Who's crazy? What defines mental illness?

reply to post by Wertdagf

The it is a trained professional. Someone who wouldnt make a claim like this without SOLID justification.

Otherwise they could be sued.

Alternatively, These trained professionals could start reporting more and more people that they wouldn't normally. Say one of your patients goes on a shooting rampage and you could have done something to prevent it... even if it were just an inkling.

Also, I think I read that the executive actions mention providing incentives to get more reporting of this nature. Who doesn't like incentives?

reply to post by beezzer
[color=777777]As soon as I heard this ridiculous statement, my only reaction was to look at the TV and tell the morons on the screen how *snippin* stupid their idea was. So due to that, I can't actually remember the exact words, and I'm not even sure which News show it was, but it was someone on one of the local News shows.


Anyways, what they were proposing was that if you hear someone who might be crazy make any type of threat, you should be required by law to report that threat within 24 hours, regardless of whether or not you took them seriously.

Not only that, but they even went so far as to say that anyone who does not report the comment within 24 hours, should receive a certain amount of mandatory jail time.



Personally, I question my own sanity at times(I've even requested a 2nd opinion from the other person in my head, but he is never very cooperative.)...... so I would never even attempt to reach a conclusion pertaining to someone else's sanity. That's not my call to make.

I would think the medical definitions of mental illness would be the only thing that they would use, and to get diagnosed for a mental illness you need to... brace yourselves...

actually have that mental illness...

yeah.

Legally, mental illness is described as:

a. Unsoundness of mind sufficient in the judgment of a civil court to render a person unfit to maintain a contractual or other legal relationship or to warrant commitment to a mental health facility. b. In most criminal jurisdictions, a degree of mental malfunctioning sufficient to relieve the accused of legal responsibility for the act committed.

Mental illness is insanity, psychosis, schizophrenia, and a slew of other medically recognized mental disorders, but not all. Not to mention that they can't just label you as mentally ill just to take away your guns, for if they do that, they would have to not only give you a free 'get out of jail free card', but would also have to pay to put you in a mental institution.

That doesn't seem smart, now does it.

Originally posted by Zarniwoop
reply to post by Wertdagf

 

The it is a trained professional. Someone who wouldnt make a claim like this without SOLID justification.

Otherwise they could be sued.

Alternatively, These trained professionals could start reporting more and more people that they wouldn't normally. Say one of your patients goes on a shooting rampage and you could have done something to prevent it... even if it were just an inkling.

Also, I think I read that the executive actions mention providing incentives to get more reporting of this nature. Who doesn't like incentives?

This is what my neice and others were ranting about last night. If they are forced to report and they dont report someone because there is no mental illness detected or it is being treated adequately.. are they liable or do they have any culpability in whatever crime the person committs.
Also, when we have general practitioners, pediatricians, family Drs RXing psychiatric meds.. they are not qualified to diagnose in order to rx but do it routinely.. that gums up the whole mess.

reply to post by BrokenCircles


You're in good company.

Relax.

Originally posted by mr10k


That doesn't seem smart, now does it.

I don't think the federal government has ever been accused of being "smart".

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by mr10k


That doesn't seem smart, now does it.

I don't think the federal government has ever been accused of being "smart".

I meant it more as "that seems extremely idiotic, now doesn't it?" but either way, I'd have to use a hyperbolic statement just to seem close to accurate.

Look, let me take this opportunity to clarify a point.

There is a huge difference in drug dependency and drug addiction.

Properly prescribed pain medication, if taken long term (more than 7 days in most cases) carries the risk of drug dependency. This is physiological dependency, and considered a normal effect of taking pain medication. When the pain medication is stopped, any doctor worth their oats will ramp the patient down to limit or eliminate withdrawal.

Drug addiction is possible even when you are properly prescribed pain medication. The addiction part of pain management is exclusive of physiological addiction. The addict abuses the medication by taking higher doses than prescribed, taking other medications not prescribed obtained by doctor shopping, online pharmacies, or street drugs. The addict also uses inappropriate methods of ingestion. The addict is to be considered out of control, and abusive of the medicine.

Drug dependency, as I pointed out, is NORMAL. this cannot be used against you.


All that said, it is illegal to even have a legally owned firearm in your possession at any time you are under the influence of even PRESCRIBED drugs. It is a felony to discharge a firearm at any time while under the influence, of even PRESCRIBED drugs. I am almost certain this is true in every state.

Originally posted by Libertygal
All that said, it is illegal to even have a legally owned firearm in your possession at any time you are under the influence of even PRESCRIBED drugs. It is a felony to discharge a firearm at any time while under the influence, of even PRESCRIBED drugs. I am almost certain this is true in every state.

edit on 17-1-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

Oh lordy was I a law beaker!

I wonder, would Ambien, blood pressure medication be held under the same standard?

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by beezzer

 

It is a trained professional. Someone who wouldnt make a claim like this without SOLID justification.

Otherwise they could be sued.

isnt this obvious? Are you being intentionaly obtuse?

edit on 17-1-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

Here's whats really gonna bake your noodle. . .

What happens when one of these "Trained Professionals" go on a rampage of their own?

- Does this mean that 'mental illness' can't be diagnosed correctly 100% or that the paradigm is broken?
- How is it possible to diagnose 'mental illness' in those who show no current signs?
- How will the "Trained Professionals" of the 'mentally ill' be vetted/tested for themselves?
- There are so many variables involved when you give power to those who have licenses, practices, reputation, self-interests, etc involved especially when you have the Big Bad Gov't breathing down your neck to make decisions on who's 'mentally ill' and if you don't 'diagnose sufficiently that Dr can be held liable.

