Mentally Ill

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
Random question, is it more compassionate to keep mentally ill people in hospitals or wards or to let them free to live their life even if that means on the streets?

(I ask the question because it gets brought up a lot locally as many of S.F.'s homeless are mentally ill and there's been a long time public debate about how best to address the situation.)
 
I agree with the Baker Act. As long as they are not a threat to themselves or others they should be free.

Of course some would say that choosing street life is a threat to themselves....
 
I asked this on Thursday and didn't get too many responses. Maybe it will garner further discussions after yesterday's horric events.
 
if you are deemed mentally ill then you need treatment.


would you allow a homelss person to lie in the street dying of some spreadable disease because they refused treatment?
 
evince said:
if you are deemed mentally ill then you need treatment.


would you allow a homelss person to lie in the street dying of some spreadable disease because they refused treatment?
Click to expand...

so what does needing treating mean in this context? should the state force them into a home (hospital, ward etc.) and force them to take treatment and not allow them back into society otherwise?
 
cawacko said:
Random question, is it more compassionate to keep mentally ill people in hospitals or wards or to let them free to live their life even if that means on the streets?

(I ask the question because it gets brought up a lot locally as many of S.F.'s homeless are mentally ill and there's been a long time public debate about how best to address the situation.)
Click to expand...

The big problem is that they can't be forced to take their medication and/or accept help.
When they become a danger to themselves or others; then attempts are made to stabilize them and once they become stable, they are released.
It becomes an endless cycle, until they kill somone or are killed by someone defending themself.
 
How do we know liberal doctors wouldn't say everyone who owns a gun is nuts as a way to grab all the guns?

That's how they'd disarm 'we the people' and clear the way for government tyranny.

There's nothing in the Second Amendment about mental illness!
 
cawacko said:
Random question, is it more compassionate to keep mentally ill people in hospitals or wards or to let them free to live their life even if that means on the streets?

(I ask the question because it gets brought up a lot locally as many of S.F.'s homeless are mentally ill and there's been a long time public debate about how best to address the situation.)
Click to expand...

Their being allowed to be 'free' has nothing to do with actual freedom and everything to do being cheap.
 
cawacko said:
Random question, is it more compassionate to keep mentally ill people in hospitals or wards or to let them free to live their life even if that means on the streets?

(I ask the question because it gets brought up a lot locally as many of S.F.'s homeless are mentally ill and there's been a long time public debate about how best to address the situation.)
Click to expand...
Define 'mentally ill'.
 
cawacko said:
Random question, is it more compassionate to keep mentally ill people in hospitals or wards or to let them free to live their life even if that means on the streets?

(I ask the question because it gets brought up a lot locally as many of S.F.'s homeless are mentally ill and there's been a long time public debate about how best to address the situation.)
Click to expand...

We should pass a law forcing every liberal to house at least one.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
The big problem is that they can't be forced to take their medication and/or accept help.
When they become a danger to themselves or others; then attempts are made to stabilize them and once they become stable, they are released.
It becomes an endless cycle, until they kill somone or are killed by someone defending themself.
Click to expand...

But saying that we should wait until they are a danger to someone else is like defining an imminent threat when going to war. Personally I don't care if they are a threat to themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top