When should someone be "committed"?

[violet_crown]

If a person's mental health makes them a danger to themselves and others, they can't be reasoned with and believe they're "righteous" in the harm they're doing, then that person should be removed from the general population. Especially if it's to a place where there are those trained to deal with them.

If you can agree with the initial portion of that statement then the conclusion I arrive at is actually pretty reasonable.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

If a person's mental health makes them a danger to themselves and others, they can't be reasoned with and believe they're "righteous" in the harm they're doing, then that person should be removed from the general population. Especially if it's to a place where there are those trained to deal with them.

If you can agree with the initial portion of that statement then the conclusion I arrive at is actually pretty reasonable.

Lol, the second statement was completely unrelated to the first. Unhealthy people don't belong in mental institutions. Crazy people do, those that are an immediate physical threat to themselves or others.

No unhealthy INFJ is going to be locked up in a mental ward without actually being a physical threat. As such, "INFJs have a particular set of skills that make them especially noxious when they're broken and simultaneously inured to any sort of moderating outside influences" does not and lead to "People like them are the reason mental institutions were invented in the first place."

There is no "reason" to justify the second statement. Unless you want to round up any person that does not fit the acceptable norm that you espouse.

Just be sure that you are the one creating what is the acceptable norm.

Saying a unhealthy INFJ needs to be locked up because they are "noxious" is extremely offensive and shows a substantial amount of ignorance.

To put it in other terms, on your standard, one could say you are being unreasonable and "righteous" and ignoring the harm you are causing in your beliefs... if so, should you get locked up in a mental institution?

 

[Amargith]

Interesting. Is this a common Fe-view?

I think one of the challenges we face these days is to destigmatisation of mental illness and for that matter, mental hospitals. Saying someone is 'crazy' is just a very broad spectrum term that is rather judgemental without actually pinpointing precisely what their disorder is. I actually consider calling people 'crazy' quite offensive and rather unproductive as it just tells others to 'stay away'

We all have our issues - some are just more hazardous than others, or more disruptive in our lives. That's no different from those that are in a traditional hospital, getting traditional health care though. And similar to needing physical care, there is no shame in being ill and needing help

From that perspective, I totally understand why Wrex said what she said - and that she didn't mean to communicate what it is that got interpreted as such. A simple misunderstanding, it seems.

 

[violet_crown]

Lol, the second statement was completely unrelated to the first. Unhealthy people don't belong in mental institutions. Crazy people do, those that are an immediate physical threat to themselves or others.

No unhealthy INFJ is going to be locked up in a mental ward without actually being a physical threat. As such, "INFJs have a particular set of skills that make them especially noxious when they're broken and simultaneously inured to any sort of moderating outside influences" does not and lead to "People like them are the reason mental institutions were invented in the first place."

There is no "reason" to justify the second statement. Unless you want to round up any person that does not fit the acceptable norm that you espouse.

Just be sure that you are the one creating what is the acceptable norm.

Saying a unhealthy INFJ needs to be locked up because they are "noxious" is extremely offensive and shows a substantial amount of ignorance.

To put it in other terms, on your standard, one could say you are being unreasonable and "righteous" and ignoring the harm you are causing in your beliefs... if so, should you get locked up in a mental institution?

I think there's a lot of reasons a person can land in a psych ward, and all kinds of damage someone can do that's non-physical. I think unhealthy INFJs are particularly capable of causing psychological damage to those around them--much more so than other types. I would just as soon those people be somewhere where there are those who are trained to treat them then allowing them to do what they do to those closest to them.

Like, just based on this post, you would try to make me question my own sanity for having an opinion you dont agree with. How fucked up and manipulative is that?

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Having had considerable experience with the mental health system over the last few years, including mental institutions, the standard for admission is "an immediate danger of physical harm to yourself or others". Anything less than that will not get admitted. So unhealthy does not cut it.

Of course, in totalitarian regimes, they used mental institutions to lock up people who disagreed with the norms of that society. In the past, groups that didn't fit the norm were locked up and subjected to "treatment".

So, anyone want to be offended by "crazy" really hasn't seen crazy. I have, up close and personal, with my children, but also my wife. I likely fit the description on more than a few times myself.

Find some nice little non-offensive word so that your Fi isn't bothered..... crazy is what you will mean by it, anyway.

Why people hate calling a spade a spade I just don't know.....

