Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 In a message dated 2/4/01 3:11:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, perkinstommy@... writes: << > certainly agree thhast mental illness has a physiological origin; studies > have shown that without doubt. Studies have shown no such thing at all. Studies have shown that neuropathology exists. Studies have not shown that mental illness exists. If evidence exists that there is pathology in the brain, then why is this not considered a brain disease rather mental disease. Can you provide me with a link that shows what the mind looks like on X-ray, . Tommy Tommy, the more flagrant, drastic problems such as psychosis are considered brain disorders. Hence pharmacology. Mood disorders, too, may be termed brain disorders--or lack of levels of neurotransmitters in the brain that affect mood. No problem. It isn't that people want to make up a system to term you a nut psychologically. The brain is everything and we are still discovering so much that is neurophysiopsychological. It has nothing to do with your CHARACTER. Piper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 In a message dated 2/4/01 3:11:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, perkinstommy@... writes: << > certainly agree thhast mental illness has a physiological origin; studies > have shown that without doubt. Studies have shown no such thing at all. Studies have shown that neuropathology exists. Studies have not shown that mental illness exists. If evidence exists that there is pathology in the brain, then why is this not considered a brain disease rather mental disease. Can you provide me with a link that shows what the mind looks like on X-ray, . Tommy Tommy, the more flagrant, drastic problems such as psychosis are considered brain disorders. Hence pharmacology. Mood disorders, too, may be termed brain disorders--or lack of levels of neurotransmitters in the brain that affect mood. No problem. It isn't that people want to make up a system to term you a nut psychologically. The brain is everything and we are still discovering so much that is neurophysiopsychological. It has nothing to do with your CHARACTER. Piper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 In a message dated 2/5/01 6:27:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@... writes: << Under Reagan, thousands of people were turned out of mental hospitals because Reagan decided we couldn't keep people against their will, and we couldn't medicate people against their will. Many of these people can be found today on streetcorners, arguing with mailboxes, and in jails. I have come into contact with a number of them. They are not forced to take their meds, and society suffers as a result. >> Dixie~~ the political considerations were of course money, not the rights of those with mental disorders. Patient's rights have to be protected at all times and I think a fair job is done in the courts re: not forcing patients to take meds. There is a legal procedure for doing this and all the steps need to be gone through to make sure someone isn't familialy or politically being coereced to take meds. Reagan didn't give a shit for the poor or mentally ill and didn't want to spend any money on them. That is why they ended up on the streets and ended up costing everyone more money in the end and increased their suffering. Piper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 >Here is a link I posted in the 12sf links (now Bookmarks) a while >back. Eventually I'll post more links for you. Your fantasies seem >to be well entrenched, so I won't spend much time with my own words. > >http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/frame_docs/drugs_idx.html This link didn't work for me. It wasn't a valid link. Under Reagan, thousands of people were turned out of mental hospitals because Reagan decided we couldn't keep people against their will, and we couldn't medicate people against their will. Many of these people can be found today on streetcorners, arguing with mailboxes, and in jails. I have come into contact with a number of them. They are not forced to take their meds, and society suffers as a result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 >Here is a link I posted in the 12sf links (now Bookmarks) a while >back. Eventually I'll post more links for you. Your fantasies seem >to be well entrenched, so I won't spend much time with my own words. > >http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/frame_docs/drugs_idx.html This link didn't work for me. It wasn't a valid link. Under Reagan, thousands of people were turned out of mental hospitals because Reagan decided we couldn't keep people against their will, and we couldn't medicate people against their will. Many of these people can be found today on streetcorners, arguing with mailboxes, and in jails. I have come into contact with a number of them. They are not forced to take their meds, and society suffers as a result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 > > >Here is a link I posted in the 12sf links (now Bookmarks) a while > >back. Eventually I'll post more links for you. Your fantasies seem > >to be well entrenched, so I won't spend much time with my own words. > > > >http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/frame_docs/drugs_idx.html > > This link didn't work for me. It wasn't a valid link. It still works for me. Click on Bookmarks to the left of your screen if you are reading messages from the egroups/yahoo site. Then click on Mental Patients' Rights > Under Reagan, thousands of people were turned out of mental hospitals > because Reagan decided we couldn't keep people against their will, and we > couldn't medicate people against their will. Many of these people can be > found today on streetcorners, arguing with mailboxes, and in jails. I have > come into contact with a number of them. They are not forced to take their > meds, and society suffers as a result. Arguing with mailboxs???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well gee, Dixie, that's a whole different story when we get into such violent crimes as arguing with mailboxes. Next time you see someone argue with a mailbox, contact me right away and I'll round up a posse and bring the poison. Society suffers as a result of those who advocate poisoning people who argue with mailboxes gaining in their advocations. Afterall, Dixie, are not those who argue with mailboxes part of society? Are they not people? And if they are not people, then what are they? Tommy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 > > >Here is a link I posted in the 12sf links (now Bookmarks) a while > >back. Eventually I'll post more links for you. Your fantasies seem > >to be well entrenched, so I won't spend much time with my own words. > > > >http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/frame_docs/drugs_idx.html > > This link didn't work for me. It wasn't a valid link. It still works for me. Click on Bookmarks to the left of your screen if you are reading messages from the egroups/yahoo site. Then click on Mental Patients' Rights > Under Reagan, thousands of people were turned out of mental hospitals > because Reagan decided we couldn't keep people against their will, and we > couldn't medicate people against their will. Many of these people can be > found today on streetcorners, arguing with mailboxes, and in jails. I have > come into contact with a number of them. They are not forced to take their > meds, and society suffers as a result. Arguing with mailboxs???