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

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Serious question, just throw out your thoughts because I am not claiming to have the answers.

Posted by on Apr. 14, 2013 at 7:25 AM
  • 33 Replies
1 mom liked this

How do you balance treatment of the mentally ill with the Bill of Rights?

by on Apr. 14, 2013 at 7:25 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
GeekMommi
by on Apr. 14, 2013 at 8:45 AM
1 mom liked this

Maybe this is going to be good, there are few people on CM that love the Constitution/Bill of Rights but also think we should make it easier to lock people up. I did notice they kinda lost their spark over the past few debates though.

drinking

momtoscott
by on Apr. 14, 2013 at 9:04 AM

Speaking as the mother of a child with both a developmental disability and a mood disorder, both doing well with treatment. 

Treatment of mental illness is still in its infancy.  I'd compare it to the state of general medicine back in the 1800s--way better than medieval, but still not understanding a lot.   Part of the problem is that a lot of the time, treatment doesn't work, or it doesn't work well enough or consistently.  I don't think hard and fast decisions can be made, it needs to be case by case.  

The mental healthcare system as is does not make it easy for people to get or stay in treatment, ongoing or in a crisis situation.  That's also a problem.    

In general, I would say that infringing on someone's rights because they have a potential to do something bad is not okay.  However, once someone has acted destructively, I believe it's a good idea to require compliance with a med and/or other treatment regimen.  First, though, we need to find treatments that work, whose side effects are tolerable.   

lancet98
by Member on Apr. 14, 2013 at 9:33 AM

 

I call complete bs on this one.

Quoting momtoscott:

Speaking as the mother of a child with both a developmental disability and a mood disorder, both doing well with treatment. 

Treatment of mental illness is still in its infancy.  I'd compare it to the state of general medicine back in the 1800s--way better than medieval, but still not understanding a lot.   Part of the problem is that a lot of the time, treatment doesn't work, or it doesn't work well enough or consistently.  I don't think hard and fast decisions can be made, it needs to be case by case.  

The mental healthcare system as is does not make it easy for people to get or stay in treatment, ongoing or in a crisis situation.  That's also a problem.    

In general, I would say that infringing on someone's rights because they have a potential to do something bad is not okay.  However, once someone has acted destructively, I believe it's a good idea to require compliance with a med and/or other treatment regimen.  First, though, we need to find treatments that work, whose side effects are tolerable.   


 

Carpy
by Platinum Member on Apr. 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM
In what way?

Quoting lancet98:

 


I call complete bs on this one.


Quoting momtoscott:


Speaking as the mother of a child with both a developmental disability and a mood disorder, both doing well with treatment. 


Treatment of mental illness is still in its infancy.  I'd compare it to the state of general medicine back in the 1800s--way better than medieval, but still not understanding a lot.   Part of the problem is that a lot of the time, treatment doesn't work, or it doesn't work well enough or consistently.  I don't think hard and fast decisions can be made, it needs to be case by case.  


The mental healthcare system as is does not make it easy for people to get or stay in treatment, ongoing or in a crisis situation.  That's also a problem.    


In general, I would say that infringing on someone's rights because they have a potential to do something bad is not okay.  However, once someone has acted destructively, I believe it's a good idea to require compliance with a med and/or other treatment regimen.  First, though, we need to find treatments that work, whose side effects are tolerable.   




 

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
momtoscott
by on Apr. 14, 2013 at 9:56 AM

What is bs about it?  Do you disagree with my assessment of where mental illness treatment is, compared to other kinds of medical treatment?  Or do you disagree that it's hard to get treatment for people with mental illness, especially in a crisis?   

Quoting lancet98:


I call complete bs on this one.

Quoting momtoscott:

Speaking as the mother of a child with both a developmental disability and a mood disorder, both doing well with treatment. 

Treatment of mental illness is still in its infancy.  I'd compare it to the state of general medicine back in the 1800s--way better than medieval, but still not understanding a lot.   Part of the problem is that a lot of the time, treatment doesn't work, or it doesn't work well enough or consistently.  I don't think hard and fast decisions can be made, it needs to be case by case.  

The mental healthcare system as is does not make it easy for people to get or stay in treatment, ongoing or in a crisis situation.  That's also a problem.    

In general, I would say that infringing on someone's rights because they have a potential to do something bad is not okay.  However, once someone has acted destructively, I believe it's a good idea to require compliance with a med and/or other treatment regimen.  First, though, we need to find treatments that work, whose side effects are tolerable.   




SEEKEROFSHELLS
by Member on Apr. 14, 2013 at 10:31 AM
3 moms liked this

 Are we talking about gun control and banning mentally ill people from having weapons? I suspect this is what you want addressed. Carpy, I have NO idea. I am completely stumped. There are privacy laws. Some are controlled on meds, some can't be controlled. It's a tough call. 

Trudestevens
by on Apr. 14, 2013 at 10:51 AM
1 mom liked this

Mentally ill persons our considered defective and therefore do not have rights period. The Bills of Rights was  Suspended during Bush Adminstration by executive orders and the Obama Adminstration honors those orders. Therefore no one has rights we have day by day in good faith rights with our government. That's it. I would not worry about rights or mentally ill to much. Because our government has over 800 interment camps prepared for us all. This is a fact part of ICE and the CCA. North Korea is a big threat with Russia and the solar flares from the sun could knock out our electrical grinds and much more. Why worry about Rights when you should be preparing for some major problems up the road. Our Constition is frozen it's not active anymore because of the whitehouse,

stringtheory
by Bronze Member on Apr. 14, 2013 at 11:07 AM
1 mom liked this
I think that granting certain rights to only those who are not diagnosed with a mental illness will hamper the progress needed to be made in bucking the mental illness stigma. 1) if simply being diagnosed would put the same restrictions on a person as a felony charge, why WOULDN'T a mental illness be a stigma? 2)if the purpose of the second amendment is to offer citizens a way to protect themselves (from a dangerous government), why shouldn't those who have an illness, by (usually) no fault of their own, be just as prepared to protect themselves? I would hate to think that my two months on an anti-anxiety med years ago should prevent me from legally obtaining the same protection my idiot neighbor can get (I don't think my neighbor is an idiot, just a hypothetical). Essentially, a gun levels the playing field and the purpose is lost if the playing field is only "leveled" for some of our law-abiding citizens and not those who seek to get help for a mental illness.
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
stringtheory
by Bronze Member on Apr. 14, 2013 at 11:09 AM
I guess I essentially said I don't have an answer, just that a diagnosis shouldn't be a factor.
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
143myboys9496
by Gold Member on Apr. 14, 2013 at 12:04 PM
4 moms liked this

 IMO, our mental health system isn't in it's infancy. It's been left by the side of the road to wither and die. Unfortunately our gov't doesn't place "value" on mental health programs therefore they're not funded at all or near what they should be.

We have HUGE entitlement issues in this country. I don't mean by people that ACTUALLY deserve gov't help. But, let's be painfully honest here ladies, there are MANY, MANY that bilk the system for everything they can. I'm not saying any system would be perfect, but the knowns should be dealt with.

I think there are many benefits to state run mental health programs. They do require a lot of money. But they can be very beneficial. Some people with mental illness do better in a group home setting with firm boundaries and set schedules.

I think to say, that EVERY person with mental illness should NOT carry a gun is wrong, it's like saying EVERY criminal can't change and we all know that to be false. IMO, each person needs to be looked at with regard to their diagnosis and it's severity.

jmo

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)