 

[Eilonwy]

Interesting. Is this a common Fe-view?

I think one of the challenges we face these days is to destigmatisation of mental illness and for that matter, mental hospitals. Saying someone is 'crazy' is just a very broad spectrum term that is rather judgemental without actually pinpointing precisely what their disorder is. I actually consider calling people 'crazy' quite offensive and rather unproductive as it just tells others to 'stay away'

We all have our issues - some are just more hazardous than others, or more disruptive in our lives. That's no different from those that are in a traditional hospital, getting traditional health care though. And similar to needing physical care, there is no shame in being ill and needing help

From that perspective, I totally understand why Wrex said what she said - and that she didn't mean to communicate what it is that got interpreted as such. A simple misunderstanding, it seems.

I actually interpreted the statement as being generally insulting to anyone with a mental illness before Rex explained her reasoning. Mental institutions have a stigma about them, at least here in the US. They tend to be more about locking away undesirable people with which society doesn't want to deal, rather than helping those with mental illnesses. I can't speak to the reality of whether mental institutions here in the US actually meet the needs of the mentally ill or not, though.

 

[Amargith]

Having had considerable experience with the mental health system over the last few years, including mental institutions, the standard for admission is "an immediate danger of physical harm to yourself or others". Anything less than that will not get admitted. So unhealthy does not cut it.

Of course, in totalitarian regimes, they used mental institutions to lock up people who disagreed with the norms of that society. In the past, groups that didn't fit the norm were locked up and subjected to "treatment".

So, anyone want to be offended by "crazy" really hasn't seen crazy. I have, up close and personal, with my children, but also my wife. I likely fit the description on more than a few times myself.

Find some nice little non-offensive word so that your Fi isn't bothered..... crazy is what you will mean by it, anyway.

Why people hate calling a spade a spade I just don't know.....

Never had an actual need to call people crazy - except for as a clear tease/joke - really

Always had the need to understand who they were and what drove them, though. 'Crazy' is about as non-informative as it gets, except for its clear negative connotation. It doesn't tell me squat, let alone *why* this person is getting a negative label. Meanwhile, I prefer to know what makes them tick and how the world makes sense to them.

Best I can tell, 'crazy' is a word on its way out, which stems from the days where we truly had no other way to describe these people and had no clue what to do with them, considering psychology/psychiatry/neurobiology are all relatively new research fields. I'd like to move forward now that we are starting to catch on

Call me crazy, I guess

 

[violet_crown]

Having had considerable experience with the mental health system over the last few years, including mental institutions, the standard for admission is "an immediate danger of physical harm to yourself or others". Anything less than that will not get admitted. So unhealthy does not cut it.

Actually, that's completely untrue. In most states, the standard for involuntary treatment are along the following lines:

(a) The judge may order a proposed patient to receive court-ordered temporary inpatient mental health services only if the judge or jury finds, from clear and convincing evidence, that:

(1) the proposed patient is mentally ill; and

(2) as a result of that mental illness the proposed patient:

(A) is likely to cause serious harm to himself;

(B) is likely to cause serious harm to others; or

(C) is:

(i) suffering severe and abnormal mental, emotional, or physical distress;

(ii) experiencing substantial mental or physical deterioration of the proposed patient's ability to function independently, which is exhibited by the proposed patient's inability, except for reasons of indigence, to provide for the proposed patient's basic needs, including food, clothing, health, or safety; and

(iii) unable to make a rational and informed decision as to whether or not to submit to treatment.

There is no stipulation around physical harm per se. I'm not sure if you were trying to be deliberately misleading or just couldn't tell the difference between what was real and what was in your head.

So, anyone want to be offended by "crazy" really hasn't seen crazy. I have, up close and personal, with my children, but also my wife. I likely fit the description on more than a few times myself.

Then maybe they should have committed you.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

I think there's a lot of reasons a person can land in a psych ward, and all kinds of damage someone can do that's non-physical.

No. There isn't. I know. I have gone through enough psych eval for my children, spent hours discussing this with professionals.

You might not be aware of the standards, you might have misunderstandings as to the standards, but that does not change the standards for admission.

I think unhealthy INFJs are particularly capable of causing psychological damage to those around them--much more so than other types.