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well gee, Dixie, that's a whole different story when we get into such violent crimes as arguing with mailboxes. Next time you see someone argue with a mailbox, contact me right away and I'll round up a posse and bring the poison. Society suffers as a result of those who advocate poisoning people who argue with mailboxes gaining in their advocations. Afterall, Dixie, are not those who argue with mailboxes part of society? Are they not people? And if they are not people, then what are they? Tommy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 >Arguing with mailboxs???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well gee, Dixie, that's >a whole different story when we get into such violent crimes as >arguing with mailboxes. Next time you see someone argue with a >mailbox, contact me right away and I'll round up a posse and bring the >poison. And they have also committed violent crimes. They cannot take care of themselves, they are a drain on society, they steal, they lie to con people out of money, etc. What is more humane--to essentially force someone to live on the streets, because they are unable to take care of themselves, or to medicate them so that they are able to attend to their basic needs? And whose life are you willing to lose to lock one of these people up? Yours? Your wife/girlfriends? Who are you willing to have raped? Who are you willing to have attacked? What are you going to say to the store clerk who has to deal with these people? What do you tell the restaurant owner who takes pity and gives them some food, only to have the person scare off customers or refuse to leave the restaurant? >Society suffers as a result of those who advocate poisoning people who >argue with mailboxes gaining in their advocations. Afterall, Dixie, >are not those who argue with mailboxes part of society? Please explain how medicating is 'poisoning.' Breathing LA air (now, Houston air) is more poisonous. And you are ignoring the true crimes that mentally ill people can and do commit. Remember Resendiz (aka Resendiz-)? He's killed at least 15 people, quite likely more. He's been diagnosed as schizo. So you think it's okay for someone like that to be on the streets? how many people do they need to kill before you think they should be locked up? Would it not have been better for R-R to take his meds, if that would have stabilized him? (I admit that it's not clear that he would not have been murderous if he had been on meds--we'll never know.) It's not okay to force someone like that to take meds, but it *is* okay to let them travel the country, brutally killing people whenever they get the urge? What about my tenant? The more I know him, the more I suspect he's commited a crime, quite likely a violent one. But the police tell me they won't do anything (not even run a check on him, to see if he's wanted somewhere) unless he commits another violent crime. He's already been threatening to my mother. Does he have to kill her, or kill his bank teller he's been stalking, before something's done about him? What about the guy who killed Lennon? He was mentally ill. And the man who shot President Reagan so Jodie would fall in love with him. He was mentally ill. Are you saying that these people are harmless, that it was no big deal for Lennon to lose his life, for Baker to be forever paralyzed, and for Reagan to be shot? Women are stalked by mentally ill people who are convinced that said women are in love with them. A friend of mine occasionally bought lunch at a take-out place. This man who worked there found out her name and where she worked (she never told him, though she may have told him her first name when he asked.) He wrote her these long letters saying they were meant to be together and getting mad at her for leaving him. She didn't know the guy! He had this whole imaginary scenario made up and got very angry at her because she refused to comply. She had to file a complaint against him with the police, and even then she didn't feel safe, because of course the police aren't going to do anything until he hurts or kills someone. Are they not >people? And if they are not people, then what are they? i never said they're not people. They are mentally ill people who, generally speaking, cannot fend for themselves without medication. Which means others have to fend for them--and then fend them off. Maybe you've never had to deal with a mentally ill person. I have. They take an enormous amount of time and resources, and once you help them out, they will never leave you alone. They are very dependent on other people. Babies are people too--are you suggesting we abandon them on the street to fend for themselves? When a young child says he doesn't want to take the yucky medicine that will help him get better, do you say, " Okay dear " and walk away? When someone is dependent on others and cannot fend for themselves, cannot function, cannot perform basic skills, it is incumbent on others to help them out. We do this for our infants, our children, and our old people. Why do we not do this for those adults who cannot function? And for those who present a risk to others, how many lives must be lost, how many people must be paralyzed, how many women must live in fear of being attacked by some crazy person who has a crush on them, before a person is locked away or medicated? Who are you going to tell that they have to lose their life because a schizo person has the right to live on the streets and not take medication? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 >Arguing with mailboxs???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well gee, Dixie, that's >a whole different story when we get into such violent crimes as >arguing with mailboxes. Next time you see someone argue with a >mailbox, contact me right away and I'll round up a posse and bring the >poison. And they have also committed violent crimes. They cannot take care of themselves, they are a drain on society, they steal, they lie to con people out of money, etc. What is more humane--to essentially force someone to live on the streets, because they are unable to take care of themselves, or to medicate them so that they are able to attend to their basic needs? And whose life are you willing to lose to lock one of these people up? Yours? Your wife/girlfriends? Who are you willing to have raped? Who are you willing to have attacked? What are you going to say to the store clerk who has to deal with these people? What do you tell the restaurant owner who takes pity and gives them some food, only to have the person scare off customers or refuse to leave the restaurant? >Society suffers as a result of those who advocate poisoning people who >argue with mailboxes gaining in their advocations. Afterall, Dixie, >are not those who argue with mailboxes part of society? Please explain how medicating is 'poisoning.' Breathing LA air (now, Houston air) is more poisonous. And you are ignoring the true crimes that mentally ill people can and do commit. Remember Resendiz (aka Resendiz-)? He's killed at least 15 people, quite