Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't just indefinitely cage a person. That would be an abuse of involuntary commitment.

Dp. If they refuse to take the meds and are endangered oh yes you can confine them to a room and board. I don’t understand why it’s ok to live in encampments. It’s one of the many examples of normalizing things that aren’t normal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is that at some point living in the streets was normalized. Even from the POV of well-being of those that live there, let alone not caring how it affects healthy people around them (mostly poor and non white btw, because encampments aren’t near McMansions through in SF it can be the case now).
There needs to be a stance that it’s not normal and that their lives need to be closely monitored. Nobody wants cages, more like a nursing home. Why is it ok to “confine” the elderly but not the mentally ill?

I think that came with the defunding of mental health services. There was a big move a couple of decades ago to get mental hospitals in DC closed. But, the people don't magically disappear.

I think that the people who are posting here have no idea how limited resources are to deal with mental health issues. And, then finding someone to pay for the services can be nearly impossible. For things to change, we as a society have to decide that we want to fund mental health services and make them accessible to the masses.

To give you an example, in any given month, I spend close to $1k on mental health services for my young adult child, plus I pay for everything else that most parents are no longer paying for due to mental health issues. In prior years, when there were institutionalizations, my costs were closer to $50k. Most people that I know can't do that. We were lucky that we had savings. I am not complaining. Just sharing the reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't just indefinitely cage a person. That would be an abuse of involuntary commitment.

I don't think of mental health facilities as cages, and you are correct --it is very difficult to commit someone in this country against their will. However, if people were committed and treated likely they would not die in this horrible manner. If they stop taking medication, re commit them and treat them again.

Giving someone a bed and three meals a day and medication in a facility is cheaper than giving them free housing and hoping they would continue taking medication. Living in the streets must be prohibited. Live with family, rent your own apartment or go to a “group home” of sorts.
These should be the choices, not live on the street or get expensive housing for free.

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem is that at some point living in the streets was normalized. Even from the POV of well-being of those that live there, let alone not caring how it affects healthy people around them (mostly poor and non white btw, because encampments aren’t near McMansions through in SF it can be the case now).
There needs to be a stance that it’s not normal and that their lives need to be closely monitored. Nobody wants cages, more like a nursing home. Why is it ok to “confine” the elderly but not the mentally ill?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has involuntary commitment. But a person has to meet the standard. I will agree with you that mental health services are sorely lacking. And, it is also tough because if a person is considered competent, they are in charge of their treatment and family gets no say.

Many people stop taking medications that would give them a better quality of life. Some do for financial reasons (and this is not only a mental health issue). Others stop because they feel better and don't understand that if they stop the medication they will decompensate. Others stop because of the side effects. And, some even stop because they like how they feel without the medication - like the manic phase of bipolar disorder if their manic is positive and energetic. It's really complicated.

I get that. However, how is it that Britney Spears has conservatorship, but we can't as a society look out for other people unable to make sound decisions? The mental health / and or addiction fiasco in our countryleads to so many unintended consequences... If someone says they want to remain in the streets during hypothermia conditions for example, why isn't that evidence they are not of sound mind and a ticket to the mental health treatment facility?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't just indefinitely cage a person. That would be an abuse of involuntary commitment.

I don't think of mental health facilities as cages, and you are correct --it is very difficult to commit someone in this country against their will. However, if people were committed and treated likely they would not die in this horrible manner. If they stop taking medication, re commit them and treat them again.

Anonymous wrote:You can't just indefinitely cage a person. That would be an abuse of involuntary commitment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't just indefinitely cage a person. That would be an abuse of involuntary commitment.

I don't think of mental health facilities as cages, and you are correct --it is very difficult to commit someone in this country against their will. However, if people were committed and treated likely they would not die in this horrible manner. If they stop taking medication, re commit them and treat them again.

This is a gross oversimplification. Medication does not always work and a lot of people with mental health conditions need additional support. Mental health providers in this country are terrible at providing the type of support that is needed, unless you are paying out of pocket.

You are suggesting that a person be committed and put on medication, then thrown back out onto the street and expected to continue taking (and purchasing) this medication. That's ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:DC has involuntary commitment. But a person has to meet the standard. I will agree with you that mental health services are sorely lacking. And, it is also tough because if a person is considered competent, they are in charge of their treatment and family gets no say.

Many people stop taking medications that would give them a better quality of life. Some do for financial reasons (and this is not only a mental health issue). Others stop because they feel better and don't understand that if they stop the medication they will decompensate. Others stop because of the side effects. And, some even stop because they like how they feel without the medication - like the manic phase of bipolar disorder if their manic is positive and energetic. It's really complicated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't just indefinitely cage a person. That would be an abuse of involuntary commitment.

I don't think of mental health facilities as cages, and you are correct --it is very difficult to commit someone in this country against their will. However, if people were committed and treated likely they would not die in this horrible manner. If they stop taking medication, re commit them and treat them again.

Anonymous wrote:You can't just indefinitely cage a person. That would be an abuse of involuntary commitment.