Slashdot Mirror
Scientology Group Urged Veto of Mental Health Bill
An anonymous reader writes: According to records obtained by The Texas Tribune, Gov. Greg Abbott vetoed a bill that would have given doctors more power to detain mentally ill and potentially dangerous patients, after a Church of Scientology-backed group helped organize a campaign against it. "Medical staff should work closely with law enforcement to help protect mentally ill patients and the public," he said. "But just as law enforcement should not be asked to practice medicine, medical staff should not be asked to engage in law enforcement, especially when that means depriving a person of the liberty protected by the Constitution." The bill would have allowed doctors to put mentally ill patients on a four-hour hold if they were suspected of being a danger to themselves or others. The bill had the support of two of the nation's largest medical associations.
It feels weird agreeing with scientologists, but you know how it goes with a broken clock.
Doctors get an awful lot of trust, much of it deserved and most of it necessary, given what they do, but seeing a doctor shouldn't mean risking my freedom. Even temporarily.
surprice.
The Constitution does not protect someone from killing themselves. Allowing someone who just attempted suicide to walk out the door is akin to allowing them to try again.
Nice work, Governor Abbott. Let us know when Texas is ready to join the rest of the world in treating mental issues as a serious problem.
I am certainly no friend of the scientology cult, but I can't say I disagree with them on this point. After this happens a few times many people who are mentally confused will stop going to a doctor at all in fear of being locked up against their will.
...in Scientology should be held. Their beliefs defy all credulity.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
So, the Scientologists have gone from just harassing people, to killing them.
Good to know L. Ron Hubbard was such a great "people person."
There is a knee-jerk reaction of always standing on the other side of whatever Scientology says, but you need to be very careful in case of mental instiutions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't see it that far fetched that US government could classify fanatical suicide terrorism as mental illness in 2025 let's say. And then you don't need Guantanamo anymore - there is enough torture-like devices in hospitals to make life uncomfortable for people.
We have had very ugly case in Poland recently (and in theory, being part of EU, we are supposed to be 'first world' country). Some guy got cheated by mayor of small town, assaulted him in public and went for psychiatric observation. Chief doctor of the insitution was very good friend of the mayor... guy got diagnosed with mental illness, being dangerous and got locked away. He tried petitioning for cross-examination etc etc (he was ready to server small jail sentence for assault and then be able to go to civil court to get right for how he got cheated finacially by mayor), but all letters got stopped at hospital. They are allowed to do so, because some crazy people are writing conspiracy theory letters to police every day, so there is a law to stop 'aimless correspondence'. Here, chief doctor decided that all his appeals for crossexamination, freedom and accusing mayor of wrongdoings would upset authorities.
Fast forward 7 years.
Guy leaves hospital completely broken by heavy medication, homeless and to be honest, quite crazy now.
Another case - some guy claims other guy threatened to kill him. No process and instead of few months in prison for verbal threats, 8 years in closed ward.
(Opposite is also true. Guy drives car on pedestrian walk on purpose (there was no road nearby and he was driving for few km , hitting 23 people in process. Instead of going to jail, he got diagnosed as unstable, goes to hospital and can possibly go out after half year. He used to study psychiatrics and his father is very rich so...)
There are so many protections and possibilities to appeal built into judical system, but at same time, we want to give unlimited power without possibility of appeal to some doctors.
Isn't it true that most psychiatrist and psychologist are self-healers, ie they are a bit odd to begin with?
Psychiastrist and psychologist: "Aah, you don't seem to feel well. Aah. Locking you up. Yedi, Yoggo. Aah. Duggo. Jaaaammmaaa. Thetan. Xenu. Teegeeack. Sfgofgiaughaifh."
Something along those lines? I understand then that scientologists don't want that to happen.
If mental retard Alice has dyslexia and writes to mental retard Bob who has dyslexia, can M/R Bob read what M/R Alice wrote?
Yes, I know what you're thinking. Mental retards cannot write so it's a trick question, but it's hypothetical.
Will likely be the first responders to a lot of scenarios that will require them to administer medical procedures so that is a flawed argument.
When the same sort of legislation was being pushed in Massachusetts, I personally delivered a speech against it before the Joint Committee on Mental Health. I was there with an army of other mentally ill people, their friends, their loved ones, and even some of their doctors, standing against this dangerous breach of our civil rights.
