What forced hospitalization feels like in New York City, as Mayor Adams pushes for more
gothamist.comSubmitted by psychothumbs t3_zazqf0 in nyc
Thtguy1289_NY t1_iyp9kv9 wrote
OK so we can't arrest them, and can't hospitalize them. What exactly do you propose we do for people who are clearly dangers to themselves and others?
George4Mayor86 t1_iypie16 wrote
Let them rot and pat ourselves in the back for how progressive and enlightened we are, apparently.
Grass8989 t1_iypapvs wrote
The progressive way is to let them rot in the streets and subway until they perform a violent act and are ultimately incarcerated.
HagridsSexyNippples t1_iyre3gd wrote
I’m super liberal, but even I agree with you. I would say I feel this way because I’ve grown up in the worst parts of New York City and have seen some stuff over the years, but I have a friend who grew up in similar circumstances, and she’s already on social media ranting about how terrible this is.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_iysfvvx wrote
Ffs that’s not what progressives are advocating for and you know it. Jesus Christ this fascist gaslighting has to stop.
happybarfday t1_iz1lrv8 wrote
So tell us what they want lol, you want to bitch about people putting words in your mouth but then you have nothing to say about solutions yourself... I feel like inevitably it's some pipedream shit where we're going to build 50 new skyscrapers with a free one-bedroom apartment for every homeless person, with free amenities, free drugs and alcohol, free food, free education, free medical aid, $2000 basic income a month, free everything and then they will magically one day totally willingly decide to stop being mentally ill and stop being addicted to substances and become productive contributing, self-sufficient members of society.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_iz2czt2 wrote
People have literally been saying the solutions for the past 5 years: build more housing, expand the social safety net, improve healthcare in the city.
> I feel like inevitably it's some pipedream shit where we're going to build 50 new skyscrapers with a free one-bedroom apartment for every homeless person, with free amenities, free drugs and alcohol, free food, free education, free medical aid, $2000 basic income a month, free everything and then they will magically one day totally willingly decide to stop being mentally ill and stop being addicted to substances and become productive contributing, self-sufficient members of society.
It’s funny how you whine about being called out for putting words in my mouth and then immediately double down on it. Never change, fascist.
happybarfday t1_iz2emrb wrote
Right, so throw more money at the problem. How am I putting words in your mouth? I just got into more specifics that you fail to actually talk about when you put forth vague ideas.
We literally said the same shit - free houses, free healthcare, free "social safety net" (food stamps, drug treatment, counseling, education and employment programs, etc). If you disagree on the specifics then feel free to elaborate.
I'm just being realistic about how much free shit would need to be provided to give the majority of mentally ill and/or just generally spiteful and angry homeless people to get their shit together, get sober, and support themselves at the bare minimum...
I'm all for this shit. I pay my insane taxes here every year. And every year nothing changes. The thing is, I don't trust our government to any of this shit not matter how much money we give them. What happened to those billions that went into Thrive? What the fuck has the government been doing with our money?
Politicians and developers and corporations, etc will just embezzle and/or waste the money or do some other corrupt or incompetent shit to enrich themselves and prolong the issue so that they can continue to get more. There's no profit in fixing homelessness for anyone so why would they have any incentive to do that? I have zero confidence left in government, whether right or left...
Call me a fascist or socialist or whatever, take all my money and put whoever you want in office, just somebody fucking do something to make any change whatsofuckingever.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_iz2l5f8 wrote
> We literally said the same shit - free houses, free healthcare, free "social safety net" (food stamps, drug treatment, counseling, education and employment programs, etc).
Please show me where I said that.
This is the funniest thing about you people.
> Call me a fascist or socialist or whatever, take all my money and put whoever you want in office, just somebody fucking do something to make any change whatsofuckingever.
You say that, but then you mock the policies that would actually make a difference.
What are you for, good sir?
happybarfday t1_iz2nqhp wrote
>Please show me where I said that.
