New York makes it easier to commit people with severe mental illnesses
Just a moment...
The foundation of the new policy is that New York state will be able to authorize first responders to forcibly hospitalize mentally ill New Yorkers who cannot meet their own basic needs such as food, shelter or medical care.
Involuntary psychiatry is a violent practice that strips its victims of all human rights and effectively all due process. It is an unimaginable horror that can possibly lead to coercive psychiatry or medicalized rape.
“who appear to be mentally ill and who display an inability to meet basic living needs” could be taken against their will to a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.
Not being able to provide for your needs is not mental illness. An appearance of mental illness is not proof that somebody needs involuntary commitment. First responders are not equipped to diagnose mental illness - this is a stripping of rights and imprisonment.
If somebody is unable to provide for their needs, give them the ability to do so. Provide food, real housing, actual medical care, and an option for outpatient mental health care for them to recover if they are not in crisis.
I understand some people are severely mentally ill, are in crisis, and are a DANGER to themselves and others and need care ASAP, but this is just targeting impoverished individuals, who may be homeless, based on what is effectively hearsay.
We can do better than this as a society.
It does bring up a tough question though: what do we do with people who need treatment but refuse to accept it?
I have been asking that question my whole life, and even more so now with certain politicians and governmental figures.
Find a way of treating them and helping them to adjust to society without the use of coercion or a violation of their rights. That means giving them real legal representation, giving them access to courts that are open to public observation (mental health courts are NOT sufficient), giving them access to second opinions, and exhausting social supports (e.g. housing them in a safe environment) without imprisoning them.
The bar for being declared incompetent and unable to consent to treatment (which leads to forced psychiatry) is not high enough. Even coming from a psychiatrist, it is effectively hearsay in my opinion. There is not enough due process and outside oversight.
There are real side effects to psychiatry - it's called iatrogenic illness. When somebody is in crisis, what do they prescribe? They prescribe powerful drugs, usually neuroleptics. For example, tardive dyskinesia can affect up to 20% of people who take neuroleptics. It could be permanent - look up YT videos of those afflicted. It's easy to stereotype somebody as mentally ill if they develop TD.
It could be that somebody reacts nicely to the drugs they are prescribed. But what happens when they are released and can't afford treatment or become non-compliant with treatment? It can lead to disastrous withdrawal and terrible side effects, that can result in more hospitalization or a worsening of their illness.
Knowing that, why would you take away somebody's ability to not consent to treatment? Why can't we give them access to intensive therapy, that they consent to, that properly addresses the root causes of their illness and inability to care for themselves? Why do we treat traumatized individuals by inflicting MORE trauma on them? Being kidnapped, imprisoned, and medically raped is traumatizing. Why are individuals not given the option to not consent to medication, but only consent to therapy?
I invite you to look at Soteria Houses, which is a different model of care, that successfully achieves remission in those that are experiencing first-episode psychosis/schizophrenia. If they can achieve remission with little to no psychiatric medication (and likely no life-long prescriptions) in a severe illness, without coercion or locked doors, why don't we give more people the chance to experience that? What if they have the capacity to heal in a supportive environment that doesn't strip them of their rights - an environment that respects their will and autonomy?
Find a way of treating them and helping them to adjust to society without the use of coercion
But this is what I'm asking - what happens to those who will never accept help without coercion?
If they are actively violent and have committed a crime, hold them until their (expedited) court date (while providing them the option to explore support/therapy and/or access to spiritual counselors), record examinations by psychiatrists/perform them with outside/impartial observation, give the accused legal representation, and let publicly observable courts decide their fate. The option of a jury, witness/family/etc. testimony, and second opinions is imperative to their human rights.
If they have committed no crime (homelessness or being unable to provide for your needs are not crimes), are not violent, and are not a direct threat to themselves or others (and there is no concrete evidence that they will be) - there's nothing you should be able to do to violate their will.
In the latter situation, the best you can do is try to earn their trust and ensure they are provided an environment where they feel safe - providing them with every social support and alternative that they should be entitled to explore for their betterment.
"Let them die on the streets" is your answer, apparently.
If you read my initial comment in the thread, you would have seen me saying this:
If somebody is unable to provide for their needs, give them the ability to do so. Provide food, real housing, actual medical care, and an option for outpatient mental health care for them to recover if they are not in crisis.
Even in the comment you are responding to I said this:
In the latter situation, the best you can do is try to earn their trust and ensure they are provided an environment where they feel safe - providing them with every social support and alternative that they should be entitled to explore for their betterment.
I meant housing.
So what housing are they being given for free? There an overabundance of free government owned houses just sitting around in NYC to put severely mentally ill homeless people in?
Putting them in an institution until they get better is providing housing and services btw.
