cryogen
New Member
it's pretty simple, mental asylums, I don't understand why it's so controvercial.
|
|
|
Homelessness on the TTC (catch all)
- Thread starter Richard White
- Start date
Bordercollie
Senior Member
But to permanently house people? or put them on a path to becoming a functional human (if possible)? Because addiction is the other part of the issue and closing those safe injection sites wont make the situation better.
APTA-2048
Senior Member
Because it isn’t that “simple”. Not to mention the lack of will to properly and humanely run long term care facilities for the seriously mentally ill is why most were closed in the first place. That hasn’t changed. The prevailing attitude of people here is still very much “out of sight, out of mind”.
urbanclient
Active Member
There is more will now, society is a lot more progressive. We won't tolerate orderlies or doctors abusing patients. And short term housing and mandatory treatment for addicts in 'asylums' or let's call them 'in-patient treatment facilities' seems to work well enough in other countries. We're talking on the order of weeks and months, not years and decades. Mental health is another thing, but I suspect standalone mental health issues without any comorbid addiction is less of a problem than addiction. To paraphrase a long-time contributor, it's better than letting them rot on the streets.
The data on safe injection sites are mixed as well, we don't want to be in a position where we encourage drug use, but we don't want drug users getting blood borne infections either.
McGillicuddy
Active Member
We tried "mental asylums". They were inhumane disasters which often made their inmates worse, and there's no reason think they'll be any better a second time around.
urbanclient
Active Member
Jurisdictions in developed countries with involuntary treatment that is used in practice without requiring a court ruling beforehand (addiction without other mental health issues):
Norway, Finland, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Saskatchewan, and more.
The involuntary treatment with court ruling list is longer. The involuntary confinement for mental health list is even longer.
Last edited:
Steve X
Senior Member
I do agree that part of Ottawa is worse than Toronto in the recent decade or so. I'm sure Edmonton is having a hard time keeping them off the LRT too.
Those that are a nuisance to society should probably be locked away. Sleeping peacefully on a public bench is one thing. Always picking a fight with people while being pissed off all the time is another thing.
However there isn't any modern Canadian solution that won't be costly as rehabilitation programs are expensive while permanently housing them away could violate rights. We can't just exile them to a remote island like the old days. So nobody wants to do anything.
Jonny5
Senior Member
There is a timely series in The Star about the asylum method and how we actually haven't abandoned it. It's focused around a man with schizophrenia who has now been held in isolation in a small room for over 20 years.
The article reports a US psychiatrist says Ontario institutions in general hold people in this state longer than any jurisdiction in Canada or the USA, and this particular case is the longest in any recorded history in North America.
People see the reforms at the CAMH grounds and think that happened everywhere in Ontario. It didn't. And he's been there 20 years on the tax payers expense.
www.thestar.com
The article reports a US psychiatrist says Ontario institutions in general hold people in this state longer than any jurisdiction in Canada or the USA, and this particular case is the longest in any recorded history in North America.
People see the reforms at the CAMH grounds and think that happened everywhere in Ontario. It didn't. And he's been there 20 years on the tax payers expense.
Why this Ontario psychiatric hospital’s use of long-term isolation is being called ‘abusive’ — ‘The likes of which I have never seen’
“No civil or forensic mental health facility in the U.S. uses seclusion/restraint like Waypoint ... It is completely inconsistent with recovery.”
www.thestar.com
Bordercollie
Senior Member
And what do you suggest? Release him because it's in humane to have him locked up in a cell? What if he is a danger to himself or to others?There is a timely series in The Star about the asylum method and how we actually haven't abandoned it. It's focused around a man with schizophrenia who has now been held in isolation in a small room for over 20 years.
The article reports a US psychiatrist says Ontario institutions in general hold people in this state longer than any jurisdiction in Canada or the USA, and this particular case is the longest in any recorded history in North America.
People see the reforms at the CAMH grounds and think that happened everywhere in Ontario. It didn't. And he's been there 20 years on the tax payers expense.
Why this Ontario psychiatric hospital’s use of long-term isolation is being called ‘abusive’ — ‘The likes of which I have never seen’
“No civil or forensic mental health facility in the U.S. uses seclusion/restraint like Waypoint ... It is completely inconsistent with recovery.”
Jonny5
Senior Member
The article explains the situation and the solution.
Mihairokov
Senior Member
I get the impression most people's POVs are formed by the idea of the latter happening despite only the former ever happening to them specifically. A good general rule of thumb in any city is to mind your business. If I see a person sleeping on the subway my first initial thought isn't "wow they should be in jail" it's more "wow we've systemically failed them as a society". Jailing the less fortunate does not solve the reason and cause of why they are the way they are. It's punishing them for faults we continue to allow to persist in our society.
But, again, I get the impression that people are more concerned with tourists seeing this fault rather than actually doing something to properly resolve the causes. Isn't jailing anyone on a whim what people here think authoritatian countries do?
Mr.Tang
Active Member
One of my coworkers had to go to the hospital this week after being punched in the face and scratched in the neck at St Andrew station. He missed work and was at the hospital all day getting checked for concussion, infection etc. He is super quiet, nice guy. Just wrong place wrong time - but I still traumatizing for him. If you look on TTC alerts you will see it around 8am on Monday. But there are loads of such alerts happening all the time every day and everyone of those could be some real human being, just a regular citizen being traumatized and victimized.
McGillicuddy
Active Member
My mantra is "every homeless person I have ever seen is having a worse day than mine".
McGillicuddy
Active Member
Without wanting to diminish what happened to your coworker, it would be most irresponsible to assign every TTC disruption to a homeless person hospitalizing a bystander.
Usually it's some prick getting the doors jammed.
Northern Light
Superstar
Confining people, en masse, indefinitely or for very long periods, due either to mental illness or addiction is unreasonable and inhumane.
However, allowing someone to decline treatment, and become homeless, risking disease, injury, cold, heat, poor hygiene, lack of nutrition, all while making life less pleasant for others, and in some cases dangerous as well is equally unreasonable and inhumane.
There needs to be a balance.
If someone can remain housed, and not a nuisance or threat to others the balance swings strongly to their remaining free, though, treatment should be strongly encouraged.
But if you can't maintain housing, or minimal self-care, or self-awareness and are putting your health if not life at risk, treatment is not and cannot be an option.
It can certainly be voluntary and outpatient for those demonstrating a willingness and ability to adhere to such. But for others, it means compulsory in patient treatment.
Such treatment should always be as compassionate and humane as possible, and providing people are low risk to harm others, we should always err on the side of restoring people's freedom at the earliest opportunity (though not to send them back to the streets as homeless persons, but rather being released to supportive care or independent living housing as appropriate.)
Last edited: