|
Isn't access to guns great?
|
Isn't access to guns great?
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. |
Isn't access to guns great?
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? |
Isn't access to guns great?
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. |
Isn't access to guns great?
"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. |
Isn't access to guns great?
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. |
Isn't access to guns great?
"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. |
Isn't access to guns great?
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. |
Isn't access to guns great?
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. |
Isn't access to guns great?
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:05:17 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
He's now been clean for almost a year and is a changed person. So am I. === Bad story but it sounds like you handled it as well as it could have been. Hope he stays on the wagon for the sake of all concerned. |
Isn't access to guns great?
On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 19:29:22 -0400, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
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. Could be. I don't know. I do know that alcohol is insidious ****. |
Isn't access to guns great?
In article , says...
http://tinyurl.com/c2xzcpa "Susan Hendricks was admitted to psychiatric hospitals several times in the past three decades. Her personalities likely started as a coping mechanism, Price said." Three decades of mental illnes was the problem. Crazy people have privacy rights don't they? |
Isn't access to guns great?
"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:05:17 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: 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. "F.O.A.D." wrote in message 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. ----------------------------------------------------- On 4/27/2013 7:12 PM, Pro-Baby wrote: 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. ------------------------------------------------- I agree, although both booze and drugs can destroy lives. Dead is dead. I have two friends with daughters in their early 20's who are hooked on heroin. Both started with oxycontin and switched to heroin because it's cheaper and more readily available. Both went through de-tox and rehab twice and relapsed. They are currently both in a sober house following the third attempt at rehab. This is an area where I disagree with Harry in terms of some of his comments regarding youth activities, including your situation. It's important to support and encourage lawful activities that they may have interest in and to keep them within the "real world" of challenge, victory and defeat. It may be sports, dancing, art, music or whatever but they need something to focus on outside of just schoolwork and preparing for college or a job. The traditional formal education part is important also, but not at the expense of all other character building activities. I think many young people turn to booze and drugs out of boredom during a period of time where they want to sow their wild oats or demonstrate their individuality. |
Isn't access to guns great?
On Sun, 28 Apr 2013 00:33:44 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
I think many young people turn to booze and drugs out of boredom during a period of time where they want to sow their wild oats or demonstrate their individuality. ======= That's all true, and all kids go through that phase. Other than setting a good example at home, the next most important thing in my opinion is who their friends are. That's difficult to control but parents can exert some influence, especially with regard to what activities they get involved with, as well as neighborhoods and schools. |
Isn't access to guns great?
On 4/28/13 12:33 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:05:17 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: 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. "F.O.A.D." wrote in message 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. ----------------------------------------------------- On 4/27/2013 7:12 PM, Pro-Baby wrote: 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. ------------------------------------------------- I agree, although both booze and drugs can destroy lives. Dead is dead. I have two friends with daughters in their early 20's who are hooked on heroin. Both started with oxycontin and switched to heroin because it's cheaper and more readily available. Both went through de-tox and rehab twice and relapsed. They are currently both in a sober house following the third attempt at rehab. This is an area where I disagree with Harry in terms of some of his comments regarding youth activities, including your situation. It's important to support and encourage lawful activities that they may have interest in and to keep them within the "real world" of challenge, victory and defeat. It may be sports, dancing, art, music or whatever but they need something to focus on outside of just schoolwork and preparing for college or a job. The traditional formal education part is important also, but not at the expense of all other character building activities. I think many young people turn to booze and drugs out of boredom during a period of time where they want to sow their wild oats or demonstrate their individuality. Hmm. Where did you get the idea I opposed sports or other fun activities for kids? I'm not a big fan of activities in which kids can easily get seriously injured, but there are plenty of sports in which that is not a big concern. |
Isn't access to guns great?
On 4/28/2013 7:52 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 4/28/13 12:33 AM, Eisboch wrote: "JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:05:17 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: 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. "F.O.A.D." wrote in message 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. ----------------------------------------------------- On 4/27/2013 7:12 PM, Pro-Baby wrote: 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. ------------------------------------------------- I agree, although both booze and drugs can destroy lives. Dead is dead. I have two friends with daughters in their early 20's who are hooked on heroin. Both started with oxycontin and switched to heroin because it's cheaper and more readily available. Both went through de-tox and rehab twice and relapsed. They are currently both in a sober house following the third attempt at rehab. This is an area where I disagree with Harry in terms of some of his comments regarding youth activities, including your situation. It's important to support and encourage lawful activities that they may have interest in and to keep them within the "real world" of challenge, victory and defeat. It may be sports, dancing, art, music or whatever but they need something to focus on outside of just schoolwork and preparing for college or a job. The traditional formal education part is important also, but not at the expense of all other character building activities. I think many young people turn to booze and drugs out of boredom during a period of time where they want to sow their wild oats or demonstrate their individuality. Hmm. Where did you get the idea I opposed sports or other fun activities for kids? I'm not a big fan of activities in which kids can easily get seriously injured, but there are plenty of sports in which that is not a big concern. Folks get lots of ideas about you. Mostly from what you've written. |
Isn't access to guns great?