This is for the state of New York, which is a large area that encompasses more than just New York City. In 2022, there were over 1 million vacant houses just in the state of New York. Affordable housing and the lack thereof is a crisis. It must be rectified for a healthy society to thrive.
As for New York City, apartment buildings could be constructed or individuals could be relocated.
As of January 2024, there were approximately 158,019 homeless individuals in New York State, with the majority located in New York City. This number reflects a significant increase in homelessness, driven by factors such as a lack of affordable housing and an influx of asylum seekers.
As of January 2025, it is estimated that over 350,000 people are homeless in New York City
If there are over a MILLION vacant houses, and 350k (or slighty more) homeless people, what the fuck are we doing?
In 2022, there were over 1 million vacant houses just in the state of New York.
Vacant does not mean government owned. Homeowners can do whatever they want with their homes, including leaving them vacant. So again, what free housing would be used to house all these people? Also the way you describe this, it would be ripe for abuse by people who just want a free house wouldn't it? Just don't pay your rent and get taken away to be given a free house and food and all your bills paid!
If there are over a MILLION vacant houses, and 350k (or slighty more) homeless people, what the fuck are we doing?
See above.
The state of New York could buy these homes and use them to re-home individuals placed into them or repurpose them. Or build new, affordable housing.
Just don’t pay your rent and get taken away to be given a free house and food and all your bills paid!
Are you seriously arguing for renting and no social safety net? If rent was affordable and fair, it'd be another story.
But what happens when they are released and can’t afford treatment or become non-compliant with treatment?
So you might say that they cannot meet their own basic needs?
I'm sorry but you can't just let all mentally ill people go free to do whatever they want, and you definitely can't just throw money and houses at them and expect the problem to go away. That's not how mental illness works. You might not like it, but there are people with mental illnesses who either need someone to be a full time carer for them - and that is either a friend/family member/care worker, or it's in an institution. The other option is you just let them die on the streets, maybe killing some other people along the way.
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
I’m sorry but you can’t just let all mentally ill people go free to do whatever they want
This is a free society. There is no due process or evidence before they are kidnapped in this instance.
I’m sorry but you can’t just let all mentally ill people go free to do whatever they want, and you definitely can’t just throw money and houses at them and expect the problem to go away.
No money is thrown at them before they get to be in the situation they are in. They are homeless because they lack funds. They cannot afford insurance or reliably access medical care. If there are public services available to them, they may not know they have access to them, or they may be under-served by them.
You might not like it, but there are people with mental illnesses who either need someone to be a full time carer for them
I have suggested multiple times that they be given all social supports that are available to them. If they require that, they should be given that option.
The other option is you just let them die on the streets, maybe killing some other people along the way.
Your characterization of people suffering from mental illness or homeless people in general being violent is not reflected by the facts. People with schizophrenia are more likely to be the VICTIMS of a crime, than be the perpetrator.
There is no due process or evidence before they are kidnapped in this instance.
If you ignore the due process and evidence I guess. This is for when police would have been dispatched to a mental health emergency.
They are homeless because they lack funds.
And they often lack the funds because of their severe mental illness that makes them unable to function properly in society. It's hard to hold down a job (or even get one) when you think that everyone is a lizard person who is trying to take over the world and are laying eggs in peoples brains, because of severe mental illness.
I have suggested multiple times that they be given all social supports that are available to them. If they require that, they should be given that option.
And every time you've suggested that and people have asked "but what if they don't take any of the help or suggestions" you've just gone "oh well that's up to them because it's a free country" and wiped your hands of it. That is not good enough, that's why I'm saying that your solution is essentially "let them die in the streets".
There are people that literally cannot take care of themselves due to mental illness. No matter how many services you offer them, it's just more services that they won't use. If the option is commit them and take care of them, or let them die, you're saying let them die.
Your characterization of people suffering from mental illness or homeless people in general being violent
I didn't characterize them "in general" as being that. It absolutely is a possibility, which is why I said "maybe".
I'll ask again - if a homeless severely, severely mentally ill person refuses all help, what do you suggest the government do?
If you ignore the due process and evidence I guess. This is for when police would have been dispatched to a mental health emergency.
A first responder is dispatched and kidnaps them. Where is the due process or evidence? Appearing mentally ill or being impoverished is not a crime or evidence of mental illness. A first responder is not a psychiatrist or able to diagnose somebody in such an environment.
And they often lack the funds because of their severe mental illness that makes them unable to function properly in society. It’s hard to hold down a job (or even get one) when you think that everyone is a lizard person who is trying to take over the world and are laying eggs in peoples brains, because of severe mental illness.
And who could blame them for thinking that? These are people that see first-hand the horrors of society and capitalism, of drug abuse and addiction. You can be unemployable in the US for different reasons than severe mental illness, like having a criminal conviction. Should they receive treatment for their delusions if it is imminently harming themselves or others, they are violent, or have committed a crime? Yes, it would likely be appropriate.
There are people that literally cannot take care of themselves due to mental illness. No matter how many services you offer them, it’s just more services that they won’t use. If the option is commit them and take care of them, or let them die, you’re saying let them die.
If they are a threat to themselves and others, have committed a crime, or are actively violent, they should be given due process and treatment they consent to prior to involuntary treatment.
I’ll ask again - if a homeless severely, severely mentally ill person refuses all help, what do you suggest the government do?
I've answered this in abundance. Re-read. It is the job of society and everybody in it to create a world that is less traumatizing, that is less exploitative, that nurtures every one of its members and helps them to unleash their potential. For individuals experiencing psychosis who are not violent, they should be given the option of an environment similar to a Soteria House.
A first responder is dispatched and kidnaps them.
This right here is why this is going nowhere. What you think happens and what actually happens are two very different things. This should have been apparent that it was not worth my time when you suggested that people would be locked up in a mental institution permanently simply for missing their rent.
A first responder is not a psychiatrist or able to diagnose somebody in such an environment.
And this new thing that you're arguing in a comments section about aims to change that. This will change the first responders to being unarmed mental health professionals instead of armed police.
I’ve answered this in abundance. Re-read.
Ok cool so your solution is for the entire world to change to be something completely different, and for their mental illness to be just gone. In other words, it's not a solution and you have no actual solution or answer to my question. Not all mental illness is caused by the environment around the person. Most of it isn't.
So I'll ask again but even more narrow in scope - what do you suggest the government do, with society and the world the way it is, with people that are severely mentally ill and homeless who refuse all help?
I didn't suggest that people are locked up for "simply for missing their rent". Never once did I suggest people are locked up permanently.
There are no mental health professionals that arrive on the scene. It could be EMT, firefighters, or police that initiate contact. None of the above are mental health professionals. A little training does not make you qualified.
There are no mental health professionals that arrive on the scene. It could be EMT, firefighters, or police that initiate contact. None of the above are mental health professionals.
THIS IS PART OF THE CHANGES THAT THEY ARE GOING TO MAKE lol.
I didn’t suggest that people are locked up for “simply for missing their rent”. Never once did I suggest people are locked up permanently.
Ah youre right, sorry that's the other delusional person in here making the same arguments as you.
They still aren't mental health professionals. A cop/etc. with a little training is not a replacement for a psychiatrist or other mental health professional. The bar for being even a therapist is very high in the US. There is absolutely no comparison to be made here between their level of education and training.
Bad form. This is a real topic, with real world issues.
It still exists. We may not lobotomize patients or put them in insulin comas, but forced ECT is still on the table. Even if the practice has improved with technological advancements, it can still be misapplied.
Though it was almost a decade ago (and in Austrailia) this story stuck out to me as being an example of everything that can go wrong in psychiatry: https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/05/psychiatry_garth_daniels/
It's fucking tragic.
With sufficient ECT, the patient's mind will die, but their body will live.
Yeah, this doesn't sound scientific at all. I suspect you're talking out of your ass.
Why not just execute them entirely then, instead of only making them braindead?
Braindead people still have assets. Those must be extracted before they expire.
Oh, so you are giving up your assets?
It's not the most modest proposal I've heard, but it's up there.
Contesting forced treatment orders, such as forced ECT, is an up-hill battle. Even if the practice is more humane nowadays, it still results in damage if improperly prescribed in those deemed treatment-resistant.
I am speaking up for the people who are not served by the system and are effectively silenced. Psychiatrists are generally not legally responsible for iatrogenic illness/harm - proving damage is near to impossible, even in cases of clear malpractice and neglect.
I implore readers to look at https://www.madinamerica.com/ and consider reading Robert Whitaker's books. He is not a psychiatrist, but there are plenty of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals who write or indirectly contribute to that website. I consider him qualified, but please don't treat his voice as an authority and please use discernment when reading his works or reading anecdotes from that website. It takes a strong heart and stomach to be able to read some of the stories. If accurate and true, there are many crimes against humanity documented on that website.
There are many success stories to psychiatry. I don't want to discount the stability and healing some individuals receive from proper intervention. Please don't let what I write stop you from seeking out care if you are in need. There ARE good facilities that practice a leading standard of care - that do their best to not violate your will and treat you as a human.
And then there is gangstalking... The purpose to make people look insane when they are just regular people. Just because they may know something you don't want them to know.
It's psychological warfare. And it goes deep.
Gangstalking is schizophrenia.
Its genuinely not. Its a practice of multiple 'churches' like scientologists and some sects of Mormonism.
Edit: For evidence see Leah remni's multiple lawsuits podcasts books, etc. its a real tactic absolutely in use right now if you manage to piss off the wrong people.