The speech is here, in the block-quoted portion, sandwiched in a more detailed discussion of the issue. Don't let anyone frame this as the agenda of some cult. I believe in psychiatry, I wouldn't be alive without it, but this legislation is abhorrent.
https://firstlook.org/theinter...
As one example, when the CIA asked Melvin Gravitz, a long-time APA governance member and former CIA contractor, to weigh in on whether or not it was ethical for psychologists to participate in torturous interrogations in early 2003, he concluded that it was fine because ethics need to be âoeflexibleâ in the face of national security.
So if police believe you're a danger to yourself, they can shoot you all they want, but if you're doctor thinks you're a danger to yourself, there's nothing he/she can do. Yep, sounds like Texas. Disclosure: I'm a Texan.
Also, good to know we're following the U.S. standard of pushing mental healthcare to where it belongs: privately operated county jails and state prisons.
Exactly why do you have a problem with me, if I'm only a danger to myself? Do Americans not believe an individual has sovereignty of their own body, and should be allowed to decide if they want to end their life or not?
So what quallifies scientology to treat mental issues then? Should they by same logic stick to religion stuff
if everybody was mentally healthy, they wouldn't have any followers.
most people which are mentally ill do not feel they are ill or think the doctor are there to get them (most schizophrenic have paranoid tendencies for example). It is also very hard for the family or police or anybody to stop them and have them interned against their will, you can get a 24h or 48h observation internment from a judge in some rare case, but that's it. End results ? A lot of mentally ill people which become homeless , or sometimes kill people in their delusion fueled paranoia. Thankfully that happens relatively rarely.
You are supposed to call the cult of scientology instead and they will come pick them up to see what their thetan level is and take all of their life savings. You have to be mentally ill to belong to that place.
... and fuck Scientology for being a tax shelter for rich wing-nuts.
The LGBTQ community should go this route so they can have religious freedoms like marriage, tax-free property, sanctuaries, ordained Christian pastors ... the whole nine yards.
But I digress ...
Fuck Scientology.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
The mentally ill do need to be confined at times as do many alcoholics and drug addicts. We are losing millions of good people who could have been helped or cured because we can not break up the patterns of their illnesses.
.... if it wasn't for the fact that L Ron Hubbard was mentally ill, which is why his "religion"/money making machine/fraud is so set against psychiatrists.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
"I have no knowledge of mental health issues, no qualifications in mental health areas, nor even as a general medical practitioner - but I totally agree with these abusive shitheels from the Church of Scientology because FREEDOM."
This is pretty depressing.
Sometimes people are right for the wrong reasons.
The Mormons are against alcohol and caffeine for reasons pulled out of someone's ass, but in the last few years science has discovered the affects on sleep and other neurological issues and some people should refrain from those drugs. Of course, Mormons insist that Smith "knew" they were "bad" for you and why the prohibition.
Then again, folks can be completely wrong, like the Jewish dietary restrictions. Contrary to myth, it wasn't because of health issues because they are allowed to eat things that are as prone to food born diseases as the food they are prohibited from eating.
Jade Helm truther, Scientology puppet... it is staggering to realize that Rick Perry was _not_ the worst modern-era Texas governor.
Cool, so when the next round of deaths attributed to mental health occur there, we'll know who to blame, and it won't be guns.
Nice try, but ebola -- which can be tested objectively -- isn't the issue. The issue is that doctors are being asked to subjectively evaluate people who may or may not be mentally ill, who may or may not have an inclination towards violence, and who may or may not have the will to actually exercise that inclination. In other words, they are being asked to perform "pre-crime" sentencing, which is in direct opposition to the principle of innocent before proven guilty.
Shame on the unthinking herd that modded this guy up. This strawman was dressed in blinking christmas lights and you STILL missed it.
Is all attendance at secure mental units voluntary? What about One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
They had a protest outside a psych ward in Sydney - more recruiters than placard holders. At least it's easy to spot the placard holders.
cpelling
In Canada, they've had the option of placing you on a 72 hour mental health assessment for years, though usually a decision is made after the first 24 hours as to whether to hold you for the 72 hours. If you are having serious difficulties, they can hold you for up to three weeks after the 72 hours, an involuntary commital.
I went through the process, and it's a damned good thing they were able to hold me. They literally saved my life -- I was suicidal.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Gone from? They have already killed a number of people, do a search about them.
