Hacker News Reader

Comment by lylecubed | Hacker News Reader

It's unconscionable to suggest that hospitals be allowed to legally kidnap people because of something as hand wavy as 'some homeless are mentally ill'.

View on HN

This is a complicated issue. I've seen this happen in practice. As long as the process remains conservative and respectful of the patient, it results in better outcomes for the patient and a more peaceful society.

The cases where I have seen this happen: schizophrenia, drug-induced psychosis, acute mania, dementia.

Patients come out far better in an institutionalized setting, as opposed to being on the streets and walking aimlessly in dangerous traffic.

There's a huge, gigantic, gaping chasm between a hospital patient with no history of mental illness with two parents, neither of which have a history of mental illness, and a schizophrenic homeless person. Saying one has anything to do with the other to justify a hospital kidnapping its own patients is seriously messed up.

I was referring to your reply to outside1234's comment. His answer was in the scope of the "obviously mentally ill" population. And I addressed your reply to that.

It is incorrect to take my response outside of its intended context and attempt to attack it there.

Having experienced this: I think the word "conservative" doesn't quite capture the severity of detaining someone for mental health reasons. It has been argued that when someone is detained on mental health grounds, this is equivalent to a breach or suspension of the social contract in respect of that person. It is extremely unsatisfactory, though it might be a least bad option.

Outcomes might be better than if there was no intervention, but that doesn't necessarily imply that mental health services are effectively doing anything more than providing "protective custody".

Reagan’s LPS Act didn’t apply any nuance, common-sense or transition when defunding JFK’s community treatment program, and just dumped people whom aren’t in contact with reality or self-care onto the street. Complete lawlessness is infinite tyranny.

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-me...

Also, O’Conner vs. Donaldson was the key case that caused a significant shift in mental health treatment.

Blaming Reagan is intellectually lazy.

Committing someone to enforced treatment is an absolutely massive action. In the UK, it requires a police officer, doctor, and social worker to all agree that it is necessary.

It doesn't require police.

There are different forms of detention, and different forms of forced treatment.

These are described (for England) in the Mental Health Act.

This is what it means to be sectioned - you are detained under section of the mental health act.

The most common sections are:

Section 136: a police officer can detain you in a public place and take you to a place of safety to be assessed. This requires one police officer. It lasts a maximum of 24 hours (but it can be extended by 12 hours).

Section 2: this is a short 28 day hold for assessment and treatment. It requires 2 doctors and an AMHP. Traditionally AMHPs were social workers, but they don't have to be and there are increasing numbers of nurses becoming AMHPs.

Section 3: this is a six month hold for treatment. It requires 2 doctors and an AMHP.

Section 4 is another short term hold (72 hours) that can be used in emergencies if there's only 1 doctor available.

https://www.rethink.org/living-with-mental-illness/mental-he...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com