http://tinyurl.com/c2xzcpa

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:29:19 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/c2xzcpa

Maybe we should go back to the days of simply locking up anyone a
doctor says is mentally ill.

It was the progressives who had that policy declared illegal in the
70s.

It was Reagan that did away with the state run mental health hospitals
and programs.

On 4/27/13 3:48 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:29:19 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/c2xzcpa

Maybe we should go back to the days of simply locking up anyone a
doctor says is mentally ill.

It was the progressives who had that policy declared illegal in the
70s.


In many states, if a licensed therapist determines a person is a threat
to himself/herself or others, that person can be hospitalized for up to
three days for a full-blown psychological exam. After the exam, a judge
holds a hearing to determine if further hospitalization is necessary. It
sort of works like that, except there aren't enough beds or decent
facilities to take care of those who need the help, and judges are
reluctant for that and other reasons to require long-term hospitalization.

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:58:30 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:29:19 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/c2xzcpa

Maybe we should go back to the days of simply locking up anyone a
doctor says is mentally ill.

It was the progressives who had that policy declared illegal in the
70s.

It was Reagan that did away with the state run mental health hospitals
and programs.

I know that is the urban legend from the left but the fact is there
were many court decisions in the 70s turning over those involuntary
admissions and turning the people loose.
It is very hard to keep a person in custody for mental illness without
a court order, usually in a criminal court after they committed a
crime.

Cite?

On 4/27/13 4:35 PM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:58:30 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:29:19 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/c2xzcpa

Maybe we should go back to the days of simply locking up anyone a
doctor says is mentally ill.

It was the progressives who had that policy declared illegal in the
70s.

It was Reagan that did away with the state run mental health hospitals
and programs.

I know that is the urban legend from the left but the fact is there
were many court decisions in the 70s turning over those involuntary
admissions and turning the people loose.
It is very hard to keep a person in custody for mental illness without
a court order, usually in a criminal court after they committed a
crime.

Cite?


That's pretty much correct. You cannot be committed involuntarily to a
psych facility for more than 72 hours or so without a directive from the
court. Even if you acting weirdly and have just shot up a school, you
still get the hearing.

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 4/27/13 3:48 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:29:19 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/c2xzcpa

Maybe we should go back to the days of simply locking up anyone a
doctor says is mentally ill.

It was the progressives who had that policy declared illegal in the
70s.


In many states, if a licensed therapist determines a person is a
threat
to himself/herself or others, that person can be hospitalized for up
to
three days for a full-blown psychological exam. After the exam, a
judge
holds a hearing to determine if further hospitalization is necessary.
It
sort of works like that, except there aren't enough beds or decent
facilities to take care of those who need the help, and judges are
reluctant for that and other reasons to require long-term
hospitalization.

---------------------------------------

If the laws are anything like those in MA, the person would have to
either kill someone somehow or commit suicide before they would be
considered a threat to others or to themselves. Had a series of
long, frustrated conversations with a state psychologist about this
last year.

On 4/27/13 4:50 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 4/27/13 3:48 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:29:19 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:


http://tinyurl.com/c2xzcpa

Maybe we should go back to the days of simply locking up anyone a
doctor says is mentally ill.

It was the progressives who had that policy declared illegal in the
70s.


In many states, if a licensed therapist determines a person is a threat
to himself/herself or others, that person can be hospitalized for up to
three days for a full-blown psychological exam. After the exam, a judge
holds a hearing to determine if further hospitalization is necessary. It
sort of works like that, except there aren't enough beds or decent
facilities to take care of those who need the help, and judges are
reluctant for that and other reasons to require long-term hospitalization.

---------------------------------------

If the laws are anything like those in MA, the person would have to
either kill someone somehow or commit suicide before they would be
considered a threat to others or to themselves. Had a series of long,
frustrated conversations with a state psychologist about this last year.



That's pretty close. And once the dangerously mentally ill are in a
long-term facility, fund and staff shortages might get them released too
early. In private hospitals, you're pretty much dumped out as soon as
your insurance is used up.

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 4/27/13 4:50 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...


In many states, if a licensed therapist determines a person is a
threat
to himself/herself or others, that person can be hospitalized for up
to
three days for a full-blown psychological exam. After the exam, a
judge
holds a hearing to determine if further hospitalization is
necessary. It
sort of works like that, except there aren't enough beds or decent
facilities to take care of those who need the help, and judges are
reluctant for that and other reasons to require long-term
hospitalization.

---------------------------------------

If the laws are anything like those in MA, the person would have to
either kill someone somehow or commit suicide before they would be
considered a threat to others or to themselves. Had a series of
long,
frustrated conversations with a state psychologist about this last
year.



That's pretty close. And once the dangerously mentally ill are in a
long-term facility, fund and staff shortages might get them released
too
early. In private hospitals, you're pretty much dumped out as soon as
your insurance is used up.

