M1ch431

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Nowhere in the article does it suggest that one needs to be psychotic or schizophrenic, only that they appear mentally ill to first responders. They are not able to diagnose this.

Even if you refuse to read the article, the subtext here on Lemmy reads:

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.

There are economic and societal reasons for individuals to not be able to meet those needs.

Impoverishment and homelessness are issues that society, and capitalism at large, refuse to address with real solutions. Those solutions are too expensive to those that make policy.

A housing crisis, a depression of wages and rise in cost of living, inaccessibility of timely and cost-efficient health care interventions (mental or otherwise), inaccessibility of drug rehabilitation and a system that punishes drug use criminally, and having no social safety net (to prevent such occurrences of homelessness and lack) is the recipe that creates the situations that these individuals experience.

The headline is not accurate, read the article.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.