My “solution” doesn’t fit today’s society of convenience.
I should not have responded on this thread.
What I think most people want to hear on this thread is more laws to involuntarily lock up the insane people so the burden is shifted to the state. The state could then load em up wiht more chemicals and family wouldn’t have to be bothered and go about life as usual. It’s the shifting of responsibility that troubles me ... . This “solution” is not something I would advocate and yet I know what I’d like to see will not happen - insane or troubled people are not something that a typical person wants to be burdened with ... it interrupts their life and is an inconvenience.
In some cases the state requires visitation AND co-op from parents..that is untill they are not able to-elderly.
But believe me..NOBODY who does not understand the SMI can take care of them.
Now for the drug induced mentally ill? Thats another matter because druggies who by their addiction caused their insanity are...I dunno what to say about them. I really cant pitty them.
I sincerely hope that you never have a family member with serious mental illness, because if you do, the words you’ve written on this forum will taste bitter indeed.
Ignorance is your only excuse.
Nmh, you’re yearning for a society that never existed. Mad houses have been around since at least the Middle Ages...not exactly the Age of Convenience, back then.
Yes, families should take care of their own...but full-blown mental illness can literally destroy the most solid family unit, if only by stabbing everyone while they sleep.
A young woman I knew managed to kill herself while under suicide watch in a hospital with a nurse right outside the door and a doctor right down the hall...it only takes a moment for the illness to manifest.
Lots of frustration around this tangled issue...gal I know worked as a respiratory tech in one of those old mental institutions, said it was pretty depressing; they were so short-staffed they had pump the patients full of Thorazine to stop them from killing each other long enough to feed them.
Letting ‘em out on the streets, on the other hand, obviously has its downsides, which we see in the news and on our streetcorners everyday.
No easy answers.
Personally, I apply the Golden Rule thusly: I’d like to be left on my own unless such a time came as I became a danger to others...then, most reluctantly, I’d prefer to have the state lock me up than to learn I’d involuntarily hurt someone I loved, or a stranger.
Same as if I had an infectious disease, like TB...I wouldn’t WANT to wander the streets, making others miserable...even unwittingly.
Yes, it’s a burden on state budgets, but I think it’s squarely within government’s limited, necessary functions.
insane or troubled people are not something that a typical person wants to be burdened with ... it interrupts their life and is an inconvenience
It is easy to say that it is a burden or an inconvenience when you are not faced with the mountain of coping with a psychotic inviduual