Posted on 07/20/2011 4:55:43 PM PDT by Jean2
Can anyone tell me who was responsible for the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill? I have heard various people claim it was done by Jerry Brown and otehrs say it was Ronald Reagan.
The Usual Suspects: LIBERALs. For all their “good intentions” they had a problem with people being warehoused and so forth. So now the mentally ill and developmentally disabled roam the streets, get robbed, assaulted, sexually molested and have other degrading experiences. Thanks, Liberals.
I don’t fault him.
Jeannette Walls [a big Liberal who used to work for MSNBC] was born to two homeless wanderers. She wrote a good book “Glass Castles”
But even she has had it up to here with the Liberal mindset that all so-called homeless wanderers are poor and needy. Her parents would have been classified as poor and in need of shelter. She knows they were not.
When she got older, she wrote books and got jobs working in the media. She would still see her mother who slept on the streets of New York City.
A good book which changed my views of homelessness and mental illness.
One of the pet theories extant in the 1970’s being the new medications were going to obviate the necessity of custodial care. What the theorists overlooked was the sick would not take their medications without direct supervision. Even in the 18th century they were taking care of their mentally ill people (August Pinel). The care was not great but it was care. The mad were not being exploited on the streets.
I don’t remember the exact law, but I do remember that in the
old days there was “work therapy” which allowed inmates in menta
institutions to work and earn some money, but because they
weren’t being paid “minimum wage” they had to shut that down.
So the poor inmates, even though they were medicated and
were somewhat stable were just warehoused, and all they did
all day was sit around, watch TV, smoke(nicotine appears
to make many bonafide schizophrenics feel better, whatever
that means), and waste away.
Now the medications are much better than the Thorazines and
Mellarils and Stelazines of that day, but the patient still
needs to take ‘em. Nowadays, it’s basically a merrygoround.
(i.e. get admitted , get a 5051(danger to oneself/others),
get medicated, get stable, and whoooosh back to the street.
Repeat as needed.
Napa State Mental Hospital is open for the fairly harmless One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest gang. Atascadero State mental Hosp. is open for the criminally insane.
It's full of democrats.
Leftist lawyers. I remember arguing with them.
Now they are all judges and still as dumb as rocks.
LOLOL.... that one snuck up on me.... sending to hubby..... so funny.
Interesting, in our state, anyone with concerns can initiate an involuntary commitment.
A doc pa or NP certifies it
A doc has to recertify it
You lose your second ammendment rights WHEN THE PAPER IS INITIATED, NOT WHEN IT IS CERTIFIED OR RECERTIFIED.
My visit through lock down psych unit at a local VA hospital a few years ago was pretty emotional for me. I was there to assess some design changes they were considering for the group spaces and sleeping spaces. Residents included members of the military going back to Korean action.
I truly admire the nursing staff in this unit. Nurses less than 5 feet tall,dealing with patients towering 6’5” and they do so with no outward signs of fear, even when said patient is having a meltdown. Very calm, very professional. Very heartbreaking to see these men who are trying to cope.
Do you understand that the purpose of this act was so people could not be ramrodded into what basically was a prison sentence without trial?
There is much abuse when it comes to over-medicating someone and committing them to a lock down situation for the purpose of gaining access to their estate. Happens even today, regardless of the law.
It was a horrible film, but had no context as to why some were naked and others yelling...no medications were given... It can be done humanely with what we have now, but it takes a judge to put the most violent in an institution...
I understand the purpose of this act, and I’m sure there are estate abuses like you say.
Nevertheless, the unintended consequences of this act are no hospitals and thousands of grievously ill people unable to make their own medical decisions wandering the streets of Los Angeles. How is that better?
I believe you need to research further. I like you put it on RR’s shoulders, but if you research this subject you will see it was the will of the people who pushed for it. The abuses of the weak in this way has not ended... it has morphed into other avenues. I myself am personally a witness to this and living through a fight against it.
I don’t see how that could survive a constitutional challenge in court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.