In practice, however, I’ve seen people stay at acute care facilities for longer because there were simply no beds in longer-stay or chronic care facilities. It’s not good for patient or staff.
That has been my experience as well, including people who were brought in by police. (Anecdote, not cite, I realize…)
ETA: I do wonder how much of this varies regionally. Maybe in a densely-populated area, such as where I live, it’s just more difficult to justify to insurance companies? But I’ve even had clients who were “vaguely suicidal”, which just meant ideation but no clear plan, who were turned away. A client I once worked with got this response, went home, took just enough of her meds to qualify as an overdose, and was finally admitted.
This is good information to have. My interest, the focus of the research I’ve done, has primarily been in where the system breaks down, and this has colored my perspective.
I’m reminded again of the “thud” experiement (“experiment” should probably have scare quotes). The first one made the hospital staff look pretty foolish and raised serious concerns. A more recent investigation (I recall Lauren Slater’s description well, there are others out there) had the ersatz patient given medication or a referral to outpatient therapy, rather than committment for an indefinite period of time.
The system has its flaws though, as any system does. Our legal system has, on paper at least, a beautiful set of protections and remedies to counteract abuses by authority, but we’ve all seen those Youtube videos.
In my opinion, the protections and remedies for patients are far weaker than they ought to be. That’s probably an issue for GD.
However, aside from the horror stories of narcissistic doctors who’ve gamed the system, I think one of the weak points of the system is when a third party is using it as an extralegal method of retaliation in an interpersonal conflict, such as what was decribed in the OP.
I’m already in tl;dr territory, so, quickly: I think it sucks like hell that this situation happened this way. I wish Annie the best in recovering, and I’m hopeful that she’ll be able to make something good out of a bad situation. I know people who have.
Lastly, if nothing else, I think this thread highlights just how important it is to have (or to make) a trusted friend who can be on the other end of that phone.
I’m sure there’s a huge variance depending on location and state protocols. There have been times when I’ve picked up a patient in the ER for a transfer to a dedicated psych hospital, and find out they’re been in the ER for 2 or 3 days because there were no beds anywhere for them. :eek:
I always feel bad for those people.
I have just skimmed most of this thread but I will throw in some information as someone who deals with these situations in New Jersey. Procedures can be different within the state. I of course know nothing of this incident but I can speak similar things that happened to me. For one cops do not go on calls looking for people to throw in the hospital. Just “freaking out” isn’t enough. But if a line is crossed, such as making statements to harm yourself or others, then the cops are obligated to do something.
When it becomes apparent that there may be a psych problem the subject is usually first asked if they would like to get help voluntarily. If not an on call counselor is called. The counselor has to agree to the commitment. Sometimes our description of the events is enough. More often they ask to talk to the subject. In some cases they drive out to the scene.
If involuntarily committed the patient is transported to the ER for a physical evaluation. The ER will never clear the patient for psych. They only check for physical/medical problems. After they are cleared medically they are sent to the psych facility. From there they can be cleared or kept for further treatment.
In New Jersey restraining orders are for cases of domestic violence only. There are other judicial orders that can act in similar fashion but they are not the same.
Me, I’m just waiting for Annie to report back. I’ve got confidence that she didn’t lie, and I’m sure she’ll handle everything.
She’s been around for a while, and she’s good people.
…
I saw a program yesterday on a new and exciting problem for employees. Companies are accusing their employees of going crazy and attempting to commit them. That puts them in the position of proving they are not . How big a problem is that? It was big enough for a cable station to report on it. Is that what happened in this case? I do not know, but I would not be so dismissive of her explanation.
? And how does the company profit?
It gets rid of an employee that they want gone. Gives them an out for any lawsuits. An employee relations board would have to consider info that the goofy employee was committed by the company. They were forced into doing such a thing. Hurts the employee defense.
Wow. Just wow. I own a business, but have been lucky when it comes to employees. Most I’ve liked. The few I haven’t I’ve told them my feelings and they have quit.
:dubious: Do you have a cite for this? What was this program?
I did not see the beginning. It may have been" Keynote". on free speech TV. It is at the end of my cable selections. It is a news program with out control of corporations. It was in the Free Speech TV stations though.
Ah, well, that’s convincing then.
I agree. It sure is. You get the truth when you get away from Fox and other controlled media.
I checked out the free speech tv site, www.freespeech.org , but I couldn’t find information about the program. If anyone has better luck, I’d love to see a link.
I pulled the key and hilarious line from your post. Dude, it was big enough for free speech TV to report on it if it happened in the case of just one guy’s fevered imagination.
The real point is that people will reject a program on free speech TV. Why because it is not controlled. It lacks corporate input, which we all know is neutral and fair. Like Fox, they just report unblemished news ,with no slant. Other news stations must be controlled because they disagree with Fox so often, They are therefore biased . Then a free speech Tv show has to be false. It has to reflect corporate viewpoints or it is just wrong. No way it can be fair.
The program was 1/2 of a news show. It was not a dedicated show about locking up employees.
“In the second half of our show, we’ll check in on the Illuminati! Stay tuned!”
Did you read what you wrote? Are you familiar with these boards? If you’d posted, “I saw this segment, and it was important enough for Glen Beck to have reported on it,” you’d be laughed at even harder than you’re being laughed at now.
It has nothing to do with corporate (excuse me, korporate) control. It has everything to do with the fact that anyone, whether totally brilliant and sane or a nutjob imbecile, can get a segment on free speech TV. All we have is your report on the segment, and it is way less than convincing, especially with your whinging about how we’re tools of the korporate media.