You know, I have been thinking for some time about the restrictions that are required for certain patients. People with certain mental and behavioral issues. And maybe even other problems and handicaps that lead to that, like dementia too. Of course if a patient is just temporarily agitated due to something like drug use, something like a straitjacket would only have to be used that one time. But for people who have more longterm problems, that would be a problem. Because people have the right to be in the least constrictive environment possible. There also is the issue of what kind of setting they should be in. Least constrictive is considered a fundament right now, like I said. I remember in 1994 Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said we need to bring orphanages back. But like his critics pointed out, orphanages would cost too much. Though there are things like group homes and even in-home care, both where there can varying levels of restrictions. Even in your home, you could be forbidden from easily leaving, or even leaving at all. And it wouldn't even seem like a prison or institution to you. It would still be your home. That last one is one option, and a cheap one too. There's also the issue of outings. How often should they have them, how much supervision should they receive and where should they be allowed to go to? You know for some patients, just a walk around the block in the morning would be nice, the cheapest idea yet. And if they have behavioral issues, like acting up and hitting people at random for example, but their problems aren't too serious, you could choose time of day. Early in the morning there would be less people out around them. And in the winter early in the morning, everyone would be inside anyways. All day long, in fact. Also I was thinking, the patient's family could always go along with them on their outings. Even if they aren't ever going to live with their family ever again. They could just go there some mornings for their walk around the block if they want. Or to restaurants, or wherever else they take them. One time I saw a mentally handicapped man at a Wendys with another man, obviously one his helpers. And you know, Wendys are very cheap. But I could tell for him it was a special occasion. That's other thing, where they take these patients. Some places are a lot cheaper. Like Wendys for example. Also, I know where I live they sometimes rent halls and other places for special events. Renting a place restricts who can be there, if that's ever important. But if they just want to restrict who is at the Wendys, all they have to do is rent the Wendys (or Mcdonalds, or whatever) for the day or the hour. And I'm sure the manager and staff would agree, especially for a fee. Or they could start something like that at those fast food places, or even establish it somehow by law, just for patients. I never heard of that last. But I was just thinking of that now. Thoughts?
There is no simple answer to this one in today's society. Unless the person presents a SERIOUS threat to others or himself, keeping him to behave freely in society is hugely beneficial. Without living in society, he will NEVER learn the rules. This has worked for more than a century in country and rural areas. He is often seen as the village idiot, but people look out for him and check that he has food and somewhere safe and warm to live. He will be asked to run errands and walk peoples dogs, but this is for HIS benefit, rather than the person he is doing it for. A high percentage of these people love animals, so this works well in farming areas. In these situations, they can get so involved feeding the pigs that their issues become secondary. The real problem is in the large cities, where little of this can be made to work. Letting the person help cleaning the house, followed by sitting down with the family for a meal, would be far more beneficial than taking them to a fast food restaurant. Even I feel stressed in those places. LOL
I think that mental health care patients should be able to leave whenever they see fit without a fight. Or for voluntarily recovering addicts, instead of court ordered ones, maybe they can choose a time frame. As well as signing in and out to go to work or important events. The system still has way too much control over people's lives and sequester them to hide their systematic abuses. Just as you can leave your doctor or the regular hospital, you must be allowed to choose to leave non medical places of your own free will. If you have a good practice, people will want come to you. If you hafta kidnap, drug, silence, gaslight, and imprison people against their will, then your business sucks and you are the one who has something seriously wrong, and you deserve to be imprisoned for civil rights violations. If a person has legitimately proven to be harmful and dangerous to others, we already have a place for that. Jail and prison because they actually committed violent crimes. Being mentally ill doesn't automatically mean your a ticking time bomb. No one discriminates against these people more then mental health workers. They're just there to keep undesirables out of society's sight and mind. They're fucking quacks masquerading as doctors and humanitarians.
I would also add, to the subject of restrictions for certain patients and people, everyone in this world deserves the least restrictions possible. And everyone deserves as much freedom and rights as possible. And, basic needs. (Well, I won't even go there. Because I think everyone here agrees everyone is entitled to basic needs, including psychological ones.) But, people with behavioral problems, and sometimes people with mental and developmental disabilities do have problems that can lead to things like violence. I have actually been reading about this for some time now. Not lead directly. And if they are violent, it's usually not in a serious way. But mainly they just have to be dealt with a little differently, and you have to understand them on their level too (whatever their problem or disability might be). One thing I've been reading about for some time now is lack of forethought. Forethought is formed in the prefrontal area of the brain. And when someone has less of it, they may act without thinking or considering the consequences, or they might act impulsively. They don't have to, and they usually don't (at least not seriously as I said). But you know, they had a saying for that when I was younger. "Count to ten". Because in ten seconds, your brain usually has time to think the situation thru. You really don't want to throw coffee on the McDonalds cashier because he was rude to you, or punch your wife because she burnt your toast. Because, frankly then, you'd get in a lot trouble for something so minor. But in ten seconds you may realize that. Who know how or why. It has something to do with the prefrontal area of the brain like I said. Maybe when I was a kid people didn't even know why. Because count to ten is a very old saying. Or, you could just put up other symbolic barriers for yourself, that require time and other things. I sometimes do that. Even though I don't have a problem with violence or bad behavior, and I don't think I have lack of forethought either. There are other ways of dealing with issues involving behavioral, self-harm, self-neglect issues and violence, with certain patients and groups, and even in prisons and jails. And since no one today thinks abuse thinks abuse or neglect are ever justified, people should try to get involved in making sure these changes are made, and that they are just common sense changes too.
But you know, I started radically rethinking my views of how we treat certain groups, around 1996 like I've said. Those that are stigmatized as having behavioral issues that supposedly makes them more susceptible to outbursts and violence. I think I have been thinking about those issues all my life. But by 1996, I concluded all violent behavior, and really all human evil, is just another disease. (Like I tell people though, I still believe in moral responsibility. And commonsense things, like how some people just naturally lose certain rights, once they've done something that proves them a risk.) But you know they covered this topic around the time I was thinking about this. On the Star Trek: Voyager episode "Repentance" which aired January 31, 2001. The crew of Voyager become involved in a controversy with the Nygean legal system when the crew of the sickbay are taken hostage by two escaped criminals, Iko and Joleg. Seven of Nine befriends Iko and the Doctor discovers his antisocial behavior is caused by a birth defect in a node of his brain that was detached due to a birth defect. Then he uses the nanoprobes to repair the injuries they reattached it, making his violent impulses controllable and effectively awakening his conscience. There is also a subplot of another prisoner who claims he was unfairly treated by the Nygean legal system too. But the crew later finds out it is a deception. But all the convicts are returned to the Nygeans, and the family of Iko's victim say they still see no reason to show him any mercy. I was intrigued and impressed at the time by many medical and ethical issues brought up by this Star Trek episode. I don't know if I agreed with all of it though. Like I just read online, some Star Trek fans thought the episode pushed an agenda that was too liberal, and some an agenda that was too conservative. But like most Star Trek episode, the overall theme of the episode did at least make you think. I was also telling people online recently that some children, and frankly adults, with behavioral issues might just need different rules. Not necessarily stricter rules. But sometimes stricter rules when necessary. But only when necessary and never excessive. Never excessively harsh, unfair or even strict. I also have been thinking some time about the issue of corporal punishment for children. I was surprised to learn online that even most US Christian churches oppose it now. But some people here still do, and I have noticed some people in other countries seem to as well. I guess in some ways it might be more effective. But I wonder, as I tell people, if it is ever necessary. Even for children with extreme behavioral problems.
