HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » One in four Americans are...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:10 AM

 

One in four Americans are said to suffer some degree of "mental illness".

Yet even with the astonishing number of weapons floating around the country, we haven't wiped each other out.

It may pay to recognize that not all mental illness results in murder. It may also pay to realize that you likely know more than one person with some level of mental illness. This is to make you realize that it's okay, not a call to fear. I very much hope we may end the fear being spewed by the weapons sales/manufacturing lobby group, the NRA and replace it with compassion and understanding. Mental illness varies widely in regard to type and degree, much less the issues involving external/situational influences such as poverty, abuse, loss, etc. Thank you very much.

PS: Over 100 shootings have happened since Sandy Hook, yet no one is screaming over it. Are we so inured to death by weapons? And for the lulz, we seriously outnumber NRA membership. Boo! (Edit: The "Boo!" is meant towards the NRA. This is one of the problems with the illness...I have to spend a great deal of time considering whether I've correctly conveyed my intent or if the meaning is insufficient and can be misinterpreted. Please have compassion to the "mentally ill". It's just not easy.)

12 replies, 906 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply One in four Americans are said to suffer some degree of "mental illness". (Original post)
Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 OP
defacto7 Dec 2012 #1
Denninmi Dec 2012 #2
napoleon_in_rags Dec 2012 #3
Denninmi Dec 2012 #5
Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #8
napoleon_in_rags Dec 2012 #12
leftyladyfrommo Dec 2012 #4
Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #6
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #7
Denninmi Dec 2012 #9
TwilightGardener Dec 2012 #10
Denninmi Dec 2012 #11

Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:34 AM

1. When you think about it

all of us are mentally ill in one way or another. It just depends on what you're measuring and how it affects you and the people around you, Some cultures have traditions that others would think were deranged. Mental illness is a varied and moving target I think. There are times you can pin it down and other times it is illusive or invisible. Insanity on the other hand, is a totally different issue. It's a small and specialized part of mental illness, brain injury or disease also. Mental illness is an extremely broad concept.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:43 AM

2. I keep repeating myself post after post. Easier to say "just read what this guy said":

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:17 AM

3. There's a lot of uncertainty in this debate. Here's some positive thoughts from me.

Me: Mental health worker, but not shrink or PhD.

Okay, the key to this whole thing is ethics - balance of rights and responsibilities. We have an intuitive understanding that when any right is taken from an innocent person, a corresponding responsibility is also taken. For instance, children don't have the right to buy guns, or work jobs. But children therefore don't have the responsibility for defence or to buy groceries or pay rent for themselves: those responsibilities are taken care of by the parent, guardian or state as needed. Similarly, when a senior driver can no longer drive due to infirmities, they give up a right (to drive) but we as a society make sure that they have those van services to go shopping and get to medical appointments, if a family member can't do it. If they lose the right to drive, they no longer have the responsibility to do it. Society takes that responsibility, to keep the roads and them safe.

The key to our mental health response has to follow those same guidelines: If an innocent person loses their constitutional right to defend themselves, the system must do it for them. That means oversight and protection. We must tolerate nothing short of that.

Notice that this means taxpayer dollars, for every individual who has given up their right to bear arms. This is exactly as it must be. It will work, because the number of truly insane Cho or Loughner types who need the support in perpetuity is actually very small. The number of people who will need the services for a short period of time (maybe for feeling suicidal after a hard blow in life) but stabilise quickly will be larger, with smart insurance planning it can work fiscally. This is an open door for everybody, which people can regain their full status as gun owning sane individuals after going through. Only those receiving supports (thus losing responsibilities) ever sacrifice rights. Those who can't pull it together. They receive the overt supports they desperately need, and the whole thing is viewed as positive by members of society, nobody is afraid to seek supports for their loved ones or friends.

The other key is that guidelines for treatment come down from the top, an adaptive statistical algorithm for minimising risk, which updates whenever somebody released acts out dangerously or lethally. No blame for shrinks who follow the guidelines, period..

The good system described, now lets look at the bad system: What posts like the OP are in fear of.

