Somebody called me from a psychiatric instutition saying she's held against her will.

I’m not a MH professional, I merely grew up with one mentally ill parent. I can’t pretend I don’t have biases, and you’ll probably be able to figure them out easily.

My mother is currently called Bipolar. Her first episode was in 1960, and from the stories, her treatment was perhaps as bad as the worst movie depiction you ever heard of. They called it Paranoid Schizophrenic at the time. She recounts tales of being given insulin shock treatment, and one of the other people in this therapy cohort died of it. I don’t need someone to confirm the story, mostly because I’m fairly sure that’s old news, and they won’t do it now. I can’t say if she was a voluntary admit or if her parents insisted. I wasn’t there, and her parents were remarkably secretive while alive, and have since passed, with questions unanswered.

In the '70’s, she would generally get a heavy dose of downers if she went to a hospital, and then be released drug-free. They also began to call her Manic/Depressive. I know that seeing her on a dose of Haldol, stiff, shuffling, and drooling down the hallway toward me, with my father and the doctor telling me to go hug the terrifying zombie is a recurring nightmare. I don’t need someone to confirm the story, mostly because I’m fairly sure that’s old news, and they don’t do it that way now. I know she was by then a voluntary admit, to the point that once she “stole” the family car because my father wanted to sleep the night and make the four hour drive to the doctor in the morning, but she wouldn’t wait. Looking at the car, and getting her story later, she was hallucinating all the way, traveled through at least one muddy ditch, and is perhaps lucky she didn’t kill herself or someone else.

I can’t pinpoint the date, but she went on Lithium in the late '70’s/early '80’s, and I think it helped a lot. She also took enough Mellaril to fell a draft horse, just to keep from metaphorically floating around the ceilings. She would still have episodes of mania, with increasingly-brief hospital stays to regain her own equilibrium, but most of the time she was capable of living her life, raising her kids, and in general doing her thing as she saw fit. Generally, after about a week to ramp up into a manic state, she would realize for herself that she needed care, and admit voluntarily. Stress, sleepless nights, or medical illness sufficient to cause her to purge her medicine were the most common “causes” of a manic episode, but they did happen roughly every six months for a while.

This does not mean that she believed she was in the right place for the entire time. More than once she called out to tell me and others she was being held captive. I know she sometimes refused to take her meds. With one exception, I believe she got good care, in spite of her behavior. (The exception is a story all its own, but began with an elderly MD, not a mental health professional.)

By the '90’s, I had moved out, and after one doozy of an episode brought on by the stress of me actually leaving (she literally followed me out to the end of the driveway, insisting that I wasn’t really leaving/would be coming right back, and was in the hospital about a week later) she managed four years before her next episode. I used to joke that was proof we drove each other crazy. She got along quietly with my brother through his high school years without apparent incident.

Brother moved out, and mom had another major episode, including selling her house for a pittance, blowing the engine in her car from pure cussedness, and breaking her wrist, but being too paranoid to allow it to be set. Five years after that, she had another episode, brought on by the pain of rheumatoid arthritis not allowing her to sleep properly, and since then, her increasing numbers of ailments have meant more harmful drug interactions.

Perhaps four years ago, on a summer Sunday, she called to have me take her to a hospital for inpatient care. She told me her doctor had called ahead, and instructed her to go the the ER of the hospital to be passed through to the appropriate ward. Sounded simple, so at 11am, I went to get her. We took her car an hour over the state line, and checked in at the desk. Were sent to wait in chairs. Picked a crummy location, since someone appearing drunk/stoned staggered out at one point, fell just a few inches from landing in our laps, and then trotted out the door to play chicken in traffic. Roughly 3 pm, we finally were admitted to a room in the ER, and told her story again. Waited. Vitals taken, and waited. MD came, seemed to be under the impression that she wanted to have drugs and put out on the street, was surprised and seemed… happy?.. that she actually wanted admittance, but requested to run blood tests. She gave permission, so we waited for another person (nurse? phlebotomist?) and waited some more.