Please. Every type can be harmful. My ENFP mom fucked me hard with her issues. So did my ISTJ dad. My ENTP brother fucked me over hard. My INTP son's shit is maddening to be around during an episode. My ESFP son tried to kill me, besides all his horrible behavior towards everyone else. My other ESFP son's shit drives me up the wall a lot. And my ISFP wife..... holy shit, I do not want to even go to how awful it can get and how much pain she has caused.

Again, people can be harmful to people. Saying the evil INFJs are particularly harmful is very fucked up. And manipulative.

Simple truth..... Fe users actually need to consider the message expressed for validity and application to self.

I would just as soon those people be somewhere where there are those who are trained to treat them then allowing them to do what they do to those closest to them.

Oh, who should we lock up? Everyone that bothers you? Should we lock up members of any group that bothers you? How about people who support contrary political parties? Or have different religious beliefs? Or any other idea that bothers you?

I would recommend that people actually try to understand others and deal with them as they are rather than decide to imprison them in a mental institution for actually being themselves, even in an unhealthy manner.

Like, just based on this post, you would try to make me question my own sanity for having an opinion you dont agree with. How fucked up and manipulative is that?

No, I would actually have you use empathy and consider what you say. It is not manipulative. It is direct application of your words. It is neither "fucked up" nor "manipulative". I didn't try to make you question your own sanity. Far from it. It is very fucked up for you to actually accuse me of such, to be honest.

I am sorry you can't seem to grasp it.

 

[Amargith]

Oh, who should we lock up? Everyone that bothers you? Should we lock up members of any group that bothers you? How about people who support contrary political parties? Or have different religious beliefs? Or any other idea that bothers you?

That's going to be one of the next issues in our society, I hope. You're right that we cannot lock everyone up, nor should we. But really, would it be such a bad idea to destigmatize mental health and actually have society provide guidelines for mental health, do mental health check ups for kids growing up and so on as to minimise this shit?

The problem is that people who are harmful to others tend to be like a patient zero. Depending on their level of 'infection' and the particular 'virus' they shed, plus the amount of exposure they have to others and the state of the mental immune system of those other people, that virus can make a killing if it goes unchecked.

And in that respect, it doesn't seem far-fetched to get people quarantined until treated and properly taken care of - with the worst cases going to a hospital.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Actually, that's completely untrue. In most states, the standard for involuntary treatment are along the following lines:

And the second component is harm. Without harm they will not commit. And it is physical harm, as they don't view emotional harm as valid, unfortunately. Been down that road before several times with my children.....

There is no stipulation around physical harm per se. I'm not sure if you were trying to be deliberately misleading or just couldn't tell the difference between what was real and what was in your head.

Sorry, that you are unaware that harm is "only" physical harm.

But wow, I guess I am just so fucked up in my head that I am a stupid idiot.... that is how I read the second half of your statement. Was that the intent or just typical Te blindness?

 

[Eilonwy]

That's going to be one of the next issues in our society, I hope. You're right that we cannot lock everyone up, nor should we. But really, would it be such a bad idea to destigmatize mental health and actually have society provide guidelines for mental health, do mental health check ups for kids growing up and so on as to minimise this shit?

The problem is that people who are harmful to others tend to be like a patient zero. Depending on their level of 'infection' and the particular 'virus' they shed, plus the amount of exposure they have to others and the state of the mental immune system of those other people, that virus can make a killing if it goes unchecked.

And in that respect, it doesn't seem far-fetched to get people quarantined until treated and properly taken care of - with the worst cases going to a hospital.

I fear that this is too idealistic and too open to misuse and abuse, but I think it is a wonderful goal to keep working towards. I also think more research into physical causes of mental illness would be beneficial to society as a whole, as well as educating people in emotional health and critical thinking.

 

[violet_crown]

You might not be aware of the standards, you might have misunderstandings as to the standards, but that does not change the standards for admission.

I literally just googled the standards for involuntary admission and c/p'ed them into my post. What are you talking about right now?

 

[SearchingforPeace]

S

That's going to be one of the next issues in our society, I hope. You're right that we cannot lock everyone up, nor should we. But really, would it be such a bad idea to destigmatize mental health and actually have society provide guidelines for mental health, do mental health check ups for kids growing up and so on as to minimise this shit?

The problem is that people who are harmful to others tend to be like a patient zero. Depending on their level of 'infection', and the amount of exposure they have to others and the state of the mental immune system of those other people, that virus can make a killing if it goes unchecked.

