This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
One of the other posters hit on this but basically in most states people have a right to be not forced into treatment (of any kind, not just psychiatric) as long as they are not actively suicidal or homicidal (gross oversimplification the laws around this are very state specific and complicated).
Drugs don't count for this. We can't force someone to take their diabetes medication. We can't force someone to go to a psychiatrist (again with above caveats).
This is generally good despite the edge cases.
Its not forcing anyone. The hospital has a clear need to have a minimum treatment program of 30 days. You can accept that program or not
If a patient comes into the emergency department the options are (loosely) you discharge or admit them.
People are allowed to go home even if doing so may result in death or bad outcomes. We typically calling this leaving AMA (against medical advice). Common reasons for this are illness disrupting decision making, denial, and needs (like drug use, or I have a flight to catch, or I gotta go to work).
If people in the hospital think a patients decision making is impaired (for instance: dementia, medical illness resulting in confusion so they can't make a decisions with full thought) they can do a capacity assessment. This usually involves calling psychiatry for help but you don't need to. If the patient understands the ramifications of their decision (oversimplification again) they get to go home and die or have their frostbitten fingers fall off or do too much heroin.
A sub category of this is psychiatric extremity.
If a patient comes to the ED and has a psychiatric history or has psychiatric symptoms then psychiatry needs to see them and say they are safe to go home. Some critical thought should be used to determine if psychiatry is actually needed but for various reasons (including the ED being overworked, midlevels, and liability concerns) no critical thought is used.
For instance "I'm sorry I said I wanted to die, but I had fallen off of a dump truck and could see all the bones in my legs going the wrong direction and it was very painful" "or I came here because I was looking for a therapist" now generate a need for an outpatient follow-up appointment. Also "I have no psychiatric problems but I was confused because I have early onset dementia" and "I came here because prison lore is that I don't have to go to jail if you guys say I have psychiatric problems" or "no I'm fine, that was some good heroin, let me out so I can go get more before they run out." None of these people necessarily need a psychiatrist, the ED psychiatrist's job is to determine if they do and if they are safe to go home.
Now they are required to see someone (supposedly, I don't know the legislative details), wasting everyone's time.
The other primary option is admission. If the patient is a threat to themselves, others, and in some states property (with a lot of at times hazy and at times specific clarification on what all of that means) then they can be involuntarily committed. You can also just ask the patient if they want to stay, which depending on resource availability may involve admitting someone who really doesn't need it. All kinds of complications fall out here, for instance some patient's say they want to be admitted but are admitted involuntarily any way.
In past times the U.S. was very free with involuntarily admitting people, very resistant to actually discharging people (from the ED and from the psychiatric hospital) and abused people in various ways, our current legal framework exists to protect against those abuses, some of which were very very serious (gang rape of patients at state hospital for example).
The downside of reforms was that homeless people who are too mentally ill to function or chronically treatment non-compliant are allowed to wander the street.
You may not care about those people, but we also used to accidentally catch people who really weren't mentally ill or were definitely safe to be at home. Not making this mistake is harder than you think because its very common for people with no mental illness, mild mental illness, and severe mental illness to all say the same things (especially when someone is taking the medication only because they are locked in a state hospital and will stop as soon as they leave and start murdering again).
Its not about caring/not caring about these people. Its about not elevating them above everyone and everything else
It's not that simple. It's not always clear who is who. Some frequent flyers are coming back because they don't want to go to the shelter. Some are coming back because the ED keeps not treating them because they think the problem is mental illness and they never did a basic work up...
It may be helpful to model this similarly to however you feel about the legal system, letting guilty go free and so on.
The legal system doesn't involve people coming into my house, stealing tens of thousands of dollars, and then the next time they are at the front door I am supposed to let them back in. In fact, most of the more sane jurisdictions allow for pretrial detention of something as serious as a burglary or theft by deception.
The problem is the state blatantly violating freedom of contract by forcing these victims to treat these menaces, and then trying to fudge away the actual cost of the insane policy by smuggling it through various re-distributive schemes as opposed to a budgetary line item.
$100 billion for ER visits from meth heads and heroin addicts is less defensible then "we can't have people dying in the streets (ignore this massive cost we've hidden with subterfuge)"
The problem isn't necessarily your idea (although I'm sure some would take issue with it), the issue is the implementation. How do you decide? Some people with chronic medical illness look like a mental health patient, some mental health patients try repeatedly to get medical care and get ignored... when the issue is "live or die" you have to get things absolutely right.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link