Why should mental illness be a crime someone is locked up for? And what level of crazy is permitted so you can maintain your freedom? Depression? Anxiety? PTSD? What if someone is mentally fine but might appear otherwise, like if they have cerebral palsy? Should we lock them up too?
Obviously that’s why they were shut down. There were serious ethical issues…
But why did we throw out the baby with the bathwater? Why throw them on the streets instead of fixing the system?
Of course I don’t want people with anxiety locked up. What about we give very mentally ill a place to go? And those who are hurting themselves or others are sent there against their will.
Well, anyone could say somrone was crazy and they’d maybe get locked up. Women were getting diagnosed with hysteria and lobotomized. You can’t really fix a system that takes away people’s autonomy as the main feature of that system. Like people who get PTSD and are disempowered are the ones being diagnosed and locked up - even though it actually seems pretty rational to develop PTSD from the stuff they went through. So are they actually crazy, or are they victims?
It’s really not that simple, and this is forced imprisonment we’re talking about here. Not even in the fields of ethics and bioethics do we have concrete answers.
The article discusses an approach to solving bioethics problems through consensus and the establishment of conditional demarcation boundaries within the legal field. The author notes the lack of general criteria for assessing positions, which leads to an “eternal discussion” and makes some problems, such as abortion, euthanasia and biomedical experiment, fundamentally insoluble. Existing bioethical theories consider problems from an axiological position, remaining divorced from ontological foundations. The issue of abortion has historically depended on the dominant type of worldview - pantheistic, theistic, deistic and atheistic. The resolution of such issues is determined by external factors, which creates the ground for conflicts in society. The author calls for a deeper understanding of human nature and ideological dialogues to resolve bioethical contradictions.
If I could create the system it would be the level at which you cannot sustain yourself outside the system. But I would not be treating them in with the level at which you’re a danger to others. Two different systems with two different goals. It would be far more residential, an apartment building with a clinic on the ground floor type thing. Everyone jumps straight to lockdown wards but it doesn’t have to be that.
Well, if the residents are free to leave, then what you’re proposing is assisted living or a permeable institution, not a traditional institution. Institution by the traditional colloquial definition, means they cannot leave and they have their personal liberties taken. Everyone thinks you mean “lockdown” because that’s what an institution is to pretty much everyone. If you specify “permeable institution,” or “assisted living,” it would better convey your meaning
Restriction of freedom is still often associated with psychiatric institutionalization and hospital treatment although modern psychiatric wards and hospitals have been found to be ‘permeable’ [20]. Similar to Goffman’s interpretation of psychiatric hospitals, McNown Johnson & Rhodes characterized psychiatric institutions as establishments where their residents have little or no choice about their participation in activities, and have little say about how they are being treated [38]. Admitted residents are not allowed to leave the psychiatric institution without being officially released or discharged. From this perspective, patients’ freedom of movement is restricted and the functions of psychiatric institutions are similar to a security guard.
The results of this review can be related to critiques of Goffman’s notion of the mental institution [20,37,83,84] namely that the earlier conceptualizations of institutionalization are limiting and can no longer be applicable in today’s context. The traditional conceptualization of institutionalization reinforces mainly a restrictive understanding of institutionalization as taking place in institutions, where patients are only the sufferers of the treatment process and have limited autonomy and are completely isolated from the outside world. Townsend [82] concluded in his review that studies from 1959 to 1975 support the idea that institutionalization involves patients accepting institutional life and developing a lack of desire to leave after a long stay in mental institutions. More recently, Quirk and his associates [20,56] found that ‘permeable institutions’ provide a better representation of the reality of everyday life in modern ‘bricks and mortar’ psychiatric institutions.
There are literally people itt advocating for it. I have seen people advocate for putting homeless in prisons and even concentration/work camps. People 100000% advocate for that type of psychiatric institution. In fact, per the link in my previous comment, the vast majority of psychiatric institutions are this type of “lockdown” institution and it is actually an exception to the norm and a new style of institution to do the permeable institution. So if you mean a permeable institution, you should specify that if you want to be understood, because that’s what common use means.
Words mean things. People are cruel. Can’t assume you aren’t cruel. Use right word if you want to be understood.
Oh I know there are people advocating to abuse homeless people. But when you assume all mental health facilities are lockdown facilities for dangerous people you’re hurting the entire mental health community. When pressed, people do not want lockdown facilities.
Okay, great. Maybe next time clarify your meaning by saying “permeable institutions” or “assisted living,” so that people don’t assume you’re using the most common colloquial definition of “institution,” and so you don’t accidentally spread pro-traditional institution messages.
Why should mental illness be a crime someone is locked up for? And what level of crazy is permitted so you can maintain your freedom? Depression? Anxiety? PTSD? What if someone is mentally fine but might appear otherwise, like if they have cerebral palsy? Should we lock them up too?
Obviously that’s why they were shut down. There were serious ethical issues…
But why did we throw out the baby with the bathwater? Why throw them on the streets instead of fixing the system?
Of course I don’t want people with anxiety locked up. What about we give very mentally ill a place to go? And those who are hurting themselves or others are sent there against their will.
Well, anyone could say somrone was crazy and they’d maybe get locked up. Women were getting diagnosed with hysteria and lobotomized. You can’t really fix a system that takes away people’s autonomy as the main feature of that system. Like people who get PTSD and are disempowered are the ones being diagnosed and locked up - even though it actually seems pretty rational to develop PTSD from the stuff they went through. So are they actually crazy, or are they victims?
It’s really not that simple, and this is forced imprisonment we’re talking about here. Not even in the fields of ethics and bioethics do we have concrete answers.
https://journals.academiczone.net/index.php/ijfe/article/view/2261
If I could create the system it would be the level at which you cannot sustain yourself outside the system. But I would not be treating them in with the level at which you’re a danger to others. Two different systems with two different goals. It would be far more residential, an apartment building with a clinic on the ground floor type thing. Everyone jumps straight to lockdown wards but it doesn’t have to be that.
Well, if the residents are free to leave, then what you’re proposing is assisted living or a permeable institution, not a traditional institution. Institution by the traditional colloquial definition, means they cannot leave and they have their personal liberties taken. Everyone thinks you mean “lockdown” because that’s what an institution is to pretty much everyone. If you specify “permeable institution,” or “assisted living,” it would better convey your meaning
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3702490/
I think someone benefits from creating that expectation, but nobody I’ve talked to wants to bring back cold war era mental institutions.
There are literally people itt advocating for it. I have seen people advocate for putting homeless in prisons and even concentration/work camps. People 100000% advocate for that type of psychiatric institution. In fact, per the link in my previous comment, the vast majority of psychiatric institutions are this type of “lockdown” institution and it is actually an exception to the norm and a new style of institution to do the permeable institution. So if you mean a permeable institution, you should specify that if you want to be understood, because that’s what common use means.
Words mean things. People are cruel. Can’t assume you aren’t cruel. Use right word if you want to be understood.
Oh I know there are people advocating to abuse homeless people. But when you assume all mental health facilities are lockdown facilities for dangerous people you’re hurting the entire mental health community. When pressed, people do not want lockdown facilities.
Okay, great. Maybe next time clarify your meaning by saying “permeable institutions” or “assisted living,” so that people don’t assume you’re using the most common colloquial definition of “institution,” and so you don’t accidentally spread pro-traditional institution messages.