Sitting in the quiet little room, hearing a few cries and noises now and then, was fairly restful, as such things go, but we were both getting hungry, and had managed to miss both lunch and dinner. I apologetically asked if they could scrounge up a snack, and they brought the tiniest microwave dinner I have ever seen. We shared it. My own luck ran out, and whether it was worry, or the lights, or just purely an accident of timing, I felt a migraine taking me over. I wasn’t the patient of record, and I didn’t want to just leave her, especially since I didn’t know if I could come back if I left, so I went to the nurse’s station and begged to buy a tylenol or something of the sort. Was told the hospital couldn’t supply it, but one of the doctors gave me one out of their locker. Finally, at 10 pm, an armed security guard came to escort her up to the locked ward. She gave me her watch, and purse, and keys, and she left me at the elevator door.

I can’t speak to any of the paperwork or phone calls that happened out of sight. I wasn’t happy that we took up a room in the ER for so long, that might have been needed by someone with an actual physical ailment, or perhaps been in need of greater restraint. But if a voluntary admit, with pre-clearance from her regular doctor took that long, I can’t imagine that an involuntary admit would be easier. (Might be faster, if the patient is screaming and clawing at people, but surely that’s not easier.)

I am glad that horrific movie-script torture is no longer the norm. The public’s view of health care lags behind actuality, at least partially because movies take some time to dream up, film, and distribute, and a boring wait in a quiet room isn’t movie-worthy. I feel that mental health care is several orders of magnitude better now than it was in the '60’s. I don’t think it’s perfect, and considering that each patient is different, and may respond best to different treatments and therapies, perfection may not be attainable. But I think it is still improving. Like it or not, I consider my mother to be just one of many who have been, essentially, guinea pigs to expand mental health knowledge over the years.

I’ve seen reports that an increasing number of people in prison are there because they are mentally ill. I am aware that some posters don’t like involuntary commitment, but seems to me that prison would be infinitely worse.

/r/thathappened

BTW, Lliving In Hell**** I was talking to Bad Horse the other day and he said you were doing a great job!:smiley:

You can call me Billy. :wink:

Let me tell you about a patient that I had during my psych rotation in medical school. He carried a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, so he was what people colloquially refer to as a psychopath. He had a history of violent behavior. He had been living in a homeless shelter but he had a beef with some of the people there and he told his psychiatrist about his plans to hurt and/or kill these people. Imminent harm to others is one of the few occasions where doctor-patient confidentiality does not apply so his psychiatrist reported his threats and the end result was that he was kicked out of the shelter. He decided that it was it was the psychiatrist’s fault that he was homeless and he was going to punish her for that. He told someone else about his plan to kill her and this time he was picked up and involuntarily committed.

His first day on our inpatient unit I went in to interview him and started asking the standard questions for a psychiatric history of present illness. Do you have any thoughts about hurting yourself? (No) Do you have any thoughts about hurting anyone else? (Yes) Do you have a plan for what you were going to do? And in a totally emotionless voice he told me about how he was going to kill his psychiatrist. He’d thought about getting a gun but then he remembered that there was a construction site near her office and it would be much easier to pick up a piece of pipe from the site so that he could wait outside her office as she left work and beat her head in.

To this day he remains the single scariest patient I have ever encountered. Everyone on the treatment team made very sure that they were never alone with him and that he was never between us and the door. And you think we should wait until someone like this acts on their plans and can be criminally charged before curtailing their personal freedom? I just don’t think that’s reasonable.

Have there been abuses of the involuntary commitment process in the past? Of course. Do those abuses continue today despite stricter rules and oversight? No system is perfect so I’m sure it happens occasionally. Although considering how much trouble I’ve had getting an inpatient bed for an actively suicidal patient who desperately wants help I can’t believe it happens very often. Are there people whose mental illness renders them too dangerous to allow them to wander around with the rest of us? Absolutely.

