A person may be committed for involuntary treatment if he poses a danger to himself or others. While the specific standards of state civil commitment laws vary widely, this concept of “dangerousness” has become a common criterion. When advocates for the mentally ill worked to establish that a person may not be treated against his will unless he is dangerous, they tried to draw a circle of liberty around the individual, protecting him from state coercion. Limiting involuntary commitment to situations of dangerousness was an effort to balance two sets of important concerns: safety, on the one hand, and civil liberties on the other.
But the hedge between these concerns has had an unfortunate effect of creating a tighter linkage between mental illness and dangerousness, both practically and in public perception. This is because it can make dangerousness a gate – a prerequisite – to compelled civil treatment. In the real world of tight state budgets, people who voluntarily seek treatment often are turned away, as the limited funds available can only extend to provide services for the dangerous patients that the hospitals must admit. In effect, the standard of dangerousness has become a way to ration scare resources for mental health care. As a consequence, for people without the means to pay for private mental health services, dangerousness has become a threshold that they have to cross before they can get treatment.
This can create perverse consequences. It results in people needing to become much iller – and manifesting behavior that might appear dangerous – before the state is required to provide treatment. Waiting until this stage of illness can make it more expensive to provide treatment and reduce the likelihood of recovery. It also means that many severely mentally ill people who never become dangerous – as most do not – may never receive treatment at all.
The above writing should send a shiver down your spine, it should make your liver quiver and your mind should be shaken to its core.
They make the rules, and then, the complexities of the content become a noose around their necks in response to the situation they have decided to weigh-in on!
I don’t trust bureaucracies, I find that most of them are governed by rules that are counter to the so-called good they are supposed to create and that the people who administrate the people and those processes are less than caring and/or competent to get the job completed to any degree of efficiency! That’s my take on it. But in any case, what is copied above should frighten you to some degree.
I am a person who has to deal with emotional injury issues to deal with on a daily basis. I do not feel that I am a threat to myself, nor to the public, so why should I trust a bunch of know-nothing bureaucrats, who have no instinctual idea as to what it is that anyone who does suffer from such condition, is going through?
Think about the truth of this issue. People are making decisions that will impact the lives of any person who shows the slightest inkling of acting differently. I know an artist, he’s an abstract artist, he paints what he feels that he is seeing, in a way that it affects him internally, he doesn’t think that he has to create what is already there, he wants the world to know how what is there, makes him feel inside. His art teacher told him that this is not art.
The student left his art class and stopped creating for a long time.
I’m the artist; I stopped because I allowed the opinion if this bastard to influence my feelings. Now, he was dangerous, because he was a teacher, but, mental health laws would not come and put him away for the safety of the public.
But now that I have PTSI(D), I could be seen as a danger and placed away for my own “safety”. What a bunch of bull! When a soldier is on the front line and pointing a weapon at a stranger, he’s not considered to be dangerous, a cop pulling a weapon on someone is not considered to be a danger. So how is a person who is confused and frightened and unaware of what is happening to them, and is simply seeking safety considered to be a danger? Let us not trivialize the power of words, when it comes to the ways we allow for persons to be treated.
The negatives of emotional irregularities can be varied and frightening to the person who is under their influence, and so too, the people with whom they are closely associated. But to categorize anyone who deals with these issues into one definition is abusive and very less than intelligent. The lawmakers seem to be less than cogent when they write blanketing laws that place a majority under the laws that should only pertain to a minority of the population.
Think of it in this way: maybe your cotton blanket is too itchy for me to use. Maybe my polyester blanket is not warm enough for you to use. Maybe a poly-blend blanket is not warm enough and too itchy where it is warm enough to be useful or relevant for the purpose you need it to serve. The same applies to laws.
People are different inside, they are accessing information at different rates, and in different identities, so to assume that a law can be useful for all people is arrogant, unintelligent, and dangerous. So we have to be involved in the process or we will all be running into each other in the hallways of the local “safety institution“!
We need a group effort, we need to be inviting to those persons who are looking in, but not sure as to whether or not they would be safe here. Because we know that they will, does not mean that THEY know it, so it is up to us to offer the invitation often, and without ceasing.
I dream of not being interfered with by PTSI(D) and other emotional issues. I know that I cannot be the only one, so I offer my two cents, I may ruffle a few feathers, but so what? Mine aren’t too concise, so why should I worry about the nonsense of someone who disagrees with me, taking it too far? This is a free-form conversational site. One word may be THE one that a person needed. So, give us your words, give us you ideas. No one will ridicule you, no will judge you.
We need everyone, and that means, even you!