It is sadly still a common belief that those diagnosed with SZ are “a “menace to society." It may not be surprising given the stigma and poor treatment options available.
There’s a lively debate going on in the US based on a recent murder, allegedly committed by someone with SZ. I am curious how many on this site believe that laws should be stricter regarding compulsory treatment for those who exhibit potentially dangerous psychosis short of actually harming anyone? At the moment, without court orders, those exhibiting potentially violent psychosis in public are often jailed and in many cases not referred to treatment. Treatment (at least in the US) can be expensive, not covered by public funds, and not affordable since many people lack insurance. In the US, and I suspect in other countries given the current political mood, compulsory treatment may once again become a reality. I am curious how others feel about this?
I read about this, after my partner brought it to my attention. I watch the news very little as it wears on my own mental health .
being a sibling of someone with schizophrenia myself this really sits with me , when his sister asks him questions and he explains someone is controlling his body and he was on the way to the hospital to ask for help.
The system failed him multiple times as many of us here have experienced over and over .
I’m torn on involuntary treatment because each case is so individual , but I know I’ve wished and advocated for it when my own sibling has been in phychosis many times with no action being taken crisis situations occured , as have many here have experienced.
It’s time that real thought and is put into the laws and systems that are making it near impossible to get loved ones the help they need .
I agree with you it seems near impossible to get help especially if the person is unaware they are I’ll. I have talked to my friends lawyer, prosecuting attorneys, victims advocates and no help has been offered. It’s very frustrating and so sad!!
My family just had a pretty big win in a jury trial in court yesterday with my brother’s case which gives me some hope. For those unfamiliar, my brother has a bipolar diagnosis, but lately when drinking or otherwise decompensating, he tends toward psychotic states that would lean closer to what lay people might expect of schizophrenia.
Didn’t watch the above clip, but the circumstances seem less extreme and there were some nuances to the case that turned in our favor. The prosecutor in my opinion attempted appeals to stigmatized notions of potential dangers from the SMI, and officers testified to some rather absurd positions of how seriously they took his threats and rants when an attempt to serve a warrant led to a standoff and an eventual tear gassing and storming of his house by a tactical team. Apparently elements of the jury didn’t like it, and felt while the officers’ testified that they took his threats seriously, their tone of voices and actions belied it. He was found not guilty without even directly asserting a mental health defense—per his request. My brother’s anxiety was high, because he’s not a US citizen and he had concerns that if he got a felony conviction he might get deported. His lawyer skillfully navigated it all, and seemed very eager to sink his teeth into the case. As a casual observer he also framed the interactions with one of the officers as possible retribution for a previous assault on him a year or so prior.
My brother had kept us in the dark, and we came in thinking this was a preliminary hearing, but over time it dawned on us that it was a jury trial with witnesses and such. It was quite the surprise to us and deliberations took 2-3 hours, and because the prosecution gets rebuttal at summation, when the jury goes out it leaves a lot of doubt in you about the outcome. So it was a long day, but with a satisfying ending. Now our hope turns to cleaning out his hoarded-out house and helping him move out. It remains to be seen if he will rise to the challenge, but he’s been keeping on his medication, and gave up both smoking and drinking. So we’re grateful the jury gave us this chance to help him improve his life.
Where are these mental institutions she’s talking about? They are few and far between, especially after laws were passed that made involuntary commitment more difficult, and after funding was cut for these facilities. The majority of them have been shut down. Yes, some individuals do need to be institutionalized in proper treatment centers—but unfortunately, those kinds of facilities largely don’t exist anymore. So I don’t know what she’s talking about, because what she’s referring to doesn’t exist in the U.S. today.
Especially if you’ve never had a loved one that needed this kind of care.
You can tell she is clearly uneducated about the struggles of this disease and getting help as I believe many in America are ,because they have not faced what a challenge it is, so easy to say oh they should remain locked up or go to an institution when little do they realize their family may have been trying to get them help for years and years and been refused the help over and over!
IDK, I think Downey is saying he should have been locked up for being a dangerous schizophrenic. I don’t think most people think a when a person has a diagnosis of schizophrenia they should automatically be locked up. In this case, the guy had proven he was a danger to society; his own mother said he should not have been free. I think Downey is saying he should have been locked up because he was a dangerous schizophrenic. I can’t believe that she believes all schizophrenics should be locked up.