I’d have my colleagues handle my other appointments for the rest of the day (if possible) or cancel them (alt if possible) and try to stay in conversation with her as long as she was willing to keep talking. I’d ask hypothetical questions about facilities that let people surrender their babies temporarily if they find that they are overwhelmed. I’d ask hypothetical questions about people who had had children because it was expected of them or for alternative reasons other than wanting a child and then came to regret it, and yet others about people who thought they wanted children but found the reality surprisingly unpleasant. I’d try to get her to talk and open whatever can of worms was involved in her feelings about her baby. I’d ask if she’d like to grab an airline ticket and go somewhere at random and just leave her current life.

If none of these seemed to connect, I’d probe into whether she experienced feelings of limitless power and an urge to do things to the person she had power over just to see what it was like; and if so whether there had been times in her own life when she had experienced or observed that kind of drastic power-over scenario and how it made her feel at the time and how it makes her feel now to think about it.

How about you? Assume for the moment that you do not have the option of holding her, at least not until she actually does something violent or makes a direct physical threat of an arrest-worthy nature.

Question: if someone threatens to do serious violence or murder to another person, and there are no mental health issues involved, it’s just someone threatening to kill another person, isn’t that in and of itself against the law? NOTE: I am not an attorney and I am not claiming that such is the case or is the case in all jurisdictions, etc.

So the 1980’s - you don’t think that things MIGHT have changed in the 25 to 30 years since this happened?

I work in an institution, and ours is NOTHING like what you recount. We have 72 hour holds, which ALWAYS go to court if the client is to stay longer (14 days, 90 days, 180 day holds. And we NEVER jump straight to 180 days from a 72 hour hold). There is a court appointed lawyer. Client’s have the right to refuse meds before court. And as to her story about walking around to frustrate the watchers - hell, we’d just post someone at the corner to watch her, and let here wear herself out. If she required someone to be within arm’s reach the entire time, then perhaps she was lying to YOU about something. You think we LIKE that kind of duty? For every person who’s put on that kind of observation, it means someone else ISN’T being watched as closely, or that more staff would have to be called in, to cover the daily duties of the unit. You think we want to waste out scarce resources that way, just to be pricks?

I don’t think that Personnel should have given your name out, since they’re quite secretive about everything else related to this. Fie on 'em.

In California, yes.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=422-422.4

Doesn’t seem like that applies, if the person to be killed isn’t told about it (no communication, no threat) and doesn’t know he’s in danger and is not “thereby placed in a state of reasonably sustained fear for his/her safety or for the safety of his/her immediate family.”

Sure, if a man is yelling about killing his father and swinging a knife around on the front lawn, that’s a clearly communicated, specific threat that puts someone in a state of fear. But that doesn’t cover the quieter, less specific cases, where a person is hearing a voice telling him to push someone - anyone - onto the train tracks, or she’s getting overwhelming urges to drown her baby in the bathtub that she’s not telling her husband about. And those are the ones I’m most concerned about. You can always suggest to dad that he might want to take a vacation while his son sorts things out. You can’t tell everyone who takes the train that they may be in danger. If we adopt the “wait until they do something illegal” stance, we wouldn’t be able to do anything to protect the baby, not even warn his father.

Yeah, I have seen Minority Report. I don’t want us to turn into the bureau of pre-crime. But when a person is explicit in their desire to harm others, but their reasons don’t make sense, their understanding of the consequences is tenuous at best, and they’re not sure they can prevent themselves from doing the actions even though they don’t really want to do them, then I think we have an ethical duty to protect them from the flawed way in which their brain is working at the moment. Unfortunately, psych drugs and other psych interventions take some time to work, even when we hit on the right one the first time (which hardly ever happens) and so the only way we can really protect them until the medications start working is to know where they are and what they’re doing at all times.