likely more. He's been diagnosed as schizo. So you think it's okay for someone like that to be on the streets? how many people do they need to kill before you think they should be locked up? Would it not have been better for R-R to take his meds, if that would have stabilized him? (I admit that it's not clear that he would not have been murderous if he had been on meds--we'll never know.) It's not okay to force someone like that to take meds, but it *is* okay to let them travel the country, brutally killing people whenever they get the urge? What about my tenant? The more I know him, the more I suspect he's commited a crime, quite likely a violent one. But the police tell me they won't do anything (not even run a check on him, to see if he's wanted somewhere) unless he commits another violent crime. He's already been threatening to my mother. Does he have to kill her, or kill his bank teller he's been stalking, before something's done about him? What about the guy who killed Lennon? He was mentally ill. And the man who shot President Reagan so Jodie would fall in love with him. He was mentally ill. Are you saying that these people are harmless, that it was no big deal for Lennon to lose his life, for Baker to be forever paralyzed, and for Reagan to be shot? Women are stalked by mentally ill people who are convinced that said women are in love with them. A friend of mine occasionally bought lunch at a take-out place. This man who worked there found out her name and where she worked (she never told him, though she may have told him her first name when he asked.) He wrote her these long letters saying they were meant to be together and getting mad at her for leaving him. She didn't know the guy! He had this whole imaginary scenario made up and got very angry at her because she refused to comply. She had to file a complaint against him with the police, and even then she didn't feel safe, because of course the police aren't going to do anything until he hurts or kills someone. Are they not >people? And if they are not people, then what are they? i never said they're not people. They are mentally ill people who, generally speaking, cannot fend for themselves without medication. Which means others have to fend for them--and then fend them off. Maybe you've never had to deal with a mentally ill person. I have. They take an enormous amount of time and resources, and once you help them out, they will never leave you alone. They are very dependent on other people. Babies are people too--are you suggesting we abandon them on the street to fend for themselves? When a young child says he doesn't want to take the yucky medicine that will help him get better, do you say, " Okay dear " and walk away? When someone is dependent on others and cannot fend for themselves, cannot function, cannot perform basic skills, it is incumbent on others to help them out. We do this for our infants, our children, and our old people. Why do we not do this for those adults who cannot function? And for those who present a risk to others, how many lives must be lost, how many people must be paralyzed, how many women must live in fear of being attacked by some crazy person who has a crush on them, before a person is locked away or medicated? Who are you going to tell that they have to lose their life because a schizo person has the right to live on the streets and not take medication? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 >Arguing with mailboxs???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well gee, Dixie, that's >a whole different story when we get into such violent crimes as >arguing with mailboxes. Next time you see someone argue with a >mailbox, contact me right away and I'll round up a posse and bring the >poison. And they have also committed violent crimes. They cannot take care of themselves, they are a drain on society, they steal, they lie to con people out of money, etc. What is more humane--to essentially force someone to live on the streets, because they are unable to take care of themselves, or to medicate them so that they are able to attend to their basic needs? And whose life are you willing to lose to lock one of these people up? Yours? Your wife/girlfriends? Who are you willing to have raped? Who are you willing to have attacked? What are you going to say to the store clerk who has to deal with these people? What do you tell the restaurant owner who takes pity and gives them some food, only to have the person scare off customers or refuse to leave the restaurant? >Society suffers as a result of those who advocate poisoning people who >argue with mailboxes gaining in their advocations. Afterall, Dixie, >are not those who argue with mailboxes part of society? Please explain how medicating is 'poisoning.' Breathing LA air (now, Houston air) is more poisonous. And you are ignoring the true crimes that mentally ill people can and do commit. Remember Resendiz (aka Resendiz-)? He's killed at least 15 people, quite likely more. He's been diagnosed as schizo. So you think it's okay for someone like that to be on the streets? how many people do they need to kill before you think they should be locked up? Would it not have been better for R-R to take his meds, if that would have stabilized him? (I admit that it's not clear that he would not have been murderous if he had been on meds--we'll never know.) It's not okay to force someone like that to take meds, but it *is* okay to let them travel the country, brutally killing people whenever they get the urge? What about my tenant? The more I know him, the more I suspect he's commited a crime, quite likely a violent one. But the police tell me they won't do anything (not even run a check on him, to see if he's wanted somewhere) unless he commits another violent crime. He's already been threatening to my mother. Does he have to kill her, or kill his bank teller he's been stalking, before something's done about him? What about the guy who killed Lennon? He was mentally ill. And the man who shot President Reagan so Jodie would fall in love with him. He was mentally ill. Are you saying that these people are harmless, that it was no big deal for Lennon to lose his life, for Baker to be forever paralyzed, and for Reagan to be shot? Women are stalked by mentally ill people who are convinced that said women are in love with them. A friend of mine occasionally bought lunch at a take-out place. This man who worked there found out her name and where she worked (she never told him, though she may have told him her first name when he asked.) He wrote her these long letters saying they were meant to be together and getting mad at her for leaving him. She didn't know the guy! He had this whole imaginary scenario made up and got very angry at her because she refused to comply. She had to file a complaint against him with the police, and even then she didn't feel safe, because of course the police aren't going to do anything until he hurts or kills someone. Are they not >people? And if they are not people, then what are they? i never said they're not people. They are mentally ill people who, generally speaking, cannot fend for themselves without medication. Which means others have to fend for them--and then fend them off. Maybe you've never had to deal with a mentally ill person. I have. They take an enormous amount of time and resources, and once you help them out, they will never leave you alone. They are very dependent on other people. Babies are people too--are you suggesting we abandon them on the street to fend for themselves? When a young child says he doesn't want to take the yucky medicine that will help him get better, do you say, " Okay dear " and walk away? When someone is dependent on others and cannot fend for themselves, cannot function, cannot perform basic skills, it is incumbent on others to help them out. We do this for our infants, our children, and our old people. Why do we not do this for those adults who cannot function? And for those who present a risk to others, how many lives must be lost, how many people must be paralyzed, how many women must live in fear of being attacked by some crazy person who has a crush on them, before a person is locked away or medicated? Who are you going to tell that they have to lose their life because a schizo person has the right to live on the streets and not take medication? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 While it is true exposure to neuroleptics is a confound in many studies of schizophrenia, my understanding is that evidence of brain dysfunction has also been found in the small proportion of unmedicated schizophrenics. P. > Other efforts to prove a biological basis for so-called schizophrenia > have involved brain-scans of pairs of identical twins when only one > is a supposed schizophrenic. They do indeed show the so-called > schizophrenic has brain damage his identical twin lacks. The flaw in > these studies is the so-called schizophrenic has inevitably been > given brain-damaging drugs called neuroleptics as a so-called > treatment for his so-called schizophrenia. It is these brain- > damaging drugs, not so-called schizophrenia, that have caused the > brain damage. Anyone " treated " with these drugs will have such brain > damage. Damaging the brains of people eccentric, obnoxious, > imaginative, or mentally disabled enough to be called schizophrenic > with drugs (erroneously) believed to have antischizophrenic > properties is one of the saddest and most indefensible consequences > of today's widespread belief in the myth of schizophrenia.... > > U.S. TO USE PSYCHIATRIC PRISONS FOR OFFENDERS > In a landmark decision on June 23, 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court > ruled that states can lock up criminals in mental health > institutions, even after they have served their prison time. Although > the ruling is ostensibly aimed at sex offenders, the case sets an > enormous precedent affecting all who might find themselves the target > of the criminal justice system. > > The five to four decision upheld a Kansas statute that permits > the state to confine sex offenders in mental hospitals indefinitely, > even after they have finished serving their entire prison sentence, > and even if they are not mentally ill. The law's premise is that > society must be protected from dangerous sex offenders and locking > them up before they commit a crime is the best way to do it. Kansas > argued that if sex offenders do not fit the higher classification > of " mentally ill " , they still possess a " mental abnormality " and > a " personality disorder " and should be confined to a mental hospital. > > http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/articles/psych_hosp4offenders.htm > http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/frame_docs/rights_idx.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 Dixie, before I begin my response let me say that you and I are comming from two diametrically opposite perspectives on the issues of mental illness and liberty. I do not believe mental illness exists and I believe people should be free to do what ever they please as long as they do not infringe on the liberties of others. When they conduct such infringements they should be punished. Institutional psychiatry is a horror story and a scam. Treatment/rehabilitation of those who commit crimes is a horror story and a scam. It appears that you are living in a state of fear and you would like to lock up anyone who you " think " might harm you. > > >Arguing with mailboxs???????????!!!!!!!!!!!!! Well gee, Dixie, that's > >a whole different story when we get into such violent crimes as > >arguing with mailboxes. Next time you see someone argue with a > >mailbox, contact me right away and I'll round up a posse and bring the > >poison. > > And they have also committed violent crimes. They cannot take care of > themselves, they are a drain on society, they steal, they lie to con people > out of money, etc. What is more humane--to essentially force someone to > live on the streets, because they are unable to take care of themselves, or > to medicate them so that they are able to attend to their basic needs? And > whose life are you willing to lose to lock one of these people up? Yours? > Your wife/girlfriends? Who are you willing to have raped? Who are you > willing to have attacked? Now you have convinced me, Dixie. My girlfriend argues with mailboxes and I think your sorry tyrannical ass should be locked up and the key thrown away. If you think I am willing to have my beloved girlfriend attacked, and raped by a jailer and poisoner such as yourself then you have another thought comming, little miss NAMI. What are you going to say to the store clerk who > has to deal with these people? What do you tell the restaurant owner who > takes pity and gives them some food, only to have the person scare off > customers or refuse to leave the restaurant? I'd tell the clerk or owner to tell a disruptive person to leave and if they did not I would reccommend having them arrested for trespassing. > > >Society suffers as a result of those who advocate poisoning people who > >argue with mailboxes gaining in their advocations. Afterall, Dixie, > >are not those who argue with mailboxes part of society? > > Please explain how medicating is 'poisoning.' Breathing LA air (now, > Houston air) is more poisonous. Is that link still not working, Dixie. Have you read " Toxic Psychiatry " by Breggin. Have you done a search engine search on the dangers of psychiatric drugs. And you are ignoring the true crimes that > mentally ill people can and do commit. Remember Resendiz (aka > Resendiz-)? He's killed at least 15 people, quite likely more. He's > been diagnosed as schizo. So you think it's okay for someone like that to > be on the streets? how many people do they need to kill before you think > they should be locked up? Only one. Would it not have been better for R-R to take his > meds, if that would have stabilized him? (I admit that it's not clear that > he would not have been murderous if he had been on meds--we'll never > know.) It's not okay to force someone like that to take meds, but it *is* > okay to let them travel the country, brutally killing people whenever they > get the urge? Dixie, for you to even imply that I ever said it was OK to let someone kill someone is proof of how far gone you are in this discussion. > > What about my tenant? The more I know him, the more I suspect he's commited > a crime, quite likely a violent one. But the police tell me they won't do > anything (not even run a check on him, to see if he's wanted somewhere) > unless he commits