-----------------------------------------------------

Last summer I found myself involved in trying to get help for a family
member. It came to a head one weekend last July (after several
months of trying to convince him to get help) when he was caught by
the police on a beach after several witnesses reported him driving a
car in a reckless fashion. The police had him transported to the
hospital where he went through the standard de-tox period. He was
released the following morning, went home and started drinking again.
I happened to stop by his apartment to check up on him and found him
in the process of respiratory failure .... which is typically the
cause of death due to an overdose of alcohol. Called 911, and the
police and EMT's were dispatched. Meanwhile, I followed the
instructions of the 911 dispatcher to keep the person from choking.

At the recommendation of the police and fire department officials, I
requested that a physiological exam/interview be conducted at the end
of the de-tox period to establish grounds for a court petition for
involuntary commitment to a rehab facility as a back-up plan in the
event that the person continued to refuse help in the form of a
private, voluntary program. I had already made the necessary
arrangements for him to go to a private de-tox/rehab facility however,
by law, he had to agree to go voluntarily. He was still in a state of
total denial .... actually he wasn't capable of thinking period ....
but the law is the law. So, the court ordered rehab was my back-up
plan.

The interview was done and the psychologist called me. She first
asked me if I was aware of the person's blood alcohol levels on the
two consecutive days of de-tox treatment. I said, "no". She
informed me that the first day it was 350 and the second day it was
450. She then explained that anything over 350 is considered a
"lethal" dose.

She then informed me that based on the interview, she could not
recommend or support a court petition for involuntary commitment.
Her opinion was that he was not an "immediate threat" to himself or
to others.

I couldn't believe what she was saying. I asked her if consuming a
"lethal dose" of alcohol twice in one weekend and having to have the
police haul his car away to the pound after driving down the wrong
side of the street in a reckless fashion doesn't constitute threats to
himself or others, then what does? She told me that he would have
actually had to try to commit suicide or intentionally have to hurt
someone in order to pass the test of the law for involuntary
commitment.

We had a couple more discussions following that. She agreed to
schedule an appointment to interview him again. But meanwhile, I
had a bed reserved in a private facility and needed to somehow
convince him that he had to go before it became unavailable. There
was no time for a second "interview". So, I bluffed. I
basically told him he was going, one way or another. His choice was a
nice, pleasant, private facility on Cape Cod or a court ordered
facility within the confines of one of the state prisons. I had
already written a court petition and showed it to him. I didn't let
on that there was not much a chance it would be approved without the
state shrink's recommendation.

It worked. We hauled him off to the private place with him kicking
and screaming all the way, claiming he didn't need and didn't have a
"problem". Well, he did. Four days into their mandatory five day
de-tox period (before the rehab process starts) he had a withdrawal
seizure, fell on the floor and fractured his skull. I think that
helped wake him up.

He's now been clean for almost a year and is a changed person. So am
I.

On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:05:17 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
om...

On 4/27/13 4:50 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...


In many states, if a licensed therapist determines a person is a
threat
to himself/herself or others, that person can be hospitalized for up
to
three days for a full-blown psychological exam. After the exam, a
judge
holds a hearing to determine if further hospitalization is
necessary. It
sort of works like that, except there aren't enough beds or decent
facilities to take care of those who need the help, and judges are
reluctant for that and other reasons to require long-term
hospitalization.

---------------------------------------

If the laws are anything like those in MA, the person would have to
either kill someone somehow or commit suicide before they would be
considered a threat to others or to themselves. Had a series of
long,
frustrated conversations with a state psychologist about this last
year.



That's pretty close. And once the dangerously mentally ill are in a
long-term facility, fund and staff shortages might get them released
too
early. In private hospitals, you're pretty much dumped out as soon as
your insurance is used up.

-----------------------------------------------------

Last summer I found myself involved in trying to get help for a family
member. It came to a head one weekend last July (after several
months of trying to convince him to get help) when he was caught by
the police on a beach after several witnesses reported him driving a
car in a reckless fashion. The police had him transported to the
hospital where he went through the standard de-tox period. He was
released the following morning, went home and started drinking again.
I happened to stop by his apartment to check up on him and found him
in the process of respiratory failure .... which is typically the
cause of death due to an overdose of alcohol. Called 911, and the
police and EMT's were dispatched. Meanwhile, I followed the
instructions of the 911 dispatcher to keep the person from choking.

At the recommendation of the police and fire department officials, I
requested that a physiological exam/interview be conducted at the end
of the de-tox period to establish grounds for a court petition for
involuntary commitment to a rehab facility as a back-up plan in the
event that the person continued to refuse help in the form of a
private, voluntary program. I had already made the necessary
arrangements for him to go to a private de-tox/rehab facility however,
by law, he had to agree to go voluntarily. He was still in a state of
total denial .... actually he wasn't capable of thinking period ....
but the law is the law. So, the court ordered rehab was my back-up
plan.

The interview was done and the psychologist called me. She first
asked me if I was aware of the person's blood alcohol levels on the
two consecutive days of de-tox treatment. I said, "no". She
informed me that the first day it was 350 and the second day it was
450. She then explained that anything over 350 is considered a
"lethal" dose.

She then informed me that based on the interview, she could not
recommend or support a court petition for involuntary commitment.
Her opinion was that he was not an "immediate threat" to himself or
to others.

