Hacker News Reader

Comment by PiggySpeed | Hacker News Reader

This is a complicated issue. I've seen this happen in practice. As long as the process remains conservative and respectful of the patient, it results in better outcomes for the patient and a more peaceful society.

The cases where I have seen this happen: schizophrenia, drug-induced psychosis, acute mania, dementia.

Patients come out far better in an institutionalized setting, as opposed to being on the streets and walking aimlessly in dangerous traffic.

View on HN

Having experienced this: I think the word "conservative" doesn't quite capture the severity of detaining someone for mental health reasons. It has been argued that when someone is detained on mental health grounds, this is equivalent to a breach or suspension of the social contract in respect of that person. It is extremely unsatisfactory, though it might be a least bad option.

Outcomes might be better than if there was no intervention, but that doesn't necessarily imply that mental health services are effectively doing anything more than providing "protective custody".

There's a huge, gigantic, gaping chasm between a hospital patient with no history of mental illness with two parents, neither of which have a history of mental illness, and a schizophrenic homeless person. Saying one has anything to do with the other to justify a hospital kidnapping its own patients is seriously messed up.

I was referring to your reply to outside1234's comment. His answer was in the scope of the "obviously mentally ill" population. And I addressed your reply to that.

It is incorrect to take my response outside of its intended context and attempt to attack it there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com