And in that respect, it doesn't seem far-fetched to get people quarantined until treated and properly taken care of - with the worst cases going to a hospital.

Since you quoted me directly(but removed my name...), I will respond.

So amazing that you claim to want to find the individuality in everyone in other threads and then want to quarantine those you find unpleasant. Ask Hel how much she liked being locked up or just read her blog.

So, if the majority somewhere says a group, say, gays, are an infection, should they get locked up? or Quarantined until they are straight? Being homosexual was considered a mental disorder just a few decades ago, after all. Some shock therapy and anti-psychotics would be great, right?

I could go though the list, anyone who deviated from some norm, could be subjected to quarantine. Oh, it is happening a bit, in that boys are being pushed by schools to get ADHD medicine for merely acting like boys. Must medicate those who don't obey some established norm after all, right?

I read one report saying most CEOs are psychopaths....should we lock them up, too?

I am all for making help available for those who want it, but quarantine and lock up isn't the answer. It is the problem.

Destigmatizing is good. Getting help is good. Forcing compliance to some norm is not.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

I literally just googled the standards for involuntary admission and c/p'ed them into my post. What are you talking about right now?

Cross post, and discussed. Glad you could google something and learn something today...

 

[Amargith]

I fear that this is too idealistic and too open to misuse and abuse, but I think it is a wonderful goal to keep working towards. I also think more research into physical causes of mental illness would be beneficial to society as a whole, as well as educating people in emotional health and critical thinking.

I completely agree. Right now, Im not even sure that the training that psychologists get is rigorous enough to be up to such a challenge, but I'm hoping we'll get there. And the power abuse issue is a biggie - that one would need to be addressed before such a system can be put into place. Meanwhile, the logistics of tailoring it properly to each individuals benefit to optimise their personal growth instead of traumatising them using wrong tools (for *them*) by adhering blindly to the system instead of flexing to the person's needs would be astronomical.

But think about the potential:

- the ability to actually rehabilitate criminals of all levels instead of punishing them while sending them to Crime U
- large scale prevention due to providing classes that promote EQ, not just IQ (such as self-awareness classes to determine your strengths and build on them, relationship classes to avoid the amount of hurt and trauma that happens once kids come of age, sex ed done properly, etc.)
- Personal guidance and health checks, especially for youngsters and extras to address bullying, and follow up in the homes to detect hidden abuse and other factors that would make one prone to mental instability
- Obligatory classes for wanna-be parents on child psychology (and for that matter, for pet owners, if I get a say in it )
- Surgeries and ilk to address any biological abnormalities causing these illness, given enough research.
- ...

It's a dream, I know. And there are quite a few kinks we would need to work out. But we've addressed and conquered worse, as a society

 

[Amargith]

S

Since you quoted me directly(but removed my name...), I will respond.

So amazing that you claim to want to find the individuality in everyone in other threads and then want to quarantine those you find unpleasant. Ask Hel how much she liked being locked up or just read her blog.

So, if the majority somewhere says a group, say, gays, are an infection, should they get locked up? or Quarantined until they are straight? Being homosexual was considered a mental disorder just a few decades ago, after all. Some shock therapy and anti-psychotics would be great, right?

I could go though the list, anyone who deviated from some norm, could be subjected to quarantine. Oh, it is happening a bit, in that boys are being pushed by schools to get ADHD medicine for merely acting like boys. Must medicate those who don't obey some established norm after all, right?

I read one report saying most CEOs are psychopaths....should we lock them up, too?

I am all for making help available for those who want it, but quarantine and lock up isn't the answer. It is the problem.

Destigmatizing is good. Getting help is good. Forcing compliance to some norm is not.

I didn't use your name because I was too lazy to go through the quote and clean it up, so I just copy pasted the piece I wanted to comment on

Now that that's out of the way, I never suggested locking people up. I didn't even go there. Im all for free will. Im just pointing at the issue and comparing it to how we deal with it when it comes to physical health care. You think those people enjoy quarantine, knowing they might die without holding their loved ones again?

Im not commenting on whether or not this is the right way to go - logistics aren't my strength and Im all for respecting peoples free will as much as we can. But there are certainly circumstances were even that gets usurped by the emergency of a situation. Is that the case here? Is there ever such a case? We seem to think so for people who commit murder - even if its due to mental insanity.

