mental illness

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

>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.

[Guest guest]

>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.

[Guest guest]

>

> >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

[Guest guest]

>

> >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

[Guest guest]

>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?

[Guest guest]

>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?

[Guest guest]

>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?

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

>>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

[Guest guest]

>>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

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

----- 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

[Guest guest]

----- 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