|
Post by Admin on Feb 26, 2018 14:25:28 GMT -4
|
|
jose
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by jose on Feb 26, 2018 19:53:04 GMT -4
Trump's Call for Mental Institutions
In regards to the idea to reopen the asylums and psychatic hospital might not be a bad idea. There are many those who should not be in general public because they don’t have the mental capacity to know what is right and wrong and that their only solution to their problem is to inflect harm or pain to others. Depending on the severity of the individual, they might be taught for a trade and function for independent living. However, the problem with the asylum is that the cost for it. It is bad enough that many insurance place a limit in their mental health coverage, coverage for mental asylum would be certainly a top concern and for how long is anyone guest.
So You Think Someone Might be Mentally Ill
In regards to know if someone with mental health will cause an issue in the future, the Florida shooting tragedy had many setbacks in which multiple accounts( local/federal authorities, fellow student classmates & other parents) knew the issues/concerns of Cruz for sometime and fail to act upon despite the many warning signs. To make the matter worse, because of lack or warning and respond, he was able to obtain firearms because of it. Same story with The Virginia Tech shooting. The State of Virginia Health Department acknowledge that they did not include mental health issue with the gunman that would have prevented him to obtain them. Same for the Texas Church shooting; where the Department of the Air Force admitted that they did not up to date the gunman’s files. I believe that there anyone who have demonstrated the capacity to do harm on themselves and others, it must be reported to the proper authorities, then refer for psycharitc evaluation, for the sake of public safety. As the old saying goes “any set backs will send us back”
|
|
|
Post by psychforlife (JAMESEUNMS) on Feb 27, 2018 20:24:12 GMT -4
Although Trump's call for more mental institutions was based on prejudice against those with mental health issues, it is true that we need more facilities. In fact, just like the second article mentioned, every facet of mental health care needs to be improved. There is a shortage of psychiatric beds, psychiatrists and community programs and initiatives. Police officers who are not trained in mental health are the ones who are making initial contact the majority of the time. It is unbelievable that prisons are the number 1 housing for psychiatric patients and these patients are not being rehabilitated. Also, there still is a lingering negative stigma of having a mental disease, which is causing a delay in both the onset of treatment and continuation of treatment. There is not a simple solution to the mental health problem, but I don't even see steps being made in the correct direction.
|
|
|
Post by kiragaleano on Feb 28, 2018 11:29:35 GMT -4
While I believe the situation in Florida presents a larger issue than just mental health in America, it is true that the mental health facilities in this country are in need of more assistance. During the inpatient psych rotation, it seemed to be the norm that there were never enough beds to meet patient need. Additionally, certain patients would have a long history of frequent admissions because after they were stabilized in the hospital, they did not have proper outpatient follow-up which resulted in more short-term admissions. A facility that provided longer term care for the mentally ill certainly would be beneficial for a number of patients in need of a more regulated care facility. A decent number of the patients seen during inpatient treatment were homeless and while social workers were able to find shelters, this isn't necessarily a long-term facility in which the patient can reside and manage their health. Regardless of the naive approach to mental healthcare, Trump's statements regarding more mental health institutions does have value.
In regards to the second article regarding barriers to care, I do believe this also reflects the general need for more mental health funding in America. There has to be more discussion concerning the management with patients who may not seem acutely dangerous but pose serious risks in the future. It cannot just be the extreme of no management to law enforcement. This may mean that in the interim period a patient may be required to receive periodic care to assess threat levels. The other side of this current debate is gun regulations, which should be of consideration in relation to mental illness limiting access to deadly weapons.
|
|
|
Post by angelakoulms4 on Feb 28, 2018 19:43:14 GMT -4
The first article about Trump re-opening asylums deals with two different issues, mental health and mass shootings. There is definitely some type of correlation, but strictly proposing to re-open asylums for the mentally ill in order to prevent violence and mass school shootings is not the solution. Re-establsihing these asylums or mental health care centers can certainly benefit many populations with a mental illness such as the homeless-an epidemic of poverty and living on the streets. Let's think about the young adult, Mr. Cruz- would he be found in one of these asylums if available to him? I don't think so. Who's to say he would be admitted by others OR by himself for "a fixation on guns and killing animals?" Under what state law, would this individual be admitted? The second article reports how Florida and many other states have poor laws for individuals like Mr. Cruz, which is unfortunate and another problem of its own that laws vary from state to state. And say we do open these asylums or mental health care centers, will patients, once stabilized and are safe to return to their community, be compliant with their medication? Will they have a proper support system, follow up with their therapy sessions? Again, we run into so many problems with the system. Laws need to be changed, funding needs to be addressed and established and changes need to be updated. I guess as a country we need to start somewhere and that might be re-opening these asylums, but not for the reason of preventing mass school shootings.
|
|
|
Post by AjaHappel on Feb 28, 2018 20:00:00 GMT -4
In regards to the first article, I believe that opening more mental institutes would be a positive step towards improving treatment for those who are mentally ill. After spending several weeks working with psychiatric patients, it is apparent that these individuals are lack the proper resources needed to improve their conditions. Especially, I witnessed a viscous cycle with the individuals who were severely ill and required inpatient treatment. The psychiatric patients who who apparently the sickest always believe that there is nothing wrong with them and that they don't need help. When these patients are admitted to the inpatient ward, the physicians put them on the proper medication for around three to four days. However, when they leave, they tend to stop their treatment and the process begins again. Thus, I believe that opening more facilities would give these patients more stability and possibly reduce the risk of them relapsing. The problem with this plan is funding. Since their is a large stigma towards mental health, the funding will be the largest hurdle to jump in achieving this goal. In regards to the second article, its unfortunate of the inconsistency in determining which patients are a danger to either themselves or the public. Especially, the statistics are shocking when it comes to the amount of mental health patients that are in jail. This shows that their are gaps in treatment when it comes to mental health. Also, in regards to gun violence I believe that a more stringent screening should be implemented in order to prevent guns from falling into the wrong hands.
|
|
|
Post by Tanuj Sharma. on Feb 28, 2018 20:04:55 GMT -4
1. No one should be allowed to own a firearm without a thorough psych evaluation by two psychiatrists. Once a decision is made by these two psychiatrists the decision cannot be challenged or amended for 6 years. If you are found to be mentally ill or are suspected to be dangerous then you will not be allowed to own a fire arm. Those who currently own firearms should undergo obligatory psych evaluations every 2 years-- if they are found to be dangerous their firearm needs to be taken away. (This sounds awesome in theory but would never fly..anyway I just thought I would put it out there)
2. Law enforcement cannot be left to recognize and manage those who are mentally ill. It is unfortunate that Florida does not have better mental health infrastructure in place to serve its population. If feasible, a continuum of care system should be implemented in each state where there are ample resources available to those who are mentally ill. There needs to be less barriers to care, and care should not be initiated only when a person becomes dangerous.
3. I like the idea of having mentally ill centers with strict ethical standards, though I do not think this will solve school shootings.
|
|
|
Post by sarakhan on Mar 1, 2018 0:11:29 GMT -4
This article points out some major flaws in the system. A lot of the issues that were brought up during article could be dealt with if we had more funding. I think there will be more funding available if people were more informed about mental illness. Family members might not be aware of what is considered abnormal behavior until its too late. I believe that a dialogue has been started in the recent year about mental health which will definitely move us in the right direction. I also think it wouldn’t be a bad idea if law enforcement was also trained in dealing with issues of mental heath so patients who are a danger to themselves and others are taken care of and are provided with the treatment they require. The idea of bringing back mental institutions wouldn’t be such a bad idea however the issue of funding arises here again. Most people’s perception of mental institutions is of creepy old buildings with rooms for even creepier experiments. I understand this view might arise from history of these institutions were patients might have been abused and not given the treatment required. But I think its very important comprehend that these institutions are not places for the mentally ill to get locked up in and forgotten about. These patient should be treated with respect and dignity.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Heckroth on Mar 1, 2018 15:10:51 GMT -4
In regards to the first article, I think that putting more thought and consideration into mental health is a good start. Although I don’t believe that opening mental asylums will be enough, it is a good start to get the topic of pychiatric disorder out there. The article did a good job to state that it is more about the funding (or lack there of) of mental illness that needs to be improved. The stigma and negative outlook that patients have may change if more funding is done and mental health is not seen in such a negative light. By helping people realize that mental health problems are as real as the ones that we see daily such as HTN and Diabetes, maybe those that need help will be more willing to seek it. This goes for the second article as well. More funding towards schools guidance or counseling programs to educate members of school faculties what type of things to look out for could possibly prevent future incidents. Nicholas Cruz had displayed very obvious issues that should be seen in order to forewarn others. I don’t believe that all shooters or students will fall under a broad category to be seen but a start would be to be educated on certain signs and get those who need it, help. I don’t believe there is a clear cut answer on a perfect solution to stop these tragedies from happening but I do believe that increased funding for mental illness and reducing the negative image is a good start.
|
|
|
Post by Krista on Mar 1, 2018 15:21:01 GMT -4
Re-opening asylums seems like a knee-jerk reaction to this catastrophic and devastating situation. The people committing these mass shootings are doing so before they are even diagnosed with mental illness, before they would even be considered for an asylum. They are also high functioning and plan these attacks so well that its hard to imagine they could be that mentally ill in the first place (as the article mentions the 1% though to be affected by mental illness). Trump's proposal would not prevent the "dangerously mentally ill" from being out in society but it may improve the quality of care for the chronically mentally ill and decrease the number of homeless people. As we discussed, there are so many aspects of the situation and not one answer. I still think we can start taking steps to provide education and screening tools for teachers and physicians. If teachers and physicians could better identify some of the characteristic behavioral patterns and warning signs in childhood, it would be one of many small steps in the right direction. Lastly, there needs to be a national hotline where people can call in and report suspicious behavior. I think a lot of people hear or see things that are concerning but have no where to report it to.
|
|
BMM
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by BMM on Mar 1, 2018 21:52:59 GMT -4
1. In a time when budget cuts are being announced from almost every important aspect of our society, reviving specialized institutions for the mentally ill (and changing the negative connotation of the term asylum) boils down to prioritization. Unfortunately, the priorities of the current administration don’t seem to be in line with those suffering from mental illnesses. As it was stated in the article a lot of mentally ill patients end up on the street and when funding for programs that provide the homeless with a basic meal are being cut and simply feeding a homeless person in different states has been made illegal, it’s very hard to see any type of funding which would provide long-term healthcare and housing to a population that is already suffering in their own unique ways. The proper time and resources must be given to the patient to fully heal and from what I can see it doesn’t seem feasible to provide such costly therapy to the average person when basic healthcare to the low income individual is already under attack
2. I think John Snook said it perfectly: “We have to invest. We’re not saving any money if we’re letting these issues get this bad.” I found it interesting that cops, who are not trained to be mental health professionals, are being asked to initiate the process in certain “starved” states such as Florida which is in the spotlight of mental health issues and gun control as of late. Should cops be required to complete basic training as mental health professionals and is that enough to change the status quo? Should cops then be expected to be paid better and ask for more benefits? I know that each state reserves the right to certain rules and regulations but should mental healthcare, or healthcare in general, be something that has a base criteria that should be met as an entire country? Maybe some collaboration between states with good mental health protocol as well as foreign countries could aid those attempting to change the current terrain of mental healthcare.
|
|
|
Post by PraiseGod Ekong on Mar 5, 2018 10:54:19 GMT -4
TRUMP’S CALL FOR MENTAL INSTITUTIONS This was a good article. I support the idea of bringing back asylums because it will help the patient get better care and even if the mass shootings may not be completely eliminated, it will go a long way to curb it. Although this may cause there to be a connection between mental illness and violence, you can not completely rule out this connection. I feel it is better to arrest the situation than to be arrested by the situation as the adage goes “prevention is better than cure”. It may be expensive to bring back but it’s a big yes from me.
|
|
|
Post by PraiseGod Ekong on Mar 5, 2018 11:57:00 GMT -4
SO YOU THINK YOU MIGHT BE MENTALLY ILL This was a good article. In my opinion, more interest, funds, resources and empathy should be channeled to mental health care. The statement “He’s not dangerous yet” eliminates the fact that the illness could be very serious and as we know, illnesses vary in severity. I quote Snook “ If they’re having a stroke, you don’t say,They’re having a stroke, but they aren’t dangerous to anyone yet.” In mental illness, we lose that too often.
Every sign or symptom, no matter how “little” or “big” should be evaluated and taken seriously because this will aid provide better mental care and reduce the incidence of violence.
|
|
|
Post by ndidiamadi on Mar 5, 2018 17:14:16 GMT -4
The article concerning Trump’s call for a mental institution was a good read. I totally agree with the idea of reopening closed mental asylums but not to dump the mentally challenged as I would like to refer to them. I believe the mental health system in the United States needs to be strengthened and one way towards achieving that would be the reopening, establishing and renovating mental asylums and psychiatric homes. In addition to this, MENTAL HEALTH AWARENESS can never be overemphasized. Mental health issues should be taken as serious as myocardial infarctions to avoid statements like “small number of psychiatric bed.” Why would there be small number of beds if people pay attention to the mentally challenged in their community? This calls for community reinforcement but I digress. The connection between mental illness and violence is one that is under-emphasized and is often difficult to separate the two. In my opinion, violent display through mass shooting is connected to some mental challenges until proved otherwise.
As for the 2nd article, mentally ill people are not violent, but the violent are mentally ill. There should be laws guarding the admission of a mentally challenged individual and the possibility of them receiving psychiatric treatment. This faces so many limitations because of the difference in the laws in each states and in my own opinion, the laws must be the same nationwide. Most people receive psychiatric treatment when they are considered a danger. It begs the question, “Why must we wait until an individual is a danger to themselves and to others before administering psychiatric treatment?” Outdated federal laws concerning mental health should be eradicated. The nation has to be intentional about investing into mental health. There should be a psychiatric evaluation/clearance for individuals that wish to own a gun.
|
|
ebube
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by ebube on Mar 6, 2018 15:59:51 GMT -4
Trump's Call for Mental Institutions So You Think Someone Might be Mentally Ill
These two articles were well written Trumps call for mental institutions is actually a good idea. Provided there would be adequate funding for the mentally ill patients who, cannot live on their own and require much more than outpatient treatment, and not just a dumping ground for “sickos”. Weather the return of mental asylums would have an effect of the incidence of mass shootings is an entirely different discussion, as mental illness is a variable cause of mass shootings. For a ‘mass’ shooting to occur there has to be 1. Access to fire arms (Fixed) 2. A mentally unstable individual or a terrorist (Variable) So to imply that mass shootings can be stopped or significantly reduced by only tackling ½ of the variable condition of these conditions that favor mass shootings is just plane wrong. As second article said “most mentally ill people are not violent, and curing all mental illnesses would only prevent a small fraction—about 4 percent—of all violence. However, mentally ill people are more likely to carry out acts of violence if they aren’t being treated—hospitalized or medicated—for their mental illness. In other words, if we do want to prevent the small percentage of mentally ill people who might be violent from being violent, we should try to get them into treatment”
|
|