maks
09-17-2012, 09:53 AM
fyi this isn't the only forum where she writes unreadable walls of text http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEgQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.psychforums.com%2Fanti-psych%2Ftopic84467.html&ei=YUdXUOT5Isfs0gHeyoGgDg&usg=AFQjCNF-naL8TBBzY0nMbwbbA6Me82YDbQ
I live in Australia but a similar thing happened to an x partner of mine. The thing is he never actually threatened any harm to himself or others, basically he got netted for acting weird at TAFE and all in all he spent 6 months in involuntary commitment, there was actually some law that protected patients that said they could not be held for longer than 3 months in an involuntary basis yet at the end of the 3 months they simply got a new order for another 3 months... this happened to a man who was not a criminal, had never hurt or stolen from anyone and had never even threatened to. Someone somewhere decided that he did not fit society's bill for "normal" and once the ball got rolling well that was that. He was forcefully injected and drugged to the point where he was literally drooling, it never helped him in any way all it did was send off the rails and with forced medication he became not able to function for himself in ways that he previously could, ie. wash himself, dress himself, feed himself. He could do all those thing before the forced "medication" and could after he was finally released and I had worked hard at convincing the doctor to take him off the "medications" they had him on.
Is this the way we really want to treat mentally ill people? Because to me it sounds like a horror story of days past yet this is still happening today and I promise in 50-100 years time will be looked at by psychology students as one of the many inhumane mistakes the field has made. This should be a bygone mistake NOW.
Now I looked up this Bakers Act and on Wikipedia it says there must be evidence that the person "is a harm to self, harm to others, or self neglectful" yet this worries me because it does not require that the person has ACTUALLY harmed themselves or others it relies on an ASSUMPTION that they will.... they don't have to have actually done any harm for this to be enacted then once the ball is rolling this in particular scares me http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0394/Sections/0394.463.html "394.463 Involuntary examination.—
(1) CRITERIA.—A person may be taken to a receiving facility for involuntary examination if there is reason to believe that the person has a mental illness and because of his or her mental illness:
(a)1. The person has refused voluntary examination after conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of the examination; or
2. The person is unable to determine for himself or herself whether examination is necessary; and
(b)1. Without care or treatment, the person is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself; such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; and it is not apparent that such harm may be avoided through the help of willing family members or friends or the provision of other services; or
2. There is a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm to himself or herself or others in the near future, as evidenced by recent behavior."
and this http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0394/Sections/0394.467.html"394.467 Involuntary inpatient placement.—
(1) CRITERIA.—A person may be placed in involuntary inpatient placement for treatment upon a finding of the court by clear and convincing evidence that:
(a) He or she is mentally ill and because of his or her mental illness:
1.a. He or she has refused voluntary placement for treatment after sufficient and conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of placement for treatment; or
b. He or she is unable to determine for himself or herself whether placement is necessary; and
2.a. He or she is manifestly incapable of surviving alone or with the help of willing and responsible family or friends, including available alternative services, and, without treatment, is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself, and such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; or
b. There is substantial likelihood that in the near future he or she will inflict serious bodily harm on himself or herself or another person, as evidenced by recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening such harm; and
(b) All available less restrictive treatment alternatives which would offer an opportunity for improvement of his or her condition have been judged to be inappropriate."
This is scary because this basically means that anyone who hasn't ACTUALLY done any harm to themselves or others can:
1- be involuntarily taken for 72 hours for "examination"... now once in this system do you really think the people who's job it is to process these cases actually do not proceed through? Of course they do and look at the criteria how much more of a catch 22 could it be? "The person has refused voluntary examination after conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of the examination; or 2. The person is unable to determine for himself or herself whether examination is necessary;"
2- be then involuntarily detained in a mental hospital.
Now I want you to think for a moment in your right mind how you would like to have this enacted on you?
So then after being taken, involuntarily examined and processed where at each step a refusal to accept this voluntarily can be seem as a criteria to continue anyway on an involuntary basis look what can happen next
"394.467 Involuntary inpatient placement.—
(1) CRITERIA.—A person may be placed in involuntary inpatient placement for treatment upon a finding of the court by clear and convincing evidence that:
(a) He or she is mentally ill and because of his or her mental illness:
1.a. He or she has refused voluntary placement for treatment after sufficient and conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of placement for treatment; or
b. He or she is unable to determine for himself or herself whether placement is necessary; and
2.a. He or she is manifestly incapable of surviving alone or with the help of willing and responsible family or friends, including available alternative services, and, without treatment, is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself, and such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; or
b. There is substantial likelihood that in the near future he or she will inflict serious bodily harm on himself or herself or another person, as evidenced by recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening such harm; and
(b) All available less restrictive treatment alternatives which would offer an opportunity for improvement of his or her condition have been judged to be inappropriate." Again catch 22. Refusing voluntary placement can be seen as a criteria for involuntary placement.
for more statutes http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0394/0394PARTIContentsIndex.html
Now basically because of the system and the criteria I think their advice to you to submit to "voluntary" placement (I use the term voluntary here lightly because it seems you really don't have a choice if you actually want a choice in this) was wise because it seems to be the only loophole out of this system once you have found yourself in it. This is wise advice to go voluntarily if you've found yourself in this situation not because you should but because if you don't your options are cut off to you and you are stuck in the system of involuntary. I would also say to any unfortunate individual who finds themselves in this system to go voluntarily because ironically it seems to be the only way out.
This is however rather unfair, I ask anyone in their right mind if you were taken would you really want to submit to this? Well if you say no you are written off right there because that right there is a criteria ticked off for putting you through the involuntary process... I ask you in this situation how "voluntary" are your options? This does not seem right to me, the only people who should actually be put in detention of any kind involuntarily should be ACTUAL criminals, not supposed ones. What frustrates me is I know how hard it is to actually seek help if you feel you have a problem and to actually get that help and yet the system time and time again turns away those seeking the help and drags in on an involuntary basis others. My uncle was a psychiatric nurse (want to know something else? He committed suicide) but he used to say they got people who would come in seeking treatment but they were deemed not in need of treatment and turned away, then they had people that were literally dragged in kicking and screaming and locked up there with "treatment" forced on them.
Something is very wrong here people. Something is very wrong and back-to-front about this system. I mean I can see this as an ATTEMPT of a preventative measure yet when people come seeking help there isn't a place for them and I really think that would be a far more effective preventative measure if there was a place for those actually seeking it, a preventative measure that actually makes a lot more sense than this and is actually more humane. I mean this is meant to be a part of the mental health system... well call me a cabbage but that is just #u@%*^& crazy. People are too scared to even speak about their problems lest they find themselves in a system that... well that does THIS to people.
I live in Australia but a similar thing happened to an x partner of mine. The thing is he never actually threatened any harm to himself or others, basically he got netted for acting weird at TAFE and all in all he spent 6 months in involuntary commitment, there was actually some law that protected patients that said they could not be held for longer than 3 months in an involuntary basis yet at the end of the 3 months they simply got a new order for another 3 months... this happened to a man who was not a criminal, had never hurt or stolen from anyone and had never even threatened to. Someone somewhere decided that he did not fit society's bill for "normal" and once the ball got rolling well that was that. He was forcefully injected and drugged to the point where he was literally drooling, it never helped him in any way all it did was send off the rails and with forced medication he became not able to function for himself in ways that he previously could, ie. wash himself, dress himself, feed himself. He could do all those thing before the forced "medication" and could after he was finally released and I had worked hard at convincing the doctor to take him off the "medications" they had him on.
Is this the way we really want to treat mentally ill people? Because to me it sounds like a horror story of days past yet this is still happening today and I promise in 50-100 years time will be looked at by psychology students as one of the many inhumane mistakes the field has made. This should be a bygone mistake NOW.
Now I looked up this Bakers Act and on Wikipedia it says there must be evidence that the person "is a harm to self, harm to others, or self neglectful" yet this worries me because it does not require that the person has ACTUALLY harmed themselves or others it relies on an ASSUMPTION that they will.... they don't have to have actually done any harm for this to be enacted then once the ball is rolling this in particular scares me http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0394/Sections/0394.463.html "394.463 Involuntary examination.—
(1) CRITERIA.—A person may be taken to a receiving facility for involuntary examination if there is reason to believe that the person has a mental illness and because of his or her mental illness:
(a)1. The person has refused voluntary examination after conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of the examination; or
2. The person is unable to determine for himself or herself whether examination is necessary; and
(b)1. Without care or treatment, the person is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself; such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; and it is not apparent that such harm may be avoided through the help of willing family members or friends or the provision of other services; or
2. There is a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm to himself or herself or others in the near future, as evidenced by recent behavior."