Uhh your words in literally your last post:
>People have literally been saying the solutions for the past 5 years: build more housing, expand the social safety net, improve healthcare in the city.
I'm not mocking the solutions but rather the delusion that any of this shit will actually happen and not be turned into another grift where the winners are the politicians, corporations and wealthy, the homeless get some token scraps, and the middle class (us) ends up paying for all of it and getting nothing in return. Free flying ponies made of gold for everyone would make a difference too, but I would mock the idea of that happening as well...
Evening_Presence_927 t1_iz2shin wrote
> People have literally been saying the solutions for the past 5 years: build more housing, expand the social safety net, improve healthcare in the city.
That’s not “free houses, free healthcare, free "social safety net" (food stamps, drug treatment, counseling, education and employment programs, etc).”
happybarfday t1_iz2sxkf wrote
Oh okay, so the homeless people are paying for that new housing, healthcare and social safety net programs and resources? Great sounds good.
DirtySkell t1_iz596we wrote
It's really disgusting that we let them rot in the streets and subways, there are so many better places to do that.
GoRangers5 t1_iyrb3bu wrote
[deleted] t1_iyst54r wrote
[deleted]
GoRangers5 t1_iystna0 wrote
After your third arrest, the judge says to you “your going to the pot.”
AnacharsisIV t1_iyw3jyr wrote
Build a thunderdome on an island and drop them in there and let them fight it out
SolitaryMarmot t1_iyplck9 wrote
Treat them appropriately with assertive community treatment in supportive housing.
Jail and 72 inpatient psych holds don't work. We've been doing that for decades.
Thtguy1289_NY t1_iyptoyg wrote
What exactly is "assertive community treatment" ?
WikiSummarizerBot t1_iyqi6qo wrote
>Assertive community treatment (ACT) is an intensive and highly integrated approach for community mental health service delivery. ACT teams serve individuals that have been diagnosed with serious and persistent forms of mental illness, predominantly but not exclusively the schizophrenia spectrum disorders. ACT service recipients may also have diagnostic profiles that include features typically found in other DSM-5 categories (for example, bipolar, depressive, anxiety, and personality disorders, among others).
^([ )^(F.A.Q)^( | )^(Opt Out)^( | )^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)^( | )^(GitHub)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Grass8989 t1_iyqnorb wrote
…but their rights!
realog173 t1_iyr0ggp wrote
This is a fine idea to solve part of the problem, but then let’s actually do that. All similar efforts to this point have been totally half baked and ineffective. Taking these people off the streets at least provides a solution for the rest of us even if it’s not an effective treatment.
The other question is what to do with the people who don’t want to go to supportive housing because there are rules. In Cape Town for example they offer excellent housing programs and even include free training for trades and other entry level jobs, but the streets are still swarmed because you’re not allowed to do drugs in these houses.
SolitaryMarmot t1_iyr35xs wrote
But they will just be back on the streets in 72 hours up to 15 days. And they just get better at hiding from treatment. That's why a bunch of clinicians were quoted in the Goldstein article yesterday claiming what a poor idea this is. It will likely make the problem worse in the long run. Discharging people back to the street or a homeless shelter while overburdening an already stressed inpatient psych system is a terrible idea. There aren't beds for people who ARE suicidal and homicidal. Now those people will be lined up in ED hallways and on med surg floors because the cops are rounding up the homeless and turning Hospitals in de facto shelters.
We should build the mental health infrastructure people need instead of doing something counter productive that has the potential to break and already fragile system.
realog173 t1_iyrc89r wrote
Definitely agree we need real solutions that address the source of these problems, but I don’t agree that this will make the problem on the streets worse.
fafalone t1_iyu7wpq wrote
> but the streets are still swarmed because you’re not allowed to do drugs in these houses.