Dr's & Psychiatrists don't go on rampages. Thats never happened. . . Oh, wait. .

Fort Hood shooting. The psychiatrist went on a shooting spree!

If they are forced to report and they dont report someone because there is no mental illness detected or it is being treated adequately.. are they liable or do they have any culpability in whatever crime the person committs.

I don't think they will be forced to report. I do think more will feel compelled to report more liberally than they have in the past.

An increase in reporting could also lead to more privacy lawsuits, driving up medical costs even more.

It seems to me that either someone didn't think this through, or there is a larger agenda dealing with privacy and medical records. This comprehensive approach opens so many cans of worms.

It's the whole idea, and I think Obama mentioned in his signing speech something like... that if there is anything and everything that can be done to prevent another tragedy, he feels its his obligation to do it.

I would have rather seen a smaller subset of recommendations, but we got the full meal deal instead.

Absolutely anybody can have a breakdown/moment of madness/drunken mistake which could easily be fatal if there are guns involved. A lot of people may well have a mental disorder without ever seeking help for it or declaring it, in some cases; they may not even know they have it.

If you're going to ban guns, why not ban them altogether regardless of people's mental issues? There will always be potential for murder if someone has a gun in their possession.

They're going to create a real mess with this nonsense.

People will no longer feel free to be honest with their physicians. Those who do need help will not seek it out. Those who are having suicidal ideations or thoughts of harming others are going to keep their mouths shut. When doctors act like governmental agents and ask, "is there a gun in the house?", the answer will invariably be NO.

Doctors will not have adequate patient reporting in order to make a determination of who is mentally unstable and who is not, because they have lost the trust of the patient. Doctor - patient confidentiality has just gone out the window.

I can imagine a future where a shrink will hook up the patient to a lie detector to try and force the truth from them.

In the end, the whole field of psychiatry, and the general practitioner as well, will have a lot fewer people seeking help, and those that do may just lie through their teeth, only giving enough information to get some meds, but not enough for the doc to make a confident diagnosis.

Leave it to the government. They have the reverse Midas touch, everything they touch turns to crap.

Originally posted by Zarniwoop

I don't think they will be forced to report. I do think more will feel compelled to report more liberally than they have in the past.

I and many others ( medical professionals) read it very differently.

Read Action numbers 2, 14, 16, 17.

reply to post by FissionSurplus

I can imagine a future where a shrink will hook up the patient to a lie detector to try and force the truth from them.

I can imagine a future where quotas are established and funds provided for schools to identify children with mental illness.

Oh wait, I don't have to...

Reach 750,000 young people through programs to identify mental illness early and refer them to treatment:
We need to train teachers and other adults whoregularly interact with students to recognize young people who need help andensure they are referred to mental health services.

Make sure students with signs of mental illness get referred totreatment:
Project AWARE also includes $40 million to help schooldistricts work with law enforcement, mental health agencies, and otherlocal organizations to assure students with mental health issues or otherbehavioral issues are referred to the services they need.

Might as well get them on the no-guns list as early as possible, right?

For all those that think a large number of gun owners won't be found with "mental illness" issues or doctors are professionals and will not mis-diagnose for the sake of disarming . . .

First, your "doctor" is probably a GP. Which means he/she is not really qualified to assess and diagnose mental health issues. Yet, they will be told to ask about guns and inquire about your mental health because as "doctors" they are the most qualified. Unfortunately, a doctor is not going to admit they don't know the first thing about mental health or psychology because that is not their field.

Which brings us to the second scary consequence. Being told they are the experts and the gov is relying on their help. Milgram's experiment showed us how we respond as humans when authority tells us to do something. Add to that, the gov/media ever-growing notion that gun owners and 2nd supporters are demonized as crazy/uncaring/stupid/dated/backward. This indoctrination combined with the gov telling they are making us safer will be all the justification they have to look for something on every patient that admits to owning a gun.

We, as Americans (humans in general), are psychologically trained to obey and turn on those that our leaders cast in the outgroup. The rhetoric began before Sandy Hook, so that event just confirms it in the eyes of our manipulaters. They will use this event and any subsequent just like the crown did to those in England.

Who's crazy? What defines mental illness?

Anyone one who has ever been to a marriage counselor.
Anyone who thinks government has to much power.
Anyone who thinks the government spends to much.
Anyone who doesn't think women shouldn't have free birth control pills.
Anyone who thinks it's their right to own a gun.
Anyone who is a Teapartier.
Anyone who doesn't like the current government going around the rest of the world kllling people.
Anyone who doesn't like the current government running guns to Mexico.
Anyone who has been on Discovery's doomsday preppers.
Anyone who has made a Shtf video on youtube.

All are classifed as a mental illness and will be used to deny you your rights.

Well done S+F.

I think it's important to not jump the gun (ha) and start stating what will be considered mental health grounds for revoking a citizens 2nd amendment right. We need to find out, we can't fight armed with conjecture... only truth. This is the perfect reason to use the White House petition site (which now requires 100k signatures to earn a response from the administration). We need to demand some clarity from the President. What other ways can we go about demanding? FOIA maybe?

Personally I would like to see a graphic of how it worked previous to yesterday with perhaps an overlay graphic of what is changing and where. I don't want an easy answer or a dumbed down response, I want... I hope we all want the details that were discussed behind closed doors. If the documents weigh 20 lbs I don't care... I think we are entitled to see them.

reply to post by neo96


And all the while, they can say that they never banned guns.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by neo96

 

And all the while, they can say that they never banned guns.

Yep, but they say a lot of things that aren't true they are doing an end run around the constitution yet once again making it a "health issue".

That constitution is really just a G damn piece of paper.