| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Do We Need More Involuntary Commitment Of “Potential” Mass Killers?
A lot of people are looking at the mental illness aspect of gun and mass violence. In their eyes, people who exhibit dangerous behavior should be involuntarily locked up in a psych ward. Well, most states have such laws, where people who appear off their rocker and are a “danger to others” can be involuntarily committed.
The problem with that is most of the raging violence that explodes into mass murder doesn’t manifest itself strongly enough to get these people locked up. According to an authority on medicine and law:
“Patients typically qualify for an involuntary commitment if they meet one of three criteria,” Paul Appelbaum, MD, professor of psychiatry, medicine, and law at Columbia University, told MedPage Today. “They’re a risk to themselves, a risk to others, or they’re gravely disabled and can’t meet the basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter. READMOREHERE
One of the issues in involuntary commitment cases involves privacy. Just how much information do we need before authorities are called in to lock up a “dangerous person.” Who decides who is dangerous? What criteria are used?
Would we descent into Soviet style commitments, where anyone who doesn’t agree with the system is “crazy”?
Responding to an article on mental health, warning signs and involuntary commitment, one posted wrote:
I’ve spent enough time around health care facilities and sat through enough training classes that I have decided our privacy concerns may be justified at some level, but there is a political and social level of paranoia about privacy that is costing lives that need not be lost. Mass killings do not need to be happening as often as we are seeing them READMOREHERE
Dr. Sarah Stein says the whole concept of involuntary commitment needs to be revisited:
Involuntary commitment – the classic 3-day or 72 hour hold – is meaningless without 90-day renewable outpatient commitment after hospital discharge (when indicated), followed by intensive outpatient case management and halfway housing. Medications wear off in a few days or weeks, people stop taking them, they are lost to follow up, they relapse on drugs and alcohol. The ability to re-hospitalize someone simply because they failed to followup is essential in the case of unstable mental illness. Unfortunately, many counties and states do not have this necessary provision.
Time to rethink again.
