_

[skylights]

Is it society's right to impose health insurance on others, even if it is "for the better"?

Health insurance doesn't alter the quality or content of who you are. Apples to oranges.

 

[Mal12345]

Health insurance doesn't alter the quality or content of who you are. Apples to oranges.

Health insurance against people's will does alter who they are. And as for quality or content, you're talking about schizophrenics who have zero quality of life, and the content of life consists of eating out of garbage cans and screaming at strangers in the worst cases.

Schizophrenics and others with severe mental illness have no will; the illness controls them they don't control the illness. You can't do something against someone's will who has no will.

Forcing health insurance on people against their will is, on the other hand, morally right according to you.

So your implied argument is: as long as someone has no will, they should be left to their own devices. But if they have a will, they need to be controlled and dominated.

 

[skylights]

Health insurance against people's will does alter who they are. And as for quality or content, you're talking about schizophrenics who have zero quality of life, and the content of life consists of eating out of garbage cans and screaming at strangers in the worst cases.

Schizophrenics and others with severe mental illness have no will; the illness controls them they don't control the illness. You can't do something against someone's will who has no will.

Forcing health insurance on people against their will is, on the other hand, morally right according to you.

So you implied argument is: as long as someone has no will, they should be left to their own devices. But if they have a will, they need to be controlled and dominated.

Well, first of all, I didn't say that I was for imposition of health care; you assumed that. I simply said they are not comparable.

However, who are you to declare that someone with schizophrenia (which, by the way, is not only on a gradient but also comes in a number of significantly different forms) has no will? It is not that simple. You assume neurotypicality to be "will" and non-neurotypicality to equate to non-will, but there are many shades of grey in any illness, schizophrenia included. There has to be a balance struck between allowing the individual their rights and assisting them in getting to a place of agency in their own life.

I am not against legally-mandatory psychiatric commitment for those who are dangerous to themselves and others, but it needs to be done in a way that is first and foremost respectful of the rights and wellbeing of the individual. Each person must be interviewed, diagnosed, and treated on an individual basis with the goal of attaining ability to live a self-directed and personally fulfilling life. I do not think it is necessarily a good idea to characterize all people with schizophrenia as "ticking time bombs" - episodes of psychosis can still occur even when they are on medication. I use the phrasing "people with schizophrenia" (person-centered language) precisely because each illness will be as unique as each individual, and everyone deserves to be treated as such. We cannot classify all people with schizophrenia as time bombs yelling obscenities in the streets.

Regardless, as for the real issue: it's interesting you mention health care because we might have far less mentally ill people on the street if we had the resources to provide for them, something that universal health care would help account for. What many people do not understand is that optional health care tends to drive up individual costs, because huge amounts of money are wasted by people being shuffled through the wrong areas of the healthcare system because they do not have the up-front money to pay for appropriate care, or, worse, people who choose to opt out of healthcare and then get seriously ill and seek care, placing the financial burden of their illness on taxpayers. These are not my personal views but simply established fact based on the working of the system.

In the case of the mentally ill, the way health care is handled now, it's generally only mentally ill people with affluent family who support them that get treatment, and hospitals and ERs are clogged with mentally ill people who lack resources because they have nowhere else to go - except hospitals and ERs are acute medical care facilities and are not the right places for people with chronic mental illness. The United States government does not provide suitable medical facilities for the mentally ill; public mental health is severely underfunded in many states and is completely dismantled in others, like mine. Paradoxically, the reliance of the mentally ill on hospitals (which are expensive) eats away at money that could otherwise be used to provide appropriate treatment and care facilities. But you can't ask them to not seek treatment when treatment is what they need. The government needs to suck up the start-up cost and provide appropriate mental health facilities, and then it will reap the rewards in terms of having to pay for less legal control of the mentally ill on the streets and having to pay for less acute medical treatment of the mentally ill in hospitals. But that requires people to put money up front, of course, and in a profit-driven economy (as opposed to quality-of-life-driven) that's unlikely to happen.

In some ways, I think mingularity is absolutely right that this is a failure of society to desire and expect something (treatment and social integration of the mentally ill) but not allocate the resources to that area to be able to achieve it.

 

[Mal12345]

Well, first of all, I didn't say that I was for imposition of health care; you assumed that. I simply said they are not comparable.

However, who are you to declare that someone with schizophrenia (which, by the way, is not only on a gradient but also comes in a number of significantly different forms) has no will?

Who are you to declare that they do have some degree of will?

 

[skylights]

Who are you to declare that they do have some degree of will?

Are you actually interested in productive conversation, or do you just get a kick out of straw men? Because I'm feeling like you really just enjoy shooting down individual statements and don't really care about what comes of the whole issue. IRT will, will is not given. It's inherent.

Regardless, I'm in this conversation because I'm interested in how society can provide appropriate mental health care to people with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses or physiological conditions that impair mental functioning while still respecting their individual rights.

