Shoulda referred him to Dr Jekyll.
thumbs up
The therapeutic initiative least resisted and most appreciated by us otherwise treatment-resistant types is user-run self-help. And the stats seem to show that we do a pretty decent job of keeping each other grounded and out of the shrinky-parlors of the locked-door variety and out of the jail cells too.
There’ve been several mainstream-source funded (office of mental hygiene, mental health association of RelevantState, etc) UR/SH groups, mostly daytime drop-in centers and “socialization” group centers, plus a few halfway or “alltheway” housing services; there have been been a tiny few user-run self-help full-blown CRISIS centers like for people who feel a need to be kept from slicing their own throats and whatnot. I think it is fair to say that a lot more data points are needed but the initial indicators are that we benefit from such arrangements, distrust them less, and don’t tend to drift into “horizontal oppression” types of mistreatment of each other (there have been some mixed reports of that with drug-addiction user-run self-help crisis & recovery centers, but not discernably so with schizzies and bipolarfolk).
Note that such groups do not require medication compliance or require participants to be seeing any mental health professionals; some have even been overtly NO PSYCH DRUGS alternatives as a matter of policy. (the majority are “do what you want to do” with regards to seeing a psychiatrist or taking psych meds, though).
Google-worthy phrases: Ruby Rodgers Advocacy and Drop-in Center; Vancouver Emotional Emergency Center; Sally Zinman; Howie the Harp
You may have just made my post superfluous by suggesting a viable alternative to the problems presented by using employer-provided health insurance for mental health treatment, not to mention the stupidity of some treatment programs run by “experts,” but maybe someone will get something from what I’ve written so I’ll post it anyway. I think the issues of media and insurance are important to bring up anytime we discuss “random acts of violence.”
Whenever someone has a psychotic break and harms or attempts to harm someone and/or kills himself, what does the media say?
“He had a history of mental illness,” meaning “Move along, nothing to see here, the guy was a known crazy person.”
OR
“He had no history of mental illness,” meaning “Ooh, scary, undiagnosed crazy people are out there.”
And you know what’s really crazy? The guy who has tried to get help, maybe been faithfully taking medication and/or going to therapy before his terrible act is labeled “had a history of mental illness,” with no appreciation shown for his efforts to control the illness, while the guy who didn’t take the responsibility of seeking help is often seen as having been perfectly normal until that day when he actually had needed help for years.
As a society, we ought to be trying to prevent psychotic breaks by removing the stigma from seeking psychiatric help, and funding mental health care better. Many men avoid seeking help because needing help is not considered masculine; men are supposed to be strong and solve their own problems. There is also the very real problem of employers stigmatizing men, and women, if they know about their struggle with mental health issues. That is a big problem with getting health care insurance through our employers, though most people can’t afford decent insurance on their own. I don’t foresee any improvement with Obamacare, either, and also think that program will be dismantled before it’s put into action. After that, maybe a better program can be enacted. Maybe flying swine will be sighted over the Capitol dome as well. (Cynical, me? Just a bit.)
Well, we’ve proposed (85% in jest, but not without a wistful sigh) that psychiatric conditions be accorded the old “quota treatment” version of affirmative action.
“Excuse me, can I see your hiring records? Hmm…”
::rummages through paperwork::
“Incidentally did you know that 1% of the population is schizophrenic? And yet it does not appear that 1% of your employees are schizophrenic. What do you intend to do to ameliorate the suspicion that you are discriminating against schizzies in your hiring practice?”
::employer frenetically assembles an affirmative action effort to hire more schizophrenics::
Speaking only for myself, I have no issues with your proposed affirmative action plan for the mentally ill – as long as they remain medically compliant. 
Why should we be any more “compliant” than consumers of any other form of health care? It is the duty and responsibility of every patient to become fully informed about their own condition; to switch doctors if you do not like the care you’re receiving; to get a second opinion at any time you have a concern about the advice you are given; and above all else, to listen to the advice your doctor is giving you but ultimately make your freaking medical decisions for yourself.
It’s true of cardiac patients, endocrinology patients, gastrointestinal patients, etc etc.
And if you were a cardiac patient, would you skip taking aspirin? Or avoid insulin, if you’re diabetic? :dubious:
Look, Hunter – in our freedom-based society, it’s clearly your choice whether or not to manage your illness with medication. If you can maintain a normal life via sheer willpower alone, bully for you – you’re exceptional. HOWEVER, promoting your agenda does affect others, who are less exceptional and ill-prepared to battle their demons via mental self-control alone.
Most schizophrenics don’t possess the ability to fend off the voices w/o meds – not all, but most. That’s all I’m saying…do whatever you want, say whatever you want, but be mindful of your audience. You never know who might be watching.
There are a lot more of us than you think. It’s just that you mostly only learn that someone’s been dx’ed as schizophrenic when they don’t hold it together. Skewed sample & all that.
[shudders at the vision of being swarmed by millions of tiny AHunters…]
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I’ve worked in mental health services and I’ve met plenty of schizophrenics and people with other serious issues. Many of them could barely hold it together with medication, though I’ve seen plenty of success stories as well.
