[ExI] Jimmy 'the Greek' Snyder

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 at 09:01, spike jones via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> *On Behalf
> Of *Stathis Papaioannou via extropy-chat
>
> SR, how can we know?  It could be that in other countries they can legally
> incarcerate psychiatric patients and they do this out of sight.  We
> wouldn’t know if they were doing that.  In the US, we cannot hold
> psychiatric patients against their will unless they have committed a crime
> and have been convicted.
>
> That’s not true. Laws differ from state to state, but there are legal
> mechanisms to detain and treat people who present a serious risk to
> themselves or others due to mental illness. I don’t think there is anywhere
> in the world where someone with dementia or psychosis, for example, would
> be allowed to wander into traffic on the grounds that they have not been
> convicted of a crime.
>
> --
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Stathis, this touches on a controversial subject.  There are emergency
> interventions, but in general being crazy alone cannot result in long-term
> commitment against a person’s will.  Wandering in traffic is a legal
> infraction, so they could be arrested for that, then held.
>
>
>
> Dementia: oh dear what a morass is that question.  In our society, we
> regularly put AD patients in lockdown when the patient is clearly suffering
> but haven’t committed a crime.  An example case is where an AD sufferer
> starts tearing out a back patio with a crowbar and clearly hasn’t the
> capacity to build what she wants in its place.  Well, it isn’t a crime to
> wreck your own house.  It isn’t a crime to go wandering outdoors in one’s
> pajamas.  Another example, grandma doesn’t recognize the man she has been
> married to for 55 years and sometimes goes into a panic when he comes
> home.  Well… it’s his house too.  But shrieking for help isn’t a crime.
>
>
>
> AD is a terrifying disease: the patient is often OK or mostly so in the
> morning, but they fade as the day progresses.
>
>
>
> We often do the equivalent of incarceration for those patients.  They
> don’t want to be there, but have never committed a crime.
>
>
>
> A burden I have long carried is the notion that AD patients would likely
> be better if they had mental stimulation, which we damn well do have the
> technology to provide.  I would invent that, but I suck.  I am hoping
> people who do not will invent that, and get on it quickly.  Make us some
> really good mental stimulation software, so we can fight back against
> Alzheimers.
>
The criterion bot involuntary treatment in most jurisdictions is that the
person has a mental illness and, as a result of this, presents a serious
risk to themselves or others. Some jurisdictions define “serious risk” more
loosely than others. For example, if your child refuses to come out of
their room and stops eating because they hear voices telling them you have
poisoned their food, and they refuse treatment or even assessment because
they don’t believe they are unwell, should they be treated against their
will? This is not an uncommon presentation of a young person with
schizophrenia. Some jurisdictions would allow early intervention, others
would wait until they were actually showing signs of starvation. But to
actually let them die because of a treatable condition that takes away
their ability to reason would be a tragedy.
-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20200607/01a4a46a/attachment.htm>