It's a question to be answered. All I'm pointing at is the actual problem that we should address in our society, coz it's costing us more than we currently realise, I'd say.

Anycase, Imma stop derailing in this thread. Maybe we should ask for a thread split if we wanna keep this topic going?

 

[violet_crown]

Cross post, and discussed. Glad you could google something and learn something today...

Do you have any sources for the specification of "physical" harm?

 

[magpie]

Actually, that's completely untrue. In most states, the standard for involuntary treatment are along the following lines:



There is no stipulation around physical harm per se. I'm not sure if you were trying to be deliberately misleading or just couldn't tell the difference between what was real and what was in your head.




Then maybe they should have committed you.

Thought this might be an interesting addition to this discussion. It's written by the United Nations. It's about involuntary hospitalization and torture.

http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session22/A.HRC.22.53_English.pdf

2. Absolute ban on restraints and seclusion

63. The mandate has previously declared that there can be no therapeutic justification for the use of solitary confinement and prolonged restraint of persons with disabilities in psychiatric institutions; both prolonged seclusion and restraint may constitute torture and ill-treatment (A/63/175, paras. 55-56). The Special Rapporteur has addressed the issue of solitary confinement and stated that its imposition, of any duration, on persons with mental disabilities is cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (A/66/268, paras. 67-68, 78). Moreover, any restraint on people with mental disabilities for even a short period of time may constitute torture and ill-treatment. 78 It is essential that an absolute ban on all coercive and non-consensual measures, including restraint and solitary confinement of people with psychological or intellectual disabilities, should apply in all places of deprivation of liberty, including in psychiatric and social care institutions. The environment of patient powerlessness and abusive treatment of persons with disabilities in which restraint and seclusion is used can lead to other non-consensual treatment, such as forced medication and electroshock procedures.
3. Domestic legislation allowing forced interventions

64. The mandate continues to receive reports of the systematic use of forced interventions worldwide. Both this mandate and United Nations treaty bodies have established that involuntary treatment and other psychiatric interventions in health-care facilities are forms of torture and ill-treatment.79 Forced interventions, often wrongfully justified by theories of incapacity and therapeutic necessity inconsistent with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, are legitimized under national laws, and may enjoy wide public support as being in the alleged “best interest” of the person concerned. Nevertheless, to the extent that they inflict severe pain and suffering, they violate the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (A/63/175, paras. 38, 40, 41). Concern for the autonomy and dignity of persons with disabilities leads the Special Rapporteur to urge revision of domestic legislation allowing for forced interventions.
V. Conclusions and recommendations

A. Significance of categorizing abuses in health-care settings as torture and ill-treatment 81. The preceding examples of torture and ill-treatment in health-care settings likely represent a small fraction of this global problem. Such interventions always amount at least to inhuman and degrading treatment, often they arguably meet the criteria for torture, and they are always prohibited by international law. 82. The prohibition of torture is one of the few absolute and non-derogable human rights,122 a matter of jus cogens, 123 a peremptory norm of customary international law. Examining abuses in health-care settings from a torture protection framework provides the opportunity to solidify an understanding of these violations and to highlight the positive obligations that States have to prevent, prosecute and redress such violations.

83. The right to an adequate standard of health care (“right to health”) determines the States’ obligations towards persons suffering from illness. In turn, the absolute and non-derogable nature of the right to protection from torture and ill-treatment establishes objective restrictions on certain therapies. In the context of health-related abuses, the focus on the prohibition of torture strengthens the call for accountability and strikes a proper balance between individual freedom and dignity and public health concerns. In that fashion, attention to the torture framework ensures that system inadequacies, lack of resources or services will not justify ill-treatment. Although resource constraints may justify only partial fulfilment of some aspects of the right to health, a State cannot justify its non-compliance with core obligations, such as the absolute prohibition of torture, under any circumstances.124

84. By reframing violence and abuses in health-care settings as prohibited illtreatment, victims and advocates are afforded stronger legal protection and redress for violations of human rights. In this respect, the recent general comment No. 3 (2012) of the Committee against Torture on the right to a remedy and reparation offers valuable guidance regarding proactive measures required to prevent forced interventions. Notably, the Committee considers that the duty to provide remedy and reparation extends to all acts of ill-treatment, 125 so that it is immaterial for this purpose whether abuses in health-care settings meet the criteria for torture per se. This framework opens new possibilities for holistic social processes that foster appreciation of the lived experiences of persons, including measures of satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition, and the repeal of inconsistent legal provisions.
4. Persons with psychosocial disabilities