Why are you in this conversation?

 

[Mal12345]

Are you actually interested in productive conversation, or do you just get a kick out of straw men? Because I'm feeling like you really just enjoy shooting down individual statements and don't really care about what comes of the whole issue. IRT will, will is not given. It's inherent.

Regardless, I'm in this conversation because I'm interested in how society can provide appropriate mental health care to people with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses or physiological conditions that impair mental functioning while still respecting their individual rights.

Why are you in this conversation?

You do understand that "mental functioning" includes will, correct? And do you understand that "society" is a vague generality that includes many, many people who care nothing for the subject of caring for the mentally ill?

 

[skylights]

You do understand that "mental functioning" includes will, correct? And do you understand that "society" is a vague generality that includes many, many people who care nothing for the subject of caring for the mentally ill?

Sure, and I'm still not seeing why you're bothering to write this stuff. Semantics are semantics. They'll never be perfect. I dunno about you, but I'm going into healthcare as my career, and my opinion is going to influence, however tiny that influence may be, the way that mentally ill people are treated. Regardless of whether people care or not, their stance on all of this does have an impact on the lives of many. Your stance has an impact on the lives of many. I'm not interested in just breaking the issue into its semantic bits because it's going to get us nowhere in terms of actually effecting the best change possible in the world. I only have one life to live and only so many hours in the day. I'm baffled by why you'd want to linger and pick apart terms and definitions when it's going to be such a slow process that it's never going to have any actual impact on the world.

Dom Ti and tert Te, I guess.

 

[Mal12345]

Sure, and I'm still not seeing why you're bothering to write this stuff. Semantics are semantics. They'll never be perfect. I dunno about you, but I'm going into healthcare as my career, and my opinion is going to influence, however tiny that influence may be, the way that mentally ill people are treated. Regardless of whether people care or not, their stance on all of this does have an impact on the lives of many. Your stance has an impact on the lives of many. I'm not interested in just breaking the issue into its semantic bits because it's going to get us nowhere in terms of actually effecting the best change possible in the world. I only have one life to live and only so many hours in the day. I'm baffled by why you'd want to linger and pick apart terms and definitions when it's going to be such a slow process that it's never going to have any actual impact on the world.

Dom Ti and tert Te, I guess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
"In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect) is the tendency to overestimate the effect of disposition or personality and underestimate the effect of the situation in explaining social behavior."

Many Ti-doms have had a very tremendous impact one the world. Personality doesn't matter, it's just the face we present to the world, and a lot of that is dependent upon the environments we grow up in.

Ti-doms excel in (or like to think they excel in) logic. You've presented arguments, and the best way to deal with arguments is not by dealing with semantics but with the logic employed in the arguments. If the logic is bad, then your argument does not correspond with your Te-tert reality, but only with justifying the way you Fi-aux happen to feel about things.

Despite their bad logic, I've found that ENFPs are really, really good in bed. And that's not a fundamental attribution error, that's from experience.

 

[skylights]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
"In social psychology, the fundamental attribution error (also known as correspondence bias or attribution effect) is the tendency to overestimate the effect of disposition or personality and underestimate the effect of the situation in explaining social behavior."

Many Ti-doms have had a very tremendous impact one the world. Personality doesn't matter, it's just the face we present to the world, and a lot of that is dependent upon the environments we grow up in.

Ti-doms excel in (or like to think they excel in) logic. You've presented arguments, and the best way to deal with arguments is not by dealing with semantics but with the logic employed in the arguments. If the logic is bad, then your argument does not correspond with your Te-tert reality, but only with justifying the way you Fi-aux happen to feel about things.

Despite their bad logic, I've found that ENFPs are really, really good in bed. And that's not a fundamental attribution error, that's from experience.

Erg, no, I'm not saying Ti-doms don't impact the world. My dad's a Ti dominant psychiatrist so he directly impacts the very people we're talking about in this thread. I'm saying that my emphasis on wanting to get a practical solution ASAP reeks of Te tert and your emphasis on defining/specifying basic terms is Ti dommish.

From what I wrote before I guess to me it seems like the real issue is more one of getting money to help people with mental illness and less how to actually help them, which is still a delicate issue but can probably be fairly well-handled by a responsible medical facility overseen by an ethical review board.

 

[Mal12345]

I personally think it's quite straightforward, and I almost fully agree with the position of the doctor I quoted in my original post.

Let's consider a very specific case: A person has schizophrenia but doesn't recognize something is wrong with them, even when they are on meds. Since they think they are normal they stop taking their meds. However, every time they stop taking their meds they permanently damage their brain, increasing the severity of their schizophrenia. A kind of negative feedback loop. In this situation, it seems quite straightforward to argue that it is ethical to grind up their prednisone, put it in a piece of cake and feed it to them, forcefully if necessary. They don't even think anything is wrong with them. That's how messed up they are. Feeding them sanity cake is our duty under the social contract. We brought them into this world with the implicit promise that it would fun and awesome and we would nurture them and they could enjoy reality. Now they are deluded and can't even understand reality and we ignore them. Just let me feed them the cake! It's the right thing to do! What kind of evil person leaves an insane person to suffer when they could easily fix them? Answer: All of us, every day.