Its well documented that in the Soviet Union, as well as other totalitarian regimes, mental health was used to suppress political dissidents. Lets look at the anatomy of that kind of system:

The first thing you need to do is get rid of the ethical balance of giving up responsibilities for giving up rights describe above: Tyranny requires innocent targeted individuals give up rights, but also be required to fulfil responsibilities: They are branded as mentally ill without any kind of supports. Their mentally ill status is broadcast to law enforcement, gun stores and others, to the extent that crimes done against them, when reported aren't believed do to their new subhuman status... and once branded they can never get out. People see these wretched individuals walking the streets, screaming, without support and resolve to do anything to keep their friends or loved ones from being one of them, even if they are showing real signs of mental illness. A STACI like system of citizen informants is used to identify potentially "mentally ill" individuals, and shrinks - who are held accountable for the acts of their patients, thus brand every person who comes into their office as mentally ill. Because the state has no obligation to take care of these individuals, no fiscal limits are placed on the numbers of them. 30%, 35%, 45% of the population are eventually branded "mentally ill" if they dare to speak out against the status quo, and their right to bear arms is taken from them. The only oversight of them is covert, making paranoid people more paranoid. Only gun owners who toe the line in every way are permitted to keep their guns - for the large part of the population, they are removed.

So there you go. See the difference between a really positive thing and a really negative thing? Key points for a positive system:
1) Innocent individuals who give up rights also get to give up certain responsibilities.
2) The supports should be a positive thing, which nobody would fear putting somebody they care about into, based on results people can see.
3) Supports you enter in to, but then move beyond and get your rights back, once healing has taken place and you no longer need supports.
4) Supports are overt, not covert.
5) No blame for shrinks, individuals make their own choices shrinks do the best they can based off the science.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napoleon_in_rags (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 08:56 AM

5. Thanks for a very educational post.

It helps a LOT actually, to have professionals in the field make educated comments, versus all of the armchair punditry which is posted by people with no experience, training, or even a clue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to napoleon_in_rags (Reply #3)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:19 PM

8. Thank you. Please know that one mainstream media report on the Sandy Hook shootings,

 

a two-hour show, ended with the statement that if you see a mentally ill person behaving oddly that you should call the police and let the police sort it out. Or if they are even making jokes about violence, call the police.



FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. DUer Nemoa shares the definitions of Ableism:

"Ableism; A term used to describe normal assumptions and practices that often lead to unequal treatment of people with apparent or assumed physical, intellectual, or behavioral differences. It could be said, ableism is about categorization and exclusion."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:03 AM

12. Yep, paranoia amplifiers.

Your neighbors will be informants to the state, if you think of acting out, and your rights will be taken away.

Who wouldn't have revolutionary sentiments in this setting? Who wouldn't have revolutionary feelings after being labelled subhuman, with no criminal record, and receiving no additional supports for their claimed infirmities that have been used to eliminate their rights?

This is common sense stuff. I for one am grateful to see people like you who so clearly understand it, and will stand up for moral alternatives. I thank you for your clear intelligence.

PEace
Nir

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 06:21 AM

4. After living all these years I think everyone is crazy

in one way or another.

Some people just hide it better than others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:09 PM

6. Kickety.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:14 PM

7. It's got to be even more than that. Many people never seek

treatment or discuss their problems--just cope with it, in ways healthy and unhealthy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #7)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:21 PM

9. I would have strongly reconsidered going to a psychiatrist back in August if I thought ...

... My name would end up in a registry of criminals.

What would have happened then? I sure wouldn't have been a psycho killer.

Worst case scenario, I would have offed myself.

Probably would have made the NRA happy, one fewer of those inferior subhuman mentally ill dangers to society running around in favor of strong gun control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Denninmi (Reply #9)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 12:41 PM

10. This is exactly the danger of proposing measures like

broad databases and registries for anyone seeking care. It's a medical issue like any other, and deserves as much privacy as any other medical problem--without people being tarnished or stigmatized by the behavior of a few. Glad you were able to get the care you needed without this sort of bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #10)

Mon Dec 24, 2012, 01:39 PM

11. Yup, but I still worry about this.

I think, well hope, we have a firewall against this in Congress, the Courts, and the President, with enough decent people to stand up and say no.

People may have thought similarly in Germany in 1932?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread