Should there be mandatory mental health screening?

[danseen]

Psychiatry has a lot of value, so should there be compulsory mental health screenings for every person?

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

Yeah, for sure.

 

[Galena]

Not weirded out. I consider and sometimes discuss issues from strongly contradicting perspectives to work out their details and morality. It's to play devil's advocate with my own passions as a test of the rationality and conviction upon which I chose them. I let myself hold both sides in my head so that they can fight the paradox out on the same ground.

It's just having a conflict inside. All one's got to do is be open about that when they test different perspectives on other people, and no honesty is lost.

@topic: Who would see the results of the mandatory tests, and how might the results have an impact on the lives and opportunities available to individuals under this regime?

 

[danseen]

Not weirded out. I consider and sometimes discuss issues from strongly contradicting perspectives a lot to work out their details and morality. It's to play devil's advocate with my own passions as a test of the rationality and conviction upon which I chose them. I let myself hold both sides in my head so that they can fight the paradox out on the same ground.

@topic: Who would see the results of the mandatory tests, and how might the results have an impact on the lives and opportunities available to individuals under this regime?

They could get treatment, or potential issues could be identified benefiting the individual and society.

 

[Alea_iacta_est]

I think they should probably screen for the most severe and detrimental mental illnesses when buying firearms (like a license).

How I imagine priority (or anti-priority) list would go for obtaining firearms. (From immediate rejection to least rejection)
1. Schizophrenics, especially Paranoid Schizophrenics
2. Sadistic PD
3. Severe AsPD
4. Schizotypal PD
5. Moderate AsPD
6. BPD
7. NPD
8. Non-Cluster and non-schizophrenic Disorders
9. Mentally stable

 

[prplchknz]

I think they should probably screen for the most severe and detrimental mental illnesses when buying firearms (like a license).

How I imagine priority (or anti-priority) list would go for obtaining firearms. (From immediate rejection to least rejection)
1. Schizophrenics, especially Paranoid Schizophrenics
2. Sadistic PD
3. Severe AsPD
4. Schizotypal PD
5. Moderate AsPD
6. BPD
7. NPD
8. Non-Cluster and non-schizophrenic Disorders
9. Mentally stable

you know if you been in a psych ward at least in IL and CA (don't know about other states) you can't legally own a fire arm for at least 5 years?

 

[Mole]

Psychiatry has a lot of value, so should there be compulsory mental health screenings for every person?

Well, we have compulsory schooling, we have compulsory voting, and compulsory seatbelts, so why not compulsory mental health screenings?

 

[Jaq]

No

 

[ndovjtjcaqidthi]

I believe both.

Psychiatry is a waste of time, yet it's necessary to promote wellbeing.

 

[Standuble]

If they tried that on me it would break the machine. I could argue that I have at least 10 mental illnesses from Narcissistic Personality Disorder to Morgellons Disease. Hypercondriac could probably fit nice and snugly on the list too.

 

[prplchknz]

If they tried that on me it would break the machine. I could argue that I have at least 10 mental illnesses from Narcissistic Personality Disorder to Morgellons Disease. Hypercondriac could probably fit nice and snugly on the list too.

I could argue that I was a gopher in my past life, doesn't make it true though.

 

[Standuble]

I could argue that I was a gopher in my past life, doesn't make it true though.

In my arguments I could provide supporting evidence; it could be patting on myself as evidence for the former or constantly scratching myself under the armpits for the latter. They ask me if the symptoms match and then I put remembered incidents through a broth of confirmation bias and forer effect and exclaim that it is me.

 

[prplchknz]

In my arguments I could provide supporting evidence; it could be patting on myself as evidence for the former or constantly scratching myself under the armpits for the latter. They ask me if the symptoms match and then I put remembered incidents through a broth of confirmation bias and forer effect and exclaim that it is me.

good point. but why would you want to convince someone you have 10 disorders?

 

[greenfairy]

I think these could easily be used unethically or to otherwise either support existing oppresive systems or create new ones, whether intentional or not.

 

[cafe]

No. I can see no benefit and a lot of possible negatives.

 

[prplchknz]

what be the scale of who gets what restictions?

 

[SpankyMcFly]

Psychiatry has a lot of value, so should there be compulsory mental health screenings for every person?

No.

I think it encouraging it isn't a bad starting point.

Question: Say these "mandatory" tests reveal that X person, who happens to be functional, has Y problem, how are you going to resolve that? Will the state determine his fate? What if Y problem is only mild or a propensity for?

NO. Talk about a slippery slope...

 

[Halla74]

Psychiatry has a lot of value, so should there be compulsory mental health screenings for every person?

No.
Here's why:

(1) What is the purpose of the screenings?
(2) Who will write the assessments?
(3) Who will evaluate them?
(4) What will the compulsory treatment options be for people with: (a) issue "A", (b) issue "B", (c) both issues "A" and "B"?
(5) What is the desired outcome for anyone with a confirmed issue(s) after receiving a compulsory treatment option(s)?
(6) What are the criteria for defining recovery in (5) above?
(7) Is recovery partial or total in remediation? If partial, who decides what level of remission has been achieved?
(8) What are the opportunities for those with partial remission achievements of varying percentages of recovery?
(9) How often must recovery be re-evaluated?
(10) What if there is a relapse or new ailment of any kind for those who have been diagnosed with something, and/or undergone an approved treatment?
(11) WHO WILL PAY?
(12) How will the criteria for all aspects of this program be re-calibrated over time as political ideologies sway the masses?

This conceptual program is a FAIL of the highest order, IMHO.



-Halla74

 

[Little_Sticks]

you know if you been in a psych ward at least in IL and CA (don't know about other states) you can't legally own a fire arm for at least 5 years?

In Florida, they destroy your records after five years. I think it's funny though because even if you can't buy a firearm in California for five years, I'm pretty sure you could go to another state and buy them anyway because the records aren't in a federal database. So I'm not really sure what someone would need to do to get on a federal background check as "mentally incompetent".

 

[JAVO]

No, especially because:

I think these could easily be used unethically or to otherwise either support existing oppresive systems or create new ones, whether intentional or not.

(4) What will the compulsory treatment options be for people with: (a) issue "A", (b) issue "B", (c) both issues "A" and "B"?
(5) What is the desired outcome for anyone with a confirmed issue(s) after receiving a compulsory treatment option(s)?
(6) What are the criteria for defining recovery in (5) above?
(7) Is recovery partial or total in remediation? If partial, who decides what level of remission has been achieved?
(8) What are the opportunities for those with partial remission achievements of varying percentages of recovery?
(9) How often must recovery be re-evaluated?
(10) What if there is a relapse or new ailment of any kind for those who have been diagnosed with something, and/or undergone an approved treatment?
(12) How will the criteria for all aspects of this program be re-calibrated over time as political ideologies sway the masses?