another violent crime. He's already been threatening to > my mother. Does he have to kill her, or kill his bank teller he's been > stalking, before something's done about him? Communicating threats and stalking are crimes in North Carolina. I would hope that would be the case in Texas and have a gut feeling that it is. If what you say is true, then have him arrested. > > What about the guy who killed Lennon? He was mentally ill. And the man > who shot President Reagan so Jodie would fall in love with him. He > was mentally ill. Are you saying that these people are harmless, that it > was no big deal for Lennon to lose his life, for Baker to be > forever paralyzed, and for Reagan to be shot? Both of these men are incarcerated, hopefully forever. If I had it my way the one who shot Lennon would be six feet underground. BTW Hinkley was declared " innocent " by the dumb-ass Therapeutic State which you obviously wholeheartedly support. > > Women are stalked by mentally ill people who are convinced that said women > are in love with them. A friend of mine occasionally bought lunch at a > take-out place. This man who worked there found out her name and where she > worked (she never told him, though she may have told him her first name > when he asked.) He wrote her these long letters saying they were meant to > be together and getting mad at her for leaving him. She didn't know the > guy! He had this whole imaginary scenario made up and got very angry at > her because she refused to comply. She had to file a complaint against him > with the police, and even then she didn't feel safe, because of course the > police aren't going to do anything until he hurts or kills someone. There are such things as stalking laws, restraining orders and jails. There is no such thing as mental illness. > > Are they not > >people? And if they are not people, then what are they? > > i never said they're not people. They are mentally ill people who, > generally speaking, cannot fend for themselves without medication. Which > means others have to fend for them--and then fend them off. > > Maybe you've never had to deal with a mentally ill person. No, I have never had to deal with a mentally ill person, because as I said, there is no such thing. I have dated a few witches though. I have. They > take an enormous amount of time and resources, and once you help them out, > they will never leave you alone. They are very dependent on other people. > Babies are people too--are you suggesting we abandon them on the street to > fend for themselves? When a young child says he doesn't want to take the > yucky medicine that will help him get better, do you say, " Okay dear " and > walk away? > > When someone is dependent on others and cannot fend for themselves, cannot > function, cannot perform basic skills, it is incumbent on others to help > them out. We do this for our infants, our children, and our old people. Why > do we not do this for those adults who cannot function? I think we should care for people who cannot care for themselves, but I don't think psychiatry should determine who these people are. Nor do I think we should burden the poor souls with stigmatizing pseudo-medical labels. > > And for those who present a risk to others, how many lives must be lost, > how many people must be paralyzed, how many women must live in fear of > being attacked by some crazy person who has a crush on them, before a > person is locked away or medicated? Who are you going to tell that they > have to lose their life because a schizo person has the right to live on > the streets and not take medication? Can you define " present a risk " . Tommy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 I must say this is a difficult topic. I really do see some points on both sides. On the one hand I certainly agree with Tommy and others who point out the dangers of neuroleptics, and I can't support forcing people to take such medications on the ghastly grounds that the State has more right to their bodies than they do. But on the other hand I can't agree that there is really no such thing as abnormality of thought and perception i.e. " mental illness " -- there are definitely people who hallucinate, and who are too involved with and terrified of their inner worlds to have energy left over for taking care of themselves and being productive members of society. I had a cousin who was impaired in this way. He was a sweet guy, would never hurt anyone or anything, and wanted to have a job and live independently -- but he couldn't keep a job for more than a month or two because he would get panic attacks (which frequently involved auditory hallucinations which frightened the wits out of him) and he would lose track of what time it was, or even sometimes what day it was, and he would get fired for absence or lateness to work. He eventually tried neuroleptics, which lessened the panics, but made him even less productive -- and he did eventually develop tardive dyskinesia (facial twitches) from them. On medication or off, he was not too functional. Eventually he just started collecting SSI checks, and spent the days riding around on trains or buses. He had a fatal heart attack on such an aimless bus trip a few years ago. Most " mentally ill " or " impaired " (whatever) people are not violent, but some are. While it is of course wrong to lock someone up based on an unjustifiable fear that they MAY be violent in the future, one must also sympathize with the families of people who have been attacked by persons who have histories of escalatingly irrational behavior, and who have demonstrated violent tendencies. The " mentally ill " man who pushed Kendra Webdale to her death in front of a New York City subway train had told psychiatrists that he occasionally got urges to push, shove, and kick total strangers, and he had been thrown out of several stores for pushing patrons into the shelves (though no one had been seriously injured). The psychiatrists had all recommended medication and ongoing therapy for the man, but he chose not to comply. It would have been wrong from a civil liberties standpoint to lock up this man for any length of time -- pushing someone in a bookstore doesn't merit much jail time -- and also wrong to force neuroleptics down his throat -- but left to his own devices, he got one of his psychotic urges to shove a stranger and it just happened to be at the edge of a subway platform. In the furor after Webdale's death, the New York legislature passed " Kendra's Law " , which mandates incarceration for anyone diagnosed as " paranoid schizophrenic " who refuses to take medication. This law gives me the willies -- Take This Drug Or You'll Never See The Light Of Day!! -- but as I say, I can empathize with the Webdale family. There are no easy answers, but something should have been able to prevent that tragedy. ~Rita > > > > When someone is dependent on others and cannot fend for themselves, > cannot > > function, cannot perform basic skills, it is incumbent on others to > help > > them out. We do this for our infants, our children, and our old > people. Why > > do we not do this for those adults who cannot function? > > > I think we should care for people who cannot care for themselves, but > I don't think psychiatry should determine who these people are. Nor > do I think we should burden the