I can’t think of a single instance where the patient’s life became better by avoiding medication, except for situations where the patient was initially misdiagnosed (quite common) or had the stigma of psychiatric disability thrust upon them by conspiratorial family members (extremely rare, but it does happen.) Which frankly, makes me wonder if you’re not meshuga at all, AHunter3 – you’re just very, very weird. :dubious:
Plenty of diabetics choose not to take their insulin. This is a huge concern for teenage girls who manipulate their insulin intake to promote weight loss.
There are cancer patients who choose not to do chemotherapy because of the side effects. People exercise choice in their health care options all the time.
If we’re going to engage in a “what about the children?” mentality then I’d like to put the following people on the top of the list of those I suspect as having society-threatening psychological problems.
Glenn Beck
Keith Olbermann
Donald Trump
Pat Robertson
Sarah Palin
Steve Jobs
Thomas S Monson
Al Sharpton
May as well throw Obama on the heap as well. What person in their right mind thinks that they are the best qualified person in the country to run the place? Talk about control issues.
I’m not anti-med. I’m a pill popper now and I expect to be one for a pretty long time (unfortunately).
But frankly, drugs SUCK. I recently stopped taking two of the prescribed meds I was on because they rendered me completely useless as a human being. For instance, walking to work gives me something to look forward to. However, the drugs I was on kept making me oversleep, which made walking to work impossible. They would make me fall asleep at work too, and what was worse–I could not take caffeine to perk me up because of drug interactions. And then when I would get home, I would collaspe into bed and fall asleep some more, which prevented me from doing the other thing that gives my life some joy–craftwork. I was completely miserable and for what? They weren’t even working!
I’ve tried so many drugs and drug combinations, and most of them have been WACK! Unless you’ve ever been on the other side of the clipboard, I wouldn’t be so quick to judge someone for not wanting to take medication. Once you’ve been burnt a few gajillion times, you figure the treatment is worse than the disease. I know I’m starting to feel that way.
The people who often say “well, just keep trying till you find what works for you” rarely know how it feels to keep trying and trying and trying but only experiencing, at best, disappointment, and at worse, disabling side-effects.
Damn you and your common sense!
The danger to society posed by mental illness untreated by the choice of the individual is real but is on the scale of this country very very small, whereas the harm caused by forcing treatment decisions upon others where there is no clear indication of a present significant risk to themselves or others* is substantial. (Mind you this is a different thing altogether to the overall good done by having mental health resources available for those who need it.)
It really is the same sort of calculus as with having to prove someone is guilty and having to let them go if cannot do so. Some guilty people will go free for lack of adequate proof and some of them will go on to kill someone else or do some other harm. We as a society have decided that that risk is acceptable compared to to injustice of jailing many who have committed no crimes, in order to prevent one.
*Laws to force treatment upon those who do present that sort of clear and present danger are already on the books. And some who post here feel they are abused as it is. And in some cases I think they are right.
As they should. But the issue becomes a bit different when your health issues impact upon the health of other people. If you choose not to treat your cancer - well, I think that’s deeply foolish, but it’s your call, and I wish you the best with it. On the other hand, if you have multi-drug-resistant TB, refuse all meds, and hop a transAtlantic flight, coughing merrily away the whole time - well, then you are a dangerous asshole.
Mental illness seems to be more akin to TB. It certainly isn’t the patient’s fault he is ill, but if he can’t be bothered to take the mere necessary to protect the rest of us from his illness, then that makes him kind of an ass. And society has a legitimate interest in preventing assholery.
I had a professor who I’m absolutely certain had a personality disorder. He drove everyone nuts with his temper, haughtiness, and body odor (apparently he didn’t think his shit stank). I think he should be locked up right now. Because we need to protect the rest of society from his assholery. Mind you, I’m not saying he does have a psychiatric disorder. Just that he “fits the description.”
(Oh, you didn’t mean all mental illnesses? Just certain ones? Well, why weren’t you more specific then? And why say “assholerly” when you probably mean something much worse?)
I should have been more specific - you’re quite right. When I referred to “assholery”, I meant “violent criminal conduct.” I called it “assholery” in an attempt at humor, which was probably unnecessarily confusing, and likely inappropriate given the seriousness of the subject. My apologies.
I don’t believe that any particular illness should lead to compulsory treatment - though I doubt AHunter’s claims that there are large numbers of functional schizophrenics with no need for medication, I do not doubt that most people are quite nonviolent even in the depths of serious mental illness. (Consider: Even if you sincerely believed that the CIA was monitoring your mind, would you be willing to go out and shoot people on the strength of this belief?)
Thus, I would limit compulsory treatment to those cases in which the individual has shown a history of violence caused by his illness. (As opposed to cases in which the person is a genuine asshole, sick or healthy - for them, we have the criminal justice system.)
Isn’t that still a skewed sample?
One of the worst employees I ever had was a young man who had leukemia. So from the perspective of an employer I definitely would be biased against anyone with a medical problem that would interfere with their ability to regularly attend work and perform their job appropriately.
As an employer I don’t really care about all the problems of equity and equal treatment, I just don’t want to hire sick people, be they sick with cancer or sick with schizophrenia.