omnipotence.


You may be fine making your own decisions on your health care, and someone else may not be.


Take for example James Holmes.   Now that man made some pretty bad decisions about his own mental health care.   Normally, his psychiatrist would have him committed to a hospital til he was stabilized on appropriate meds.   And the psychiatrist would know when he was not taking his medication, and have him committed to the hospital again, and eventually, he'd accept the fact that he needed medication or he'd get to the point - well - you know what point he got to.


 


Quoting Anonymous:

My point remains the same. The question was anyone with mental illness. People with severe disorders are already being supervised on some level if they're diagnosed. The government doesn't to be involved anyone's business any more than absolutely necessary. I have PTSD. I don't need to be policed. Like I said, I wouldn't want to live in a society where the government had that much control. I didn't serve 21 years in the military to be babysat and tested to make sure I take my medication. That's ludicrous.



Quoting lancet98:


 



On the other hand, if a person has killed 5 people in 5 separate car accidents in which they were clearly the cause by driving blind drunk, yeah, I'm getting to the point where I want to make sure they do not have a driver's license.



It isn't really 'either or'.



People who need some intervention need it, and people who don't need intervention, don't.   It's that simple.



A person with traffic tickets pays 50 dollar traffic ticket fines.   Giving the SAME treatment to the guy who killed 5 people doesn't make any rational sense either. 



People who are endangering their kids thru providing an unsafe environment, failing to feed or clothe them, by beating them senseless, those people are going to have their kids removed from the home.



The reason may be addiction.   It may be mental illness.   It may be something else. 



 The law judges only whether the kids are being provided for adequately.   If there's decent food on the table 3 times a day and tummes are full, the law does not care if Mommy is mumbling under her breath as she serves it.  



On the other hand if Mommy is muttering under her breath and beating the kid senseless, that's another matter.



The same as if heroin was in the house and little Jimmy ate a couple ounces of it and wound up in the hospital, he would not be going back to that house.



Or if the house is a hot spot for crime, like a meth lab or a heroin cutting factory.   That is regarded as not an   environment for children.  



But insisting that ALL mentally ill parents should have identical treatment, NO MATTER WHAT that identical treatment would happen to be, is a problem.  The root of the problem is that all mentally ill people simply are not affected in the same way.



Even ppl having the same diagnosis.   I know schizophrenics who are trial lawyers, for example, they aren't running around shooting people.   They got on medication when their symptoms started.   They stayed on medication, and they were lucky enough to not have as severe symptoms as the guy who refused medication and ran up onto the roof to throw himself and his son off the roof.  



 There is a DIRECT correlation of severity of symptoms to willingness to stick with medication, with psychotic disorders like schizophrenia.   It's the much sicker people who refuse medication when they become psychotic, and that becomes a vicious circle.   The more they refuse treatment the sicker they get.   It's like a double whammy.



Among people with less severe psychosis there is more understanding that they are ill and need help so they are more able to accept treatment.  



 You see a MARKEDLY different course in people with milder psychosis.



How you could possibly advocate treating ALL these people alike, which such different illnesses and such different severities of those illnesses, is beyond me.



 



Quoting Anonymous:

Why stop there? We should have a IQ minimum and for those falling below the minimum standard should have weekly CPS visits to ensure the stupid person hasn't accidentally killed their kids. Or anyone with traffic tickets should have to have undergo weekly driving tests to make sure they are capable of safely transporting their kids. How could anyone think this kind of control would be a good thing? No thanks. I prefer living in a free society where adults are given the autonomy to make their own decisions.



 



 



 


 


jeweldragons
by on Jun. 4, 2013 at 12:03 AM
What if they are able to manage their mental illness through something other than meds? Depakote ER damaged my liver. I was taken off Paxil because they proved it causes suicidal tendencies in children and teenagers. The Zoloft I was on made me like a zombie. I manage my PTSD through my writing. I find writing very therapeutic and it's also my job as I'm an author. I tried counseling-the counselor didn't listen to me and sent me to a shrink who doped me up. I do not think that children should be taken from the mentally ill unless they are known to be violent and a danger to themselves or others. If you say that mentally ill have to have meds or they'll lose their children they will be afraid to come forward and seek help and having a mental illness is already a stigma in our country and you're treated like a leper.
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN