Florida made it easier to involuntarily commit people. A new lawsuit says it’s violating the law.
Florida made it easier to involuntarily commit people. A new lawsuit says it’s violating the law.
It's committing children at higher rates than other states.
You're viewing a single thread.
It probably should be easier, but there needs to be a set process for doing it correctly.
Here in Portland we set up an agency called Portland Street Response to respond to 911 calls that might not necessarily need police involvement.
Someone is in a mental health crisis, but not threatening themselves or others? Street Response pulls up instead of the cops.
BUT -
They can't put anyone on a psych hold. They can offer advice, point someone to resources, try to talk them down, but they can't have someone committed.
Which, in my mind, kind of defeats the purpose.
It probably should be easier, but there needs to be a set process for doing it correctly.
Absolutely not, it’s a massive violation of people’s autonomy already.
Someone is in a mental health crisis, but not threatening themselves or others? Street Response pulls up instead of the cops.
but they can't have someone committed.
Which, in my mind, kind of defeats the purpose.
I think it’s completely unacceptable to involuntarily commit people that aren’t even threatening anyone. Let alone “threatening themselves” which is equally a concept that goes against autonomy and should not be a valid reason for commitment either. And I’m not even talking about how often abused this is in practice.
If people are in crisis they have already lost their autonomy. Society has a responsibility to keep them from harming themselves or others.
If it's not you yourself who decides whether you are "in crisis", what you want to do about it or whether you want to do anything about it at all, you do not truly own your own life. This is something incredibly personal and subjective that nobody else has the right to judge, or can even judge accurately in the first place, except for you.
And yes, this includes the right to take your life.
If you are not allowed the right to self-ownership like that, what it comes down to is someone else can imprison you because they don't like how you express yourself. There is a huge power imbalance here, and you won't be able to advocate yourself because you're "insane" and "don't know what you're talking about".
If it's not you yourself who decides whether you are "in crisis", it will be used against people for simply refusing treatment for a mental disorder, for example schizophrenia. It will be used to silence "undesirable" people by the state who decides what counts as "in crisis".
Often, the conditions inside of a mental hospital are actively making the mental state of the people who are confined there worse, which is then used as a justification to hold them there longer against their will.
This is abuse, it's dehumanizing, it's traumatizing. It's unacceptable.
This is a right that falls in the same category and is equally as important as, for example, the right to have an abortion. Which of course, is also under attack right now from people who want to control others' lives, especially in the US.
I'm not talking about someone harming others. Clearly that is different.
No, it's the people who respond to people in crisis who need to make that call, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at someone running down the street waving a sword to go "Yeah, they're either off their meds or on something, they need help!"
You reach that point and you have abdicated personal autonomy.
I'm not talking about that, considering there is an argument to be made here that he is threatening others with these weapons. This wouldn't be okay if he was clearly doing all this for fun either, would it.
Besides, the video makes it sound like he's homeless, living in that car. He himself says the weapons are to protect himself from the neighbors. He should be given a home, it does wonders for mental health when you don't have to constantly worry about getting attacked by someone who doesn't want you living on the street. There's a high chance that would solve the problem.
If people are in crisis they have already lost their autonomy.
Says who? You should defer drawing that line to the experts; who will likely agree with 2xsaiko. Not being able to perform your job or blend in with society is different from being a threat to others.
Says anyone who has seen someone in crisis.
You think THIS person has autonomy?
https://x.com/Wtfportland1/status/1686570302984314880
Or this person?
or this person?
https://eastpdxnews.com/general-news-features/naked-man-in-shed-on-se-rhone-street-threatens-cops/
They are LITERALLY incapable of making decisions for themselves. If they were, they wouldn't be running around naked in the rain screaming.
We're talking with exception to people who don't threaten themselves or others. Themselves being the gray area.
Of course you would only focus on people having a psychotic breakdown where they threaten others, but having a mental health crisis does not mean someone is automatically a threat to those around them.
Here's a guide to de-escalating various mental health crisis situations.
What constitutes a threat to themselves is living in squalor in a burned out car because they're incapable of making the correct decisions to care for themselves or others.
That is weird. We have mobile crisis teams that don’t like to put people away but they can. Although it’s also a separate line from 911, which makes it tricky
Yeah, here 911 will direct to street response when viable.
So, naked person wandering in traffic, crying in the rain? Street response. (Happens more often than you'd think.)
https://blanchethouse.org/why-we-call-portland-street-response/
Naked person wandering in traffic, screaming at cars with a sword? That's the cops. (Also happens more often than you'd think.)
https://97rockonline.com/topless-woman-armed-with-sword-arrested-in-oregon/