and this http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0394/Sections/0394.467.html"394.467 Involuntary inpatient placement.—
(1) CRITERIA.—A person may be placed in involuntary inpatient placement for treatment upon a finding of the court by clear and convincing evidence that:
(a) He or she is mentally ill and because of his or her mental illness:
1.a. He or she has refused voluntary placement for treatment after sufficient and conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of placement for treatment; or
b. He or she is unable to determine for himself or herself whether placement is necessary; and
2.a. He or she is manifestly incapable of surviving alone or with the help of willing and responsible family or friends, including available alternative services, and, without treatment, is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself, and such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; or
b. There is substantial likelihood that in the near future he or she will inflict serious bodily harm on himself or herself or another person, as evidenced by recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening such harm; and
(b) All available less restrictive treatment alternatives which would offer an opportunity for improvement of his or her condition have been judged to be inappropriate."
This is scary because this basically means that anyone who hasn't ACTUALLY done any harm to themselves or others can:
1- be involuntarily taken for 72 hours for "examination"... now once in this system do you really think the people who's job it is to process these cases actually do not proceed through? Of course they do and look at the criteria how much more of a catch 22 could it be? "The person has refused voluntary examination after conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of the examination; or 2. The person is unable to determine for himself or herself whether examination is necessary;"
2- be then involuntarily detained in a mental hospital.
Now I want you to think for a moment in your right mind how you would like to have this enacted on you?
So then after being taken, involuntarily examined and processed where at each step a refusal to accept this voluntarily can be seem as a criteria to continue anyway on an involuntary basis look what can happen next
"394.467 Involuntary inpatient placement.—
(1) CRITERIA.—A person may be placed in involuntary inpatient placement for treatment upon a finding of the court by clear and convincing evidence that:
(a) He or she is mentally ill and because of his or her mental illness:
1.a. He or she has refused voluntary placement for treatment after sufficient and conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of placement for treatment; or
b. He or she is unable to determine for himself or herself whether placement is necessary; and
2.a. He or she is manifestly incapable of surviving alone or with the help of willing and responsible family or friends, including available alternative services, and, without treatment, is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself, and such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; or
b. There is substantial likelihood that in the near future he or she will inflict serious bodily harm on himself or herself or another person, as evidenced by recent behavior causing, attempting, or threatening such harm; and
(b) All available less restrictive treatment alternatives which would offer an opportunity for improvement of his or her condition have been judged to be inappropriate." Again catch 22. Refusing voluntary placement can be seen as a criteria for involuntary placement.
for more statutes http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0394/0394PARTIContentsIndex.html
Now basically because of the system and the criteria I think their advice to you to submit to "voluntary" placement (I use the term voluntary here lightly because it seems you really don't have a choice if you actually want a choice in this) was wise because it seems to be the only loophole out of this system once you have found yourself in it. This is wise advice to go voluntarily if you've found yourself in this situation not because you should but because if you don't your options are cut off to you and you are stuck in the system of involuntary. I would also say to any unfortunate individual who finds themselves in this system to go voluntarily because ironically it seems to be the only way out.
This is however rather unfair, I ask anyone in their right mind if you were taken would you really want to submit to this? Well if you say no you are written off right there because that right there is a criteria ticked off for putting you through the involuntary process... I ask you in this situation how "voluntary" are your options? This does not seem right to me, the only people who should actually be put in detention of any kind involuntarily should be ACTUAL criminals, not supposed ones. What frustrates me is I know how hard it is to actually seek help if you feel you have a problem and to actually get that help and yet the system time and time again turns away those seeking the help and drags in on an involuntary basis others. My uncle was a psychiatric nurse (want to know something else? He committed suicide) but he used to say they got people who would come in seeking treatment but they were deemed not in need of treatment and turned away, then they had people that were literally dragged in kicking and screaming and locked up there with "treatment" forced on them.
Something is very wrong here people. Something is very wrong and back-to-front about this system. I mean I can see this as an ATTEMPT of a preventative measure yet when people come seeking help there isn't a place for them and I really think that would be a far more effective preventative measure if there was a place for those actually seeking it, a preventative measure that actually makes a lot more sense than this and is actually more humane. I mean this is meant to be a part of the mental health system... well call me a cabbage but that is just #u@%*^& crazy. People are too scared to even speak about their problems lest they find themselves in a system that... well that does THIS to people.