But I do think that the focus needs to be on the impaired thought, not just the threat. Not everyone who threatens the life of another is mentally ill, and some threats should be met with a police call, not a mental health one. If a man said to me, “I’m going to shoot my neighbor tonight, with a gun I bought yesterday, and I’m probably going to get caught and spend the rest of my life in prison. I’m going to miss my daughter’s wedding, I’ll never hug my grandkids, and I’ll have a high probably of being attacked or killed in prison. But that gangbanger has killed the last of my boys, and I cannot sit by and do nothing while the police are issuing parking tickets instead of investigating him.” Then I might not be so concerned with intervening on a mental health basis. His brain seems to be working okay. He has a clearly articulated reason for what he’s doing, he knows what the consequences will be…I don’t see impaired thinking there.

Of course, I have a moral duty to warn the neighbor that his life is in danger, but that’s another matter entirely.

No, I’m the one with the option to do a hold. I’m asking **you **what you think are viable alternatives in this scenario. So far, all I get is ‘talk’. And if she’s at the same place at the end of your ‘talk’? Or if she says, 'yes, an airlilne ticket would be nice?". Do you place her children? What comes after ‘talk’?

I’m assuming that if there are no mental health issues, they’ll be out on bail until the trial. And here’s hoping there’s enough evidence to convict.

Hunter, time’s up. She’s tired of “talk” and attempts to “connect”. She’s agitated and she’s leaving!

Hunter, it’s been almost exactly 24 hours since I posted my hypothetical to you.
She left. This is what can happen. Maybe you should have held her.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/children-found-dead-california-hotel-room-20258928

No, better that I didn’t. I didn’t know she was going to do that. Statistics seem to indicate that people like you & me do a dismal job of predicting dangerousness. I choose to err on the side of not coercing people.

It’s sad but that’s what you get when you opt for people’s freedom over people’s safety from themselves.

And I do.

One aspect of infertility treatment that isn’t discussed is people who go through it, and it works, and they regret it. I can’t find a link, but I read somewhere about a clinic that screened their clients very diligently, and part of the process included a Baby Think It Over. They were quite surprised at how many of the BTIOs were returned the next day, and they never heard from these clients again. :eek:

Over the years, I’ve ever had two people (one man, one woman) tell me that they wouldn’t mind if their kids died! In the case of the man, I just didn’t say anything, but as for the woman, I asked her if she had ever considered divorcing her husband and giving him custody. She said that she had, but she loved him and didn’t want to leave him. AFAIK, both couples are still married; all their children are now young adults. Oh, and I’m sure the kids have NO idea how their parents really feel about them. :rolleyes: As for the man, I always got the impression that the only reason they were married was because he didn’t want to have to pay someone to clean up after him, etc. (never mind that once the kids arrive, that’s an awfully expensive maid) and she got married because she was that desperate to have children.

I could could tell she was a greatly *increased *risk, I tried to make the hypothetical unambiguous. Of course, it was only an increased risk, no-one can tell for sure. Let’s say it was 50-50 nothing would happen. Even 80-20.
Two dead kids, “too bad, so sad”?
If the odds are 80-20 I’ll do the hold, and maybe out of the 100 people I put on a hold, 15 will go to their graves swearing there wasn’t anything wrong with them, and “Patient’s Rights!”, and so forth.
Maybe only 1 kid actually lived that would have died if I’d decided not to hold the 100.
Only 1 kid.

I’ll take those odds, and maybe some people will have their lives disrupted by a 3-day hold. A lot of them will maybe be better off, even if they weren’t going to murder their children.
I assume there is some probability where you agree saving a child’s life might be worth it, or is it “Freedom!” all the way down?

snip.

So what about the kids’ freedom and rights? Seems like their right to live their lives in freedom and safety is severely compromised, here.

You know, it’s possible to take the kids away from the parent without locking the parent up.