This has been the case since the 1970's when the large "Mental Asylums" were closed down.
But surely treating someone who is mentally unwell and does not have the capacity to consent, so that they can get well and learn to cope with their illness, is far better than letting them deteriorate to the point whee they become a threat to themselves or others, and then enforcing treatment?
What treatment follows if some one is diagnosed as being a threat to themselves or others?
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
If they are found to be a danger to themselves or someone else, they are assessed as to the severity of the illness.
They are then placed in a secure facility for further assessment.
The more disturbed are placed in state hospitals.
We have many "crazies" (aka "homeless") wandering the streets of larger cities who refuse medication, Tx, and whatever else is available. ..........Muttering to themselves about the MOTU or somesuch nonsense.
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
Gob wrote:letting them deteriorate to the point whe[r]e they become a threat to themselves or others, and then enforcing treatment?
You just described the basic approach in the USA.
What's more, when they become a threat to themselves or others and they can be committed under the law, they will be sent to a state funded facility which in most cases will medicate them to stability over a very brief period of treatment, then release them.
Thus beginneth the next run of the cycle, as many will not voluntarily remain on medications, and community based mental health treatment options are limited.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
bigskygal wrote:
Thus beginneth the next run of the cycle, as many will not voluntarily remain on medications, and community based mental health treatment options are limited.
NSW DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
MENTAL HEALTH ACT 2007
Section 58(3)
NOTICE TO PATIENT OF BREACH OF COMMUNITY TREATMENT ORDER
________________________________________
(Name of declared mental health facility)
________________________________________
(Address)
________________________________________
To _______________________________________________
(Patient’s name)
__________________________________________
(Address)
__________________________________________
Notice is hereby given that as a result of:
1. Your refusal to comply with your community treatment order (copy
attached);
2. Your further refusal to comply after being provided with information as
required by section 58(2) of the Mental Health Act 2007; and
3. You being informed that such further refusal will result in an order to attend
the Declared Mental Health Facility,
YOU ARE NOW REQUIRED under section 58(3) of the Mental Health Act 2007 to
attend the Declared Mental Health Facility at the address given above for treatment
in accordance with the community treatment order.
Under section 58(3)(b) of the Mental Health Act 2007, I am required to warn you that
the assistance of the NSW Police Force may be obtained to ensure your attendance
as set out above.
Signature: _______________________________
Name: __________________________________
(Director of Community Treatment)
Date: __________________________ 20
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Anyone who has purchased a gun recently is familiar with the mental health question that appears on both the federal and state gun-purchase applications: "Have you ever been declared incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution?" This question seems reasonable enough. Most people just answer "No" and move on to the next question.
Virtually everyone agrees that individuals suffering from serious mental illnesses should not be allowed to purchase firearms. For their part, most gun buyers assume that federal and state authorities verify the accuracy of the answers provided for the mental health question. That, unfortunately, is not the case.
...
According to Dr. Paul Applebaum, vice president of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), "checking for involuntary commitments...doesn't make sense because past mental illness does not predict future violence."
Scientific research appears to support Dr. Applebaum's position. The Foundation for Research on Mental Health and the Law monitored 1,000 former mental patients for eight years after they were released from institutions. The researchers found that the former mental patients were only slightly more prone to violence than the general population. A study by the MacArthur Foundation indicated that former mental patients were no more violent than individuals who were not mentally ill.