poor souls with stigmatizing > pseudo-medical labels. > > > > > > And for those who present a risk to others, how many lives must be > lost, > > how many people must be paralyzed, how many women must live in fear > of > > being attacked by some crazy person who has a crush on them, before > a > > person is locked away or medicated? Who are you going to tell that > they > > have to lose their life because a schizo person has the right to > live on > > the streets and not take medication? > > Can you define " present a risk " . > > Tommy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 I must say this is a difficult topic. I really do see some points on both sides. On the one hand I certainly agree with Tommy and others who point out the dangers of neuroleptics, and I can't support forcing people to take such medications on the ghastly grounds that the State has more right to their bodies than they do. But on the other hand I can't agree that there is really no such thing as abnormality of thought and perception i.e. " mental illness " -- there are definitely people who hallucinate, and who are too involved with and terrified of their inner worlds to have energy left over for taking care of themselves and being productive members of society. I had a cousin who was impaired in this way. He was a sweet guy, would never hurt anyone or anything, and wanted to have a job and live independently -- but he couldn't keep a job for more than a month or two because he would get panic attacks (which frequently involved auditory hallucinations which frightened the wits out of him) and he would lose track of what time it was, or even sometimes what day it was, and he would get fired for absence or lateness to work. He eventually tried neuroleptics, which lessened the panics, but made him even less productive -- and he did eventually develop tardive dyskinesia (facial twitches) from them. On medication or off, he was not too functional. Eventually he just started collecting SSI checks, and spent the days riding around on trains or buses. He had a fatal heart attack on such an aimless bus trip a few years ago. Most " mentally ill " or " impaired " (whatever) people are not violent, but some are. While it is of course wrong to lock someone up based on an unjustifiable fear that they MAY be violent in the future, one must also sympathize with the families of people who have been attacked by persons who have histories of escalatingly irrational behavior, and who have demonstrated violent tendencies. The " mentally ill " man who pushed Kendra Webdale to her death in front of a New York City subway train had told psychiatrists that he occasionally got urges to push, shove, and kick total strangers, and he had been thrown out of several stores for pushing patrons into the shelves (though no one had been seriously injured). The psychiatrists had all recommended medication and ongoing therapy for the man, but he chose not to comply. It would have been wrong from a civil liberties standpoint to lock up this man for any length of time -- pushing someone in a bookstore doesn't merit much jail time -- and also wrong to force neuroleptics down his throat -- but left to his own devices, he got one of his psychotic urges to shove a stranger and it just happened to be at the edge of a subway platform. In the furor after Webdale's death, the New York legislature passed " Kendra's Law " , which mandates incarceration for anyone diagnosed as " paranoid schizophrenic " who refuses to take medication. This law gives me the willies -- Take This Drug Or You'll Never See The Light Of Day!! -- but as I say, I can empathize with the Webdale family. There are no easy answers, but something should have been able to prevent that tragedy. ~Rita > > > > When someone is dependent on others and cannot fend for themselves, > cannot > > function, cannot perform basic skills, it is incumbent on others to > help > > them out. We do this for our infants, our children, and our old > people. Why > > do we not do this for those adults who cannot function? > > > I think we should care for people who cannot care for themselves, but > I don't think psychiatry should determine who these people are. Nor > do I think we should burden the poor souls with stigmatizing > pseudo-medical labels. > > > > > > And for those who present a risk to others, how many lives must be > lost, > > how many people must be paralyzed, how many women must live in fear > of > > being attacked by some crazy person who has a crush on them, before > a > > person is locked away or medicated? Who are you going to tell that > they > > have to lose their life because a schizo person has the right to > live on > > the streets and not take medication? > > Can you define " present a risk " . > > Tommy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 >>Currently in this country, a person cannot be forced to >>take medication. Consequently, we have a lot of mentally ill people >>commiting crimes who would likely not commit those crimes if they >were >on >>meds. > >If by this country you mean the US, this is absurd. Coercion is >commonplace, both inpatient and outpatient. --- Um, wrong. No, no one can be made to take medications. People can be committed to psychiatric institutions, but they cannot be forced to take medications against their will. And no outpatient can be forced to take medications. --- No, YOU'RE wrong again, Dixie: P & A News Protection & Advocacy Systems News Vol. 4 Issue 5 Winter1999 Involuntary Outpatient Commitment: If It Isn't Voluntary.... Maybe It Isn't Treatment by Elaine Sutton Mbionwu Director of Management Services Imagine that you are sitting home watching television with your family. You hear a knock at your door and think it is odd that someone is knocking this late at night. You answer the door and it's a police officer coming to take you to a psychiatric hospital. You have not hurt anyone. Your family is safe and happy. The only " crime " you committed was that you did not want to continue to live with the side effects of Lithium and you chose to stop taking the drug prescribed for your bi-polar disorder. Does this sound incredulous? Hardly. Situations like this are happening nationwide and they are happening every day. Not only that, these numbers will continue to rise as states increase efforts to force people with mental illness to be committed to institutions against their will and/or force them to adhere to a prescribed treatment plan. Several high-profile media cases about crimes committed by people with mental illness are feeding into a stereotype that they are dangerous to the community. Actually, according to a recent study, the prevalence of violence among people discharged from a psychiatric hospital who do not have symptoms of substance abuse is about the same as the prevalence of violence among other people living in their communities who do not have symptoms of substance abuse.