According to the Church doctrine’s ‘Operating Thetan Level III’, Xenu was the evil dictator of the Galactic Confederacy which existed 75 million years ago. According to Hubbard, Xenu brought billions of people to earth (called Teegeeack at the time), grouped them up near volcanoes and proceeded to drop hydrogen bombs on them. The souls of the dead people then had to watch a “three-D, super colossal motion picture” which gave them false memories of Jesus, the crucifixion and all major world religions. These souls apparently now negatively affect everyone who has not had them removed by the Church.
You'd have to be mentally ill to believe that.
They discovered that under the bill, they would all fall under "suspected of being a danger to themselves or others"
With the number of mass shootings and violence that has taken place in Texas recently, you would have thought this law would have been a drop in the bucket. I live in a place where a public shooting took place, the person responsible would have went through such a psychiatric evaluation prior to his killing spree had the facility been established in time. By this I mean that other knew the person needed help, but there was no legal means to have him petitioned to go through a psychiatric evaluation. These type of laws are how the prevention of these mass shootings can be initiated.
from confining people against their will?
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
The recent scandal at the American Psychological Association, with psychologists participating in the torture of US prisoners, is worth considering in regard to this story.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-...
You are welcome on my lawn.
THE HYPNOTOAD
IMHO, This "church" should put their vast amounts of money where their mouth is and take all the mental cases in, house them, feed them, cloth them, and then show the world that they can cure them.
Maybe this bill is aimed at Scientologists.
[Scientologists] have already killed a number of people, do a search about them.
Have you ever looked at how many people doctors kill and their accountability?
I suspect the main effect of the veto is to save millions of dollars in legal costs challenging the constitutionality of the law before it was struck down by a judge. Besides, police can always hold someone on something vague like Disorderly Conduct if they want to.
Really surprised a ctrl+f didn't turn up any posts mentioning 5150 / 5250
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5150_(involuntary_psychiatric_hold)
I think a lot of people are thinking about the 1950s style of institutionalizing the mentally ill as being the norm now. It's not. Mentally ill people are pretty much left to fend for themselves, and there is an extremely high bar to putting someone in a mental hospital. States closed almost all of their hospitals in the 70s through the 90s, mostly because of budget problems. (Long term patients used to work as part of their rehab, and when it was ruled they couldn't work for free anymore the model collapsed.) Personally I think some of the capacity should have been retained for medium term stays -- let people work their problems out without having to be put in prison where there is no chance of recovery.
Most truly disturbed people wind up in jail for acting out, or they are homeless on the street. Less disturbed people can be treated without locking them up these days. It's not like it was, when people would be sent away for years or lobotomized because of a panic attack or depression. This is happening because Scientologists don't believe in psychiatry or that mental illness is a physical disease. Most mentally ill people are fine living on their own - it's the occasional shooting, kidnapping or pushing people off subway platforms that gets the most attention.
Maybe it's just because the Aurora, CO shooter was convicted this week, but I suspect people are looking for ways to prevent those types of tragedies, presuming there is no other way - there are plenty of ways to evaluate a person for psychological issues:
A parent can submit their child for evaluation
A friend or family member can ask the court to intervene
A judge can order an evaluation as part of a criminal trial involving the person
A school can petition for an evaluation
The Gabby Agiffords was know to be suffering serious mental problems by friends, family, classmates, his school administration and law enforcement event - no one wanted to intervene.
The Sandy Hook shooter had profound mental issues, but he mother tried to keep him 'out of the system' to protect her child from being stigmatized, she paid the ultimate price when her son killed her and stole her weapons.
And so on - the real challenge is people don't want to get involved in other people's problems, don't want to cause problems for their child, sibling, friend, or classmate that is struggling with mental issues.
Ken
Yes because if history tells us anything it is that law enforcement officers are particularly good at dealing with violent mentally ill people.
True, the mentally ill patient usually ends up teased/beaten/shot to death, but at least they didn't tread on their constitutional rights...
That said, I'm not sure an actual law was needed. I'm pretty sure if anyone (doctors included) believe that someone is posing an immediate threat to others, they can take action to detain someone until authorities arrive.
Now if they are talking about something not "immediate" or "imminent", then that is something different. If the idea was to detain someone because perhaps at some point in the distant future they might be a threat that is something else. However since they were talking about a "4 hour" time span, that doesn't appear to be the case, it is just to detain them immediately because they think a threat imminent until authorities can respond. Sounds like they just wanted some clarity or additional protection from litigation should they do it anyway, which may not really be required.
Integrating science and state leads to corrupted science in the long run. It does not make the state behave any more rationally. The same goes for medicine. This type of stuff is destroying the basis for modern civilization.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, compared to modern psychiatric medicine, Scientology does sounds rational.
--
ps: What caused the recent slashdot outage. Was it your cloud provider. What was their name?
I'm at a loss why anyone would agree with scientology on this matter.
As a medical doctor I think it is important there is a law that gives doctors a possibility to protect people (and their envirement) from them selves.
In my country, Holland, there is a procedure for protective custody in a mental hospital. I never heard of any misuse. Don't forget that in most cases people close to the person will see things go wrong and realize something has to be done.
Not having such a law means people who are mentally ill, can't be dealt with in a responsible way by the expert people. Either law enforcement excess in force and harm a patient, or patients harm their envirement in their blurred reality.
In Holland the procedure is as follows, and is in my opinion a responsible way of dealing with the delicate balance of liberty versus safety/health:
- a GP, parent, husband, wife, psychiatry counselor can request a protective custody, for instance for somebody who is psychotic
- a psychiatrist MD on call will evaluate the patient, regardless day or night
- if he/she agrees with the indication for custody, he will immediately call the mayor of the town (as impartial offical) to get a temporary approval for custody
- if approved a person can be taken into custody, if necessary by force. A will be submitted to a closed mental facility
- after 3 days a hearing will take place where a judge will see the patient, his lawyer and hear the psychiatrist evaluation and progres and will decide if the person (or then patient) will be continued to be in protective custody.
Good luck and lot's of wisdom to y'all.
It's up to 4 hours for a raving lunatic to "cool down".
The post I responded to specifically was about raving lunatics. Are you sure doctors can't already detain raving lunatics in the state this article is about?
The first response to that post denied that raving lunatics can be detained, and for proof it was stated that they can be detained. I pointed out the error of that post.
Now, you are just as blind in your reaction, making a statement you surely don't know the accuracy of, because of some personal bias that isn't my concern.
So, I will state again, for all you idiots out there: If a person is a raving lunatic,which implies being an immediate danger to themselves and others, the legal and medical systems already have laws/rules/procedures in place to handle the situation. Period. End of lecture.
The problem is that pretty much all states* require your 'raving lunatic' be a clear and immediate threat, and by 'clear and immediate' we're taking along the lines of 'waving a gun and shouting about shooting people right now' on clearness & immediacy--if you're just saying that you're thinking about doing it tomorrow, it's not quite immediate enough, never mind that you may be saying so in hopes that you will not be doing it because you're stuck in the mental health ward on the 24 hour hold. (They've got to get a judge to agree to hold you for anything more, in the most generous jurisdictions, and odds are that unless you're trying to kill the staff or yourself during that 24 hour hold, you will be tossed out on your ass once it expires regardless of what you want.)
If a 4 hour hold is enough to figure out if you're actually mentally ill or suffering from a medical emergency that just looks a hella lot like it--yes, there are times where it's hard to tell, neurological issues are a bitch--then it's probably best to have the police able to haul your ass to the ER without having to charge you with anything since that will haunt you.
So, think of it this way: Do you want to be arrested for breach of peace and left in a drunk tank 'til a judge can see you with a nice mark on your criminal record, or quickly taken to an ER where somebody whose ass is at least liable if not trained gets to make the call? Do you want to criminalize having mental health issues--at least effectively--or have 4 hours being watched by somebody who is if not trained at least liable if they screw up?
* By 'pretty much all' I mean 'probably all but not checking.' I'd have expected any exceptions to have gotten mentioned when covering the overall shitty set of options shrinks get when having to get somebody to where they can give proper, informed consent to (or refuse) treatment... Think of it as being like getting somebody too drunk to recognize their own name to give you their address so you can get them home: it ain't gonna be easy or fast.
It's the argument by negative association fallacy
Using an unpopular group or person, associate the unpopular group or person with one opinion.
Fallacy of association goes like this: if you are against the chosen opinion you are by definition for the unpopular group or person. In the real world unpopular groups or persons have things in common.
It's very common to have things in common even with the most vile figures from history.
(Hitler has facial hair and wears pants. Do you wear pants? )
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Association_fallacy#Negative_uses
Will a doctor jab a needle into a patience back as he turns to leave? Have order lies put a straight jacket at gun point? Because if not, it's just persuading a patient to voluntarily stay for observation. Should be legal already.