It's actually a positive feedback loop, since the degree of insanity keeps increasing.

 

[baccheion]

I personally think it's quite straightforward, and I almost fully agree with the position of the doctor I quoted in my original post.

Let's consider a very specific case: A person has schizophrenia but doesn't recognize something is wrong with them, even when they are on meds. Since they think they are normal they stop taking their meds. However, every time they stop taking their meds they permanently damage their brain, increasing the severity of their schizophrenia. A kind of negative feedback loop. In this situation, it seems quite straightforward to argue that it is ethical to grind up their prednisone, put it in a piece of cake and feed it to them, forcefully if necessary. They don't even think anything is wrong with them. That's how messed up they are. Feeding them sanity cake is our duty under the social contract. We brought them into this world with the implicit promise that it would fun and awesome and we would nurture them and they could enjoy reality. Now they are deluded and can't even understand reality and we ignore them. Just let me feed them the cake! It's the right thing to do! What kind of evil person leaves an insane person to suffer when they could easily fix them? Answer: All of us, every day.

They should only be forced if they are a danger to themselves or others. That is, forcing their hand is being done to prevent a murder, assault, or suicide. I'm convinced that many people would take the medication if there weren't so many negative side-effects. I cannot emphasize enough how bad the side effects can be.

The part about the brain being damaged more if they enter psychosis again is a good bit of information, and should be shared with those suffering from this illness (and will probably go a long way toward helping them find the line of treatment that works best for them). However, it shouldn't be used to force their hand in any way.

A schizophrenic going on and on about conspiracy theories doesn't bother me. It will mostly be idle ranting that won't result in the harm of anyone. I wouldn't even waste time trying to convince them that their "delusions" aren't real (a lot of Schizophrenics probably started laughing a laugh of victory when Snowden leaked all that information). The violent ones scare me, and it made me sad when I realized that some of them can't control it. What a miserable way to live.

And it's a funny thing, because usually when I see someone with a mental disorder on OkCupid, or on some other site, they claim the reason they stopped the medication is because it doesn't work, and the side effects are intolerable. So I don't know.

 

[Mal12345]

Is there an emoticon for :jealous:?

 

[skylights]

Welp, I missed that one. I thought he meant get on with funding mental health facilities.

Sex would work too I guess.

 

[prplchknz]

Welp, I missed that one. I thought he meant get on with funding mental health facilities.

Sex would work too I guess.

I have a video camera, good money good money i just ask for 1% of the royalties

 

[Mal12345]

Welp, I missed that one. I thought he meant get on with funding mental health facilities.

Sex would work too I guess.

You are not that naive. Please don't try to claim you're a vanilla.

 

[swordpath]

A big issue is that many of the mentally ill will be mandated to be evaluated if certain criteria is met and the police get called to investigate, however, how do you keep someone on their medications? A lot of schizophrenics will go through a cycle of going on/coming off their medications. I see this all the time in my work.

 

[swordpath]

How about random urinalysis? Don't show up or pass the test you are not mentally fit and are institutionalized on the taxpayer's dime. I don't understand why we can't force them to medicate.. it seems almost straightforward. Suicide is already illegal and so too should being totally nuts when it could otherwise be prevented.

I see where you're coming from, but it's just not a crime to be crazy... Unless you're suicidal or homicidal, there just isn't much intervening that's going to happen.

Suicide is illegal in that it's prohibited, but what's the penalty for someone that commits the "crime"? lol. You won't see someone charged with "suicide attempt," I guarantee you that.

 

[skylights]

How about random urinalysis? Don't show up or pass the test you are not mentally fit and are institutionalized on the taxpayer's dime. I don't understand why we can't force them to medicate.. it seems almost straightforward.

How are you going to conduct the random sampling... are you going to have a registered list of schizophrenic people? Who is going to provide the money for the testing supplies, analysis, and how are you going to follow up? And is it feasible at all? Many seriously mentally ill people do not have a static telephone number, much less address, and certainly do not have reliable access to transportation. You're going to commit them all on the basis that they don't show up to a spontaneous drug test?

 

[baccheion]

They use injections. For people forced on medication, they get injected once per month.

 

[garbage]

Mods, can you please get rid of posts 39+ in this thread? Mal+, please do not threadshit again (in any thread, especially mine).

As much as I appreciate you alerting us to a potential problem -- sorry, but this one's rather tame, and also you contributed to the threadshitting.

To everyone: don't threadshit. We'll take the more significant derails to Off-Topic posts as per usual.