(1) People with mental illness who live in the community are capable of making informed treatment decisions. In 1998, officials at Bellevue, a psychiatric hospital in New York, traced people with mental illness who were being released into the community after being at the institution. (2) There were two groups in this study: one group consisted of people who were given a court order to receive a specific treatment plan in their community, called outpatient commitment. If this treatment plan was not followed, the police could enforce that person to adhere to the plan. The other group did not have a court order and could choose their own treatment. The study found that, " there is no indication that, overall, the court order for outpatient commitment produces better outcomes for clients in the community than enhanced services alone. " Despite this research, more than 35 states currently have laws which permit the government to order individuals with mental illness to comply with forced psychiatric treatment while residing in the community. These court orders are known as " Involuntary Outpatient Commitment " (IOC). http://www.stopabuse.net/involuntarynottreatment.htm http://www.protectionandadvocacy.com/PANewsWin99.htm Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 >>Currently in this country, a person cannot be forced to >>take medication. Consequently, we have a lot of mentally ill people >>commiting crimes who would likely not commit those crimes if they >were >on >>meds. > >If by this country you mean the US, this is absurd. Coercion is >commonplace, both inpatient and outpatient. --- Um, wrong. No, no one can be made to take medications. People can be committed to psychiatric institutions, but they cannot be forced to take medications against their will. And no outpatient can be forced to take medications. --- No, YOU'RE wrong again, Dixie: P & A News Protection & Advocacy Systems News Vol. 4 Issue 5 Winter1999 Involuntary Outpatient Commitment: If It Isn't Voluntary.... Maybe It Isn't Treatment by Elaine Sutton Mbionwu Director of Management Services Imagine that you are sitting home watching television with your family. You hear a knock at your door and think it is odd that someone is knocking this late at night. You answer the door and it's a police officer coming to take you to a psychiatric hospital. You have not hurt anyone. Your family is safe and happy. The only " crime " you committed was that you did not want to continue to live with the side effects of Lithium and you chose to stop taking the drug prescribed for your bi-polar disorder. Does this sound incredulous? Hardly. Situations like this are happening nationwide and they are happening every day. Not only that, these numbers will continue to rise as states increase efforts to force people with mental illness to be committed to institutions against their will and/or force them to adhere to a prescribed treatment plan. Several high-profile media cases about crimes committed by people with mental illness are feeding into a stereotype that they are dangerous to the community. Actually, according to a recent study, the prevalence of violence among people discharged from a psychiatric hospital who do not have symptoms of substance abuse is about the same as the prevalence of violence among other people living in their communities who do not have symptoms of substance abuse.(1) People with mental illness who live in the community are capable of making informed treatment decisions. In 1998, officials at Bellevue, a psychiatric hospital in New York, traced people with mental illness who were being released into the community after being at the institution. (2) There were two groups in this study: one group consisted of people who were given a court order to receive a specific treatment plan in their community, called outpatient commitment. If this treatment plan was not followed, the police could enforce that person to adhere to the plan. The other group did not have a court order and could choose their own treatment. The study found that, " there is no indication that, overall, the court order for outpatient commitment produces better outcomes for clients in the community than enhanced services alone. " Despite this research, more than 35 states currently have laws which permit the government to order individuals with mental illness to comply with forced psychiatric treatment while residing in the community. These court orders are known as " Involuntary Outpatient Commitment " (IOC). http://www.stopabuse.net/involuntarynottreatment.htm http://www.protectionandadvocacy.com/PANewsWin99.htm Jim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 In a message dated 2/5/01 7:18:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@... writes: << Tommy, From reading your posts, I am beginning to think that you are indeed mentally ill, and are in denial of that fact, and thus not taking medications you should probably be taking. I am glad that we know each other only through email, and that I can always delete or kill file you, and don't have to put up with you on a daily, personal basis. >> Dixie~~ This is not really something that you can determine even if you had the so-called qualifications to do so in a profesional capacity. If you were a profesional, you would know that you cannot diagnose someone on this basis, in this setting, and that it is inappropriate. It also does a great disservice to Tommy. All you have are you personal reactions to Tommy. To judge him in this way is unjust. You do not really know him. Even as a friend I would shudder to think you would put someone in a category because you have strong negative reactions to what is being said. You are entitled to your feelings. I have discussed my strong advocacy for first amendment rights and you have the rights to any feelings you have about what Tommy says. Renouncing, him, as it were i believe is something else. Please re-think this. Piper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 In a message dated 2/5/01 7:18:01 PM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@... writes: << Tommy, From reading your posts, I am beginning to think that you are indeed mentally ill, and are in denial of that fact, and thus not taking medications you should probably be taking. I am glad that we know each other only through email, and that I can always delete or kill file you, and don't have to put up with you on a daily, personal basis. >> Dixie~~ This is not really something that you can determine even if you had the so-called qualifications to do so in a profesional capacity. If you were a profesional, you would know that you cannot diagnose someone on this basis, in this setting, and that it is inappropriate. It also does a great disservice to Tommy. All you have are you personal reactions to Tommy. To judge him in this way is unjust. You do not really know him. Even as a friend I would shudder to think you would put someone in a category because you have strong negative reactions to what is being said. You are entitled to your feelings. I have discussed my strong advocacy for first amendment rights and you have the rights to any feelings you have about what Tommy says. Renouncing, him, as it were i believe is something else. Please re-think this. Piper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 In a message dated 2/5/01 11:00:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@... writes: << On Mugshots right now is the story of a serial killer (brutally raped, tortured, mutilated, and killed a number of women, at least 5). Turns out that, guess what, he was a diagnosed schizophrenic who refused to take his medications, and he had a history of violence against women. When he had been on his medications, he was " normal " and not violent. When he wasn't on his medications, he was not only violent, but a serial rapist/murderer. Since no one could force him to take his medications, at least 5 women died cruel, brutal deaths before he was caught. Tommy may think that women are expendable in the quest to allow insane people to live drug-free, but I disagree. >> Dixie you are making generalizations and leaps from assumed categorizations of Tommy to your fears about serials rapists and killers. This has no connection to Tommy's belief in people being drug-free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 In a message dated 2/5/01 11:00:14 PM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@... writes: << On Mugshots right now is the story of a serial killer (brutally raped, tortured, mutilated, and killed a number of women, at least 5). Turns out that, guess what, he was a diagnosed schizophrenic who refused to take his medications, and he had a history of violence against women. When he had been on his medications, he was " normal " and not violent. When he wasn't on his medications, he was not only violent, but a serial rapist/murderer. Since no one could force him to take his medications, at least 5 women died cruel, brutal deaths before he was caught. Tommy may think that women are expendable in the quest to allow insane people to live drug-free, but I disagree. >> Dixie you are making generalizations and leaps from assumed categorizations of Tommy to your fears about serials rapists and killers. This has no connection to Tommy's belief in people being drug-free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 In a message dated 2/6/01 12:45:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@... writes: << (Some) violent schizophrenics kill people, primarily women, when they're not on anti-psychotic medication. These same schizos' violent impulses are reduced or eliminated when they do take their medication. Tommy is opposed to any kind of forced medication, even if the person if violent. If violent schizophrenics do not take their meds, some will commit murders. Many of them will commit multiple murders before they are caught and sent to prison. Ergo, if Tommy is against any forced meds of any type, even if some of those people will commit murders---if he believes the freedom to refuse medications trumps all other considerations, even those of the lives and safety of other people--how is it that " no one is going to believe Tommy thinks this way " ? I am only gathering my information for what Tommy thinks from what Tommy has posted on this list. BTW, as a civil libertarian, I am not gung ho on forced medication. However, as someone who has been victimized by the mentally ill, and someon who has been close to others who have been victimized by the mentally ill, I do think that society is justified in giving schizophrenics with violent tendencies a choice: institutionalization, or mandatory medication. Otherwise, legalize open carry of weapons--forget concealed carry. Carry them out in the open where you can get to them easily. Not that I think it's humane to shoot mentally ill people--but I'd rather do that than have them rape, torture and murder me. Dixie~ I have enjoyed much of your commentary on history and understanding of events from this viewpoint. I do not think that you have correct information about schizophrenics or about findings from psychology, social work , or psychiatry. Schizophrenics are for the most part not dangerous. Because you have had a traumatic experience with those not taking meds, I feel you are distorting information about those with mental disorders and what Tommy has been saying. Piper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 In a message dated 2/6/01 12:45:51 AM Pacific Standard Time, dixie@... writes: << (Some) violent schizophrenics kill people, primarily women, when they're not on anti-psychotic medication. These same schizos' violent impulses are reduced or eliminated when they do take their medication. Tommy is opposed to any kind of forced medication, even if the person if violent. If violent schizophrenics do not take their meds, some will commit murders. Many of them will commit multiple murders before they are caught and sent to prison. Ergo, if Tommy is against any forced meds of any type, even if some of those people will commit murders---if he believes the freedom to refuse medications trumps all other considerations, even those of the lives and safety of other people--how is it that " no one is going to believe Tommy thinks this way " ? I am only gathering my information for what Tommy thinks from what Tommy has posted on this list. BTW, as a civil libertarian, I am not gung ho on forced medication. However, as someone who has been victimized by the mentally ill, and someon who has been close to others who have been victimized by the mentally ill, I do think that society is justified in giving schizophrenics with violent tendencies a choice: institutionalization, or mandatory medication. Otherwise, legalize open carry of weapons--forget concealed carry. Carry them out in the open where you can get to them easily. Not that I think it's humane to shoot mentally ill people--but I'd rather do that than have them rape, torture and murder me. Dixie~ I have enjoyed much of your commentary on history and understanding of events from this viewpoint. I do not think that you have correct information about schizophrenics or about findings from psychology, social work , or psychiatry. Schizophrenics are for the most part not dangerous. Because you have had a traumatic experience with those not taking meds, I feel you are distorting information about those with mental disorders and what Tommy has been saying. Piper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 On Mugshots right now is the story of a serial killer (brutally raped, tortured, mutilated, and killed a number of women, at least 5). Turns out that, guess what, he was a diagnosed schizophrenic who refused to take his medications, and he had a history of violence against women. When he had been on his medications, he was " normal " and not violent. When he wasn't on his medications, he was not only violent, but a serial rapist/murderer. Since no one could force him to take his medications, at least 5 women died cruel, brutal deaths before he was caught. Tommy may think that women are expendable in the quest to allow insane people to live drug-free, but I disagree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 ----- Original Message ----- > Tommy, > From reading your posts, I am beginning to think that you are indeed > mentally ill, and are in denial of that fact... Two comments: (1) That's really rude. (2) Congratulations on becoming the first person I have ever killfiled in the entire 2 & 1/2 year history of this list. --wally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 5, 2001 Report Share Posted February 5, 2001 ----- Original Message ----- > Tommy, > From reading your posts, I am beginning to think that you are indeed > mentally ill, and are in denial of that fact... Two comments: (1) That's really rude. (2) Congratulations on becoming the first person I have ever killfiled in the entire 2 & 1/2 year history of this list. --wally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.