89. The Special Rapporteur calls upon all States to:

(b) Impose an absolute ban on all forced and non-consensual medical interventions against persons with disabilities, including the non-consensual administration of psychosurgery, electroshock and mind-altering drugs such as neuroleptics, the use of restraint and solitary confinement, for both long- and short term application. The obligation to end forced psychiatric interventions based solely on grounds of disability is of immediate application and scarce financial resources cannot justify postponement of its implementation; 127

(c) Replace forced treatment and commitment by services in the community. Such services must meet needs expressed by persons with disabilities and
respect the autonomy, choices, dignity and privacy of the person concerned, with an emphasis on alternatives to the medical model of mental health, including peer support, awareness-raising and training of mental health-care and law enforcement
personnel and others;

(d) Revise the legal provisions that allow detention on mental health grounds or in mental health facilities, and any coercive interventions or treatments in the mental health setting without the free and informed consent by the person concerned. Legislation authorizing the institutionalization of persons with disabilities on the grounds of their disability without their free and informed consent must be abolished.

If anyone would like information on mental health policy, mental health institutions, having people quarantined, misuse and abuse, and/or the standards for involuntary admission I'm available to answer questions.

 

[magpie]

I'm not comfortable with ending this here. We're airing everyone's issues anyway and the intervening posts thing was a huge part of this that wasn't addressed or has been written off as just a tangent.

If a person's mental health makes them a danger to themselves and others, they can't be reasoned with and believe they're "righteous" in the harm they're doing, then that person should be removed from the general population. Especially if it's to a place where there are those trained to deal with them.

If you can agree with the initial portion of that statement then the conclusion I arrive at is actually pretty reasonable.

]Lol, the second statement was completely unrelated to the first. Unhealthy people don't belong in mental institutions. Crazy people do, those that are an immediate physical threat to themselves or others.

No unhealthy INFJ is going to be locked up in a mental ward without actually being a physical threat. As such, "INFJs have a particular set of skills that make them especially noxious when they're broken and simultaneously inured to any sort of moderating outside influences" does not and lead to "People like them are the reason mental institutions were invented in the first place."

There is no "reason" to justify the second statement. Unless you want to round up any person that does not fit the acceptable norm that you espouse.

Just be sure that you are the one creating what is the acceptable norm.

Saying a unhealthy INFJ needs to be locked up because they are "noxious" is extremely offensive and shows a substantial amount of ignorance.

To put it in other terms, on your standard, one could say you are being unreasonable and "righteous" and ignoring the harm you are causing in your beliefs... if so, should you get locked up in a mental institution?

I actually interpreted the statement as being generally insulting to anyone with a mental illness before Rex explained her reasoning. Mental institutions have a stigma about them, at least here in the US. They tend to be more about locking away undesirable people with which society doesn't want to deal, rather than helping those with mental illnesses. I can't speak to the reality of whether mental institutions here in the US actually meet the needs of the mentally ill or not, though.

Actually, that's completely untrue. In most states, the standard for involuntary treatment are along the following lines:

(a) The judge may order a proposed patient to receive court-ordered temporary inpatient mental health services only if the judge or jury finds, from clear and convincing evidence, that:

(1) the proposed patient is mentally ill; and

(2) as a result of that mental illness the proposed patient:

(A) is likely to cause serious harm to himself;

(B) is likely to cause serious harm to others; or

(C) is:

(i) suffering severe and abnormal mental, emotional, or physical distress;

(ii) experiencing substantial mental or physical deterioration of the proposed patient's ability to function independently, which is exhibited by the proposed patient's inability, except for reasons of indigence, to provide for the proposed patient's basic needs, including food, clothing, health, or safety; and

(iii) unable to make a rational and informed decision as to whether or not to submit to treatment.
There is no stipulation around physical harm per se. I'm not sure if you were trying to be deliberately misleading or just couldn't tell the difference between what was real and what was in your head.

So, anyone want to be offended by "crazy" really hasn't seen crazy. I have, up close and personal, with my children, but also my wife. I likely fit the description on more than a few times myself.
Then maybe they should have committed you.

Is nobody going to take responsibility for this discussion and the opinions espoused here? This is more than purging hurts of the past.