Get rid of this stupid fucking policy, that's one thing that can be done. It's ass-backwards to try to force someone with a drug problem to quit first, then be able to stabilize their life. A stable life is a key factor for being able to get off drugs, and Housing First programs that provide housing regardless of sobriety have been far more effective than enforced sobriety.
happybarfday t1_iz1me5f wrote
Okay but then how do you handle the liability when they overdose in the housing you're providing? Who is cleaning it up if they soil themselves or destroy the house in a mentally ill fit? Who is watching them 24/7 to make sure they aren't doing this things in the first place and intervening?
What about other sober homeless people who don't want to be around people doing drugs and drinking? They're now forced to live next to a bunch of people shooting up and passing out drunk?
What do you do to prevent theft and assault within these places? You hire 24/7 security and nurses? Who's paying for all this for the next 100 years?
Rottimer t1_iyvn2tg wrote
People that are a danger to themselves or others have always been able to be involuntarily evaluated. Whether the cops did anything about it is different question.
The change here is the standard is loosened to include people who seemingly can’t meet their own basic needs. If can’t see how that might be abused or easily used incompetently, I can’t help you. If you can’t see how it would be a problem that though promises have been made for additional funding in the future but the policy starts today, I can’t help you.
Thtguy1289_NY t1_iyvsys6 wrote
If you can't see how mentally unwell people are more of a danger to themselves and others than ordinary people, and that the current system for involuntary lockup is far from adequate, I can't help you.
If you can't see that it's better to get these people some kind of treatment now, rather than waiting for the absolutely perfect solution while they freeze, live in fear, or attack people, I can't help you.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_iysg8gw wrote
The answer is literally as simple as building more housing and expanding the social safety net. That’s all progressives have been advocating for this entire time.
Thtguy1289_NY t1_iysgbd0 wrote
How does housing help someone who is unable to care for themselves?
Evening_Presence_927 t1_iysht5q wrote
Because more housing means more supportive housing programs, which will help these people take care of themselves.
InfernalTest t1_iytd1oi wrote
the problem is they require the monitoring and maintenance that is only allowable for someone who s under the control of the state
they cant be forced to return home ( and not live on teh street or ride the trains ) or ( the biggie ) take psych meds or keep a job - all of which someone who is severe schizo affective or schizophrenic and bi polar cant manage unless someone is MAKING them do those things
and lets not even talk about the ppl that are addicted to sucstances or alchohol who again - are so addicted that they already dont follow through exactly because of their addiction...
and then of course you have to find a mass of people willing to manage these sorts o f people as a full time job .....and pay them enough to retain them.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_iytdfku wrote
Are you saying that as an argument against supportive housing? Because that’s already what’s going to happen under Adams’ plan.
InfernalTest t1_iyug5b8 wrote
my reply is rather that what youre saying is "supportive" housing doesnt really address what these people need given the way the law and how supportive housing works.
there is no place thats making people take meds and/or controlling their movement... unless that person is in the custody of the state.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_iyuhe94 wrote
Adams’ plan doesn’t give them that either. You’d be surprised how much social support and trust building will solve the problem.
InfernalTest t1_iyvgtub wrote
it may solve SOME problems but clearly it doesnt do it enough for the vast majority of people that are severely mentally ill - there is a ton of services for people IF they decide to take advantage of them ...the issue is there is no process / mechanism to to make someone who chooses to not take their meds and not sleep on the streets to do so UNTIL they do something ( harmful) to themselves or to someone else.
they require someone /or something and for them to subject to that treatment of this is "where you HAVE to be , and these are the meds you MUST take"
our laws currently dont allow for that kind of control unless they are in the custody of the state..and the only way you get into custody is either criminally or voluntarilly ...there is no inbetween legally for the kinds of controls that they need versus whats legally allowable. really thats it
Evening_Presence_927 t1_iyx5jrc wrote
> it may solve SOME problems but clearly it doesnt do it enough for the vast majority of people that are severely mentally ill
[citation needed]
> there is a ton of services for people IF they decide to take advantage of them
And they are likely underfunded and understaffed under this administration. Imagine if we actually had someone competent running things…
InfernalTest t1_iyxll83 wrote
- this is about those who refuse or ignore the help of supportive services despite the fact they are severely mentally ill and need meds- or are substance /alchohol dependant....
