Love is an angel disguised as lust.
LeKatt,
Was Freud’s treatment so singularly focused on love or did he employ a multitude of techniques having nothing to do with love?
your Schizophrenic employee, paranoid was he? never had psychotic break while under your employ? always showed up on time? never missed work?
higher incidence of smoking among Schizophrenics, two to three times that of the general public, maybe would have smoked less if meds were taken regularly.
Read on Albert Bandura and Albert Ellis, how you have described your process has little to do with psychoanalysis and more to do with modeling and rational emotive thinking.
I think a very important part people ignored in this article http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/01/05/42804.htm where a enemy of someone called police and got them committed in a mental institution for a week who was not mentally ill. This is proof that that mental institutions have to much power to commit people and their is not a high enough “burden of proof” to do so.
The police and medical officials appear to have broken their own policies regarding involuntary commitment. That appears to be where your outrage should be focused, not on the concept of involuntary commitment.
You mentioned this incident earlier, and while it’s terrible, it also doesn’t prove mental illness isn’t real, drugs don’t work, therapy is bad, psychiatrists are insane, and all the other things you said. You stopped trying to defend your own arguments three weeks ago. Want to give it another try?
They do this routinely, which I discussed earlier because there is not enough oversight. The potential for abuse is high.
:: Drums fingers ::
Callused fingers. . .
You haven’t demonstrated that this happens routinely, so any conclusions you draw are meaningless. The evidence suggests that it doesn’t happen routinely.
There’s potential for abuse in many situations, but there are checks and balances in place to limit it.
What checks and balances in place to limit it?
A good chunk of them are on display in the court order for the case you just linked to: http://il.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20111229_0003220.NIL.htm/qx
Yes, people can violate the checks and balances, and steps should be taken to tighten them up where applicable. But to make the claim that this happens routinely and it does so because there is insufficient oversight is completely unsupported. Bad things can happen in any system if bad people are in power.
Those checks and balances happen AFTER a person is already committed and has waited days or weeks in a mental hospital. There needs to be checks and balences BEFORE they are committed. The standard of proof to commit someone should be as high as it is to arrest them.
Bad example. The standard for an arrest is remarkably low. A policeman has to have a reason to believe you’ve committed a crime.
In fact, he might simply not like your looks, or the way you addressed him, and the arrest might be entirely contrived. If so…it’s up to the victim (the person improperly arrested) to prove this in court, if a suit for wrongful arrest is to succeed.
Really, really, really bad example.
And, yes, there should be protection against wrongful commitment to mental institutions. Which, in fact, there are. If you want them to be stronger, that’s your opinion. The stronger you make them, the more people will be denied needed care. It’s a trade-off.
Other than a lawsuit after the fact there really is not really protection against wrongful commitment to mental institutions
Agreed: but the difference is that there is a much higher standard to get someone committed than there is to have someone arrested. Much, much harder. There are already in place very substantial obstacles. You make it sound as if anyone could be thrown in a mad-house at any time, for any reason. You’ve made the same error over and over in this thread, from the very outset. No, being a bit goofy is not enough to be committed as insane. (Phyllis Diller would never have been let out!) Having a “thing” about collecting Betty and Veronica toys is not enough to be committed as insane.
Attempting suicide by swallowing a bottle of pain-killers and a half a bottle of vodka – that is sufficient reason for admission to a mental health institution. And rightly so!
Your whole problem in this entire damn thread has been a lack of a sense of proportion. You refuse to acknowledge the existence of serious and harmful mental illness – and you insist on conflating it with harmless eccentricities. Mental hospitals really do know the difference, and, no, you cannot be committed (in California, I can attest to this from personal experience) without some very serious reasons being proven.
My mother attempted suicide twice. After the first try, we looked into commitment, and found that it wasn’t possible. Yeah, even after an attempt at self-destruction with a rifle. The second time, she succeeded, and the matter becomes moot.
You may say that because of this, I am too close to the issue, too emotionally tied up in it. This may very well be so. But you’re still making declarations that are contrary to fact. If a suicide attempt isn’t sufficient reason to be committed, then your claim that it could happen to anyone for far less reason is simply not factual.
ETA: my examples may seem to contradict themselves, but a suicide attempt that involves actually swallowing pain killers involves meaningful objective evidence, whereas dancing around with a rifle and jamming the bolt, while also an obvious suicide attempt, produced no objective evidence. I saw it happen, but it was only a case of my word against hers. With a drug O.D., you have actual hospital medical evidence.)
The lawsuit I posed proves that there are not “very substantial obstacles” in place. The police have turned mental wards into a grey zone that they throw people into that they can’t arrest, but want to punish or don’t like. The doctors go along with it and falsify paperwork, check the “right boxes” wether or not they are true and the person is stuck there for days or weeks.
Except they don’t do so often, and when they do it makes the news and there are lawsuits and repercussions. If you are willing to pick outliers do you acknowledge that some people with mental illnesses harm themselves and others which would be prevented by commitment? Are you equally outraged by those cases?
While I agree that there may need to be more protections against fake reports of self-danger, there also really isn’t any protection other than the law after the fact against many things, such as the police beating you up or killing you despite the fact there are strong laws against them. Even if the law were changed to make it harder to forcibly hold someone for observation, there still would not any protection against arbitrary detention except for after the fact. You could throw criminal charges against false accusers or detainers but like I said that doesn’t stop police brutality so it might not help false accusations much considering how hard it is to make criminal charges stick against the police in general.
Just befriend the tall, silent American Indian dude and you’re set.
Have you been to a psychiatric unit or facility? I have. Trust me, they’re not filled to capacity with mentally healthy individuals who just happened to piss off the wrong corrupt police officer. One guy — this elderly, brittle diabetic in terrible health — maintained that he was a particular female pop star, his pot belly evidence of late-term pregnancy. Totally unable to care for himself.
Do you consider that within the bounds of normal human psychological variation? Did some police officer collude with psychiatrists to lock away a perfectly sane man? What about the guy who thought god was telling him to give away all his savings to random people before killing himself? The woman so depressed that she may as well have been comatose for months?
Extreme cases, maybe, but you’re talking about long-term treatment — and these are people you’ll meet there. I guarantee you they didn’t just piss off the wrong cop.
Do you have any evidence of such conspiracy?