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 4/28/13 12:33 AM, Eisboch wrote: "JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On Sat, 27 Apr 2013 18:05:17 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: 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. "F.O.A.D." wrote in message 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. ----------------------------------------------------- On 4/27/2013 7:12 PM, Pro-Baby wrote: 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. ------------------------------------------------- I agree, although both booze and drugs can destroy lives. Dead is dead. I have two friends with daughters in their early 20's who are hooked on heroin. Both started with oxycontin and switched to heroin because it's cheaper and more readily available. Both went through de-tox and rehab twice and relapsed. They are currently both in a sober house following the third attempt at rehab. This is an area where I disagree with Harry in terms of some of his comments regarding youth activities, including your situation. It's important to support and encourage lawful activities that they may have interest in and to keep them within the "real world" of challenge, victory and defeat. It may be sports, dancing, art, music or whatever but they need something to focus on outside of just schoolwork and preparing for college or a job. The traditional formal education part is important also, but not at the expense of all other character building activities. I think many young people turn to booze and drugs out of boredom during a period of time where they want to sow their wild oats or demonstrate their individuality. Hmm. Where did you get the idea I opposed sports or other fun activities for kids? I'm not a big fan of activities in which kids can easily get seriously injured, but there are plenty of sports in which that is not a big concern. ------------------------------------------------ Because I don't think you can be overly directive in terms of what activities are good or bad for them. They are developing individuality and might enjoy some things that you may not necessarily "approve" of. Accidents happen in virtually any form of recreation or hobby but for most they are far and few between. Heck, I damn near electrocuted myself on several occasions as a youngster playing around with old radios, amps and TV sets. Built a homemade bicycle with an oversized rear sprocket that would do about 40 mph, all in the days before helmets and riding gear. Used to have to be towed by my friend's older brother in a car to get it going, but once rolling the stupid thing would fly. I survived. I think too much pressure and influence is put on academics too early now-a-days. It's important of course, but it needs to be balanced with other youthful interests and activities. Unfortunately it comes from nationalized testing that starts in the second grade for cripes sakes and it's not necessarily geared to benefit the students, but rather the school systems and their funding. |
Isn't access to guns great?
|
Isn't access to guns great?
|
Isn't access to guns great?
On 4/27/13 6:05 PM, 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. Your family member is very lucky to have you in his corner. A significant number of prescription narcotics abusers ended up hooked because the drugs were the only way they could alleviate the pain from a work-related injury so they could get back on the job. |
Isn't access to guns great?
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... A significant number of prescription narcotics abusers ended up hooked because the drugs were the only way they could alleviate the pain from a work-related injury so they could get back on the job. -------------------------------------------------- Yes, and to young people also with any kind of injury or pain. It's too easily prescribed by too many doctors. Same with prescribing young kids Ritalin for miss-diagnosed ADHD. I've posted before about my daughter's experience about this with her son. They were strongly encouraged by one of his teachers (a 22-24 year old) that he should be taking it because *she* took it. Thankfully the family doctor vetoed the whole thing and he is fine. Several years ago I had some oral surgery done. The doc gave me a prescription for oxycodin for pain. I am old school when it comes to this stuff. The strongest pill I take is an occasional aspirin. Later in the evening of the surgery I decided to take one of the oxycodin pills. Hated the feeling it produced ... and I was a much bigger guy then than I am now. The mild pain at least made me feel alive. I flushed the rest of them down the toilet the next morning. Which brings me around to one of my pet peeves ... health care and it's cost in general. We finally got the final bill for my little overnight stay at the hospital last December. Even though I stayed overnight, it was still regarded as "out patient" treatment for a stress test. The tab? Over $14,000 to find out that I drank too much high test coffee. We purposely have a health insurance plan with a high deductible to keep our monthly premiums somewhat in control. Still pay about $1,200 a month for my wife and I. Our portion of the $14,000 bill came to just under $4,000. It applies to the yearly deductible (which I think is $5K) but I still can't swallow $14,000 for a few EKG's, some X-rays and a nuclear stress test. My guitar playing doctor friend just gave up his general internal medicine practice for similar reasons. He's one of the old school docs who was in it to help people with financial rewards being secondary. He finally got sick and tired of the administrative policies and cost to his patients that hospitals charged and he shut down his practice. Instead, he took the exam to become board certified for elderly and hospice care, something he finds much more rewarding. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:59 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com