I couldn't believe what she was saying. I asked her if consuming a
"lethal dose" of alcohol twice in one weekend and having to have the
police haul his car away to the pound after driving down the wrong
side of the street in a reckless fashion doesn't constitute threats to
himself or others, then what does? She told me that he would have
actually had to try to commit suicide or intentionally have to hurt
someone in order to pass the test of the law for involuntary
commitment.

We had a couple more discussions following that. She agreed to
schedule an appointment to interview him again. But meanwhile, I
had a bed reserved in a private facility and needed to somehow
convince him that he had to go before it became unavailable. There
was no time for a second "interview". So, I bluffed. I
basically told him he was going, one way or another. His choice was a
nice, pleasant, private facility on Cape Cod or a court ordered
facility within the confines of one of the state prisons. I had
already written a court petition and showed it to him. I didn't let
on that there was not much a chance it would be approved without the
state shrink's recommendation.

It worked. We hauled him off to the private place with him kicking
and screaming all the way, claiming he didn't need and didn't have a
"problem". Well, he did. Four days into their mandatory five day
de-tox period (before the rehab process starts) he had a withdrawal
seizure, fell on the floor and fractured his skull. I think that
helped wake him up.

He's now been clean for almost a year and is a changed person. So am
I.


His bottom was lower than most. Thank God you were there to help him.

On 4/27/2013 7:12 PM, Pro-Baby wrote:
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:05:17 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 4/27/13 4:50 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...


In many states, if a licensed therapist determines a person is a
threat
to himself/herself or others, that person can be hospitalized for up
to
three days for a full-blown psychological exam. After the exam, a
judge
holds a hearing to determine if further hospitalization is
necessary. It
sort of works like that, except there aren't enough beds or decent
facilities to take care of those who need the help, and judges are
reluctant for that and other reasons to require long-term
hospitalization.

---------------------------------------

If the laws are anything like those in MA, the person would have to
either kill someone somehow or commit suicide before they would be
considered a threat to others or to themselves. Had a series of
long,
frustrated conversations with a state psychologist about this last
year.



That's pretty close. And once the dangerously mentally ill are in a
long-term facility, fund and staff shortages might get them released
too
early. In private hospitals, you're pretty much dumped out as soon as
your insurance is used up.

-----------------------------------------------------

Last summer I found myself involved in trying to get help for a family
member. It came to a head one weekend last July (after several
months of trying to convince him to get help) when he was caught by
the police on a beach after several witnesses reported him driving a
car in a reckless fashion. The police had him transported to the
hospital where he went through the standard de-tox period. He was
released the following morning, went home and started drinking again.
I happened to stop by his apartment to check up on him and found him
in the process of respiratory failure .... which is typically the
cause of death due to an overdose of alcohol. Called 911, and the
police and EMT's were dispatched. Meanwhile, I followed the
instructions of the 911 dispatcher to keep the person from choking.

At the recommendation of the police and fire department officials, I
requested that a physiological exam/interview be conducted at the end
of the de-tox period to establish grounds for a court petition for
involuntary commitment to a rehab facility as a back-up plan in the
event that the person continued to refuse help in the form of a
private, voluntary program. I had already made the necessary
arrangements for him to go to a private de-tox/rehab facility however,
by law, he had to agree to go voluntarily. He was still in a state of
total denial .... actually he wasn't capable of thinking period ....
but the law is the law. So, the court ordered rehab was my back-up
plan.

The interview was done and the psychologist called me. She first
asked me if I was aware of the person's blood alcohol levels on the
two consecutive days of de-tox treatment. I said, "no". She
informed me that the first day it was 350 and the second day it was
450. She then explained that anything over 350 is considered a
"lethal" dose.

She then informed me that based on the interview, she could not
recommend or support a court petition for involuntary commitment.
Her opinion was that he was not an "immediate threat" to himself or
to others.

I couldn't believe what she was saying. I asked her if consuming a
"lethal dose" of alcohol twice in one weekend and having to have the
police haul his car away to the pound after driving down the wrong
side of the street in a reckless fashion doesn't constitute threats to
himself or others, then what does? She told me that he would have
actually had to try to commit suicide or intentionally have to hurt
someone in order to pass the test of the law for involuntary
commitment.

We had a couple more discussions following that. She agreed to
schedule an appointment to interview him again. But meanwhile, I
had a bed reserved in a private facility and needed to somehow
convince him that he had to go before it became unavailable. There
was no time for a second "interview". So, I bluffed. I
basically told him he was going, one way or another. His choice was a
nice, pleasant, private facility on Cape Cod or a court ordered
facility within the confines of one of the state prisons. I had
already written a court petition and showed it to him. I didn't let
on that there was not much a chance it would be approved without the
state shrink's recommendation.

It worked. We hauled him off to the private place with him kicking
and screaming all the way, claiming he didn't need and didn't have a
"problem". Well, he did. Four days into their mandatory five day
de-tox period (before the rehab process starts) he had a withdrawal
seizure, fell on the floor and fractured his skull. I think that
helped wake him up.

He's now been clean for almost a year and is a changed person. So am
I.


His bottom was lower than most. Thank God you were there to help him.


I still think Oxy/heroin hits harder, those guys are never really off
the ****... just out of stock for the moment.