no matter how much you may offer them a free home or counseling there is ( at least in NY ) nothing that can MAKE them take it when clearly they need it and aside from involuntarily making them subject to being detained or controlling them after they are medically stabilized ...there is little to MAKE them continue to adhere to meds or stay where a home is offered if they decide to not take meds and not take the bed you offer them...so the solution for them isnt supportive housing since they refuse to accept or acknowledge that they should be subject to services
this situation is described over and over by psychiatric and medical staff at hospitals and halfway houses ...
Evening_Presence_927 t1_iyy1p02 wrote
> this situation is described over and over by psychiatric and medical staff at hospitals and halfway houses ...
Yeah, because those places aren’t equipped to handle these people long term. They’re chronically understaffed and underfunded by a government that only sees them as a political pawn.
Thtguy1289_NY t1_iyslc96 wrote
Yea but some of these people literally can't take care of themselves though, how does it help them? Like even with support they cannot live on their own
Evening_Presence_927 t1_iysoo7s wrote
Do you not know what supportive housing is?
happybarfday t1_iz1msgl wrote
I mean no, why the fuck would I? It's not my job or industry... the problem is that you never get specific about the hard questions.
At the end of the day I never see a real solid answer for how to handle people who don't want this assistance and refuse to live like a civilized human because they are mentally ill or just fucking antisocial assholes. The answer is always just "throw more money and resources at it" and apparently someday they will willingly change? No, some people are just NOT ever going to get it together for themselves no matter how many resources are available.
Key-Recognition-7190 t1_iyv6w3v wrote
And that's ultimately where we have a problem it ISNT simple.
Building in NY is hella expensive and reality is NO one with any influence or money wants to build that kind of housing. After all who is going to spend possibly billions of dollars to house a population that let's be honest here only about 20% will ultimately be able to take care of themselves. Are tax payers just expected to take care of these increasing number of people for the rest of their lives? What guarantee is there that supporting a system like that wouldn't be a budget nightmare like what the MTA has become.
While I'm on the topic assuming we do somehow build the housing what stops the vast majority of homeless in the country from migrating here to use these new housing? It's a never ending cycle. Please don't say nationalizing that isn't something feasible until atleast another 2 or 4 years.
On Expanding the safety net (Atleast in New York) in an administration that is filled with unqualified and honestly lazy workers is just asking for fraud and abuse. It's not that I don't think it's a bad idea it's just unless it's manned by an experienced and motivated administration it's once again just going to be filled with massive fraud and abuse!
It's 7 in the morning and I'm phone posting but all I'm saying is the answer isn't so simple there are so many prerequisites needed for this.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_iyx59si wrote
> Building in NY is hella expensive and reality is NO one with any influence or money wants to build that kind of housing.
So force them to. We have the power both in the city government and state government to completely overhaul rezoning laws and community councils. Why don’t we?
> After all who is going to spend possibly billions of dollars to house a population that let's be honest here only about 20% will ultimately be able to take care of themselves.
That’s the point of a social safety net, though. Not everything needs to turn a profit.
> While I'm on the topic assuming we do somehow build the housing what stops the vast majority of homeless in the country from migrating here to use these new housing?
Nothing, but then again, they’re being sent here anyway. If we give them housing, they’re more likely to contribute positively to the city instead of being on the street, y’know, like you people are so concerned about.
> On Expanding the safety net (Atleast in New York) in an administration that is filled with unqualified and honestly lazy workers is just asking for fraud and abuse
Then maybe we shouldn’t have drank the crime Kool aid and voted him in.
happybarfday t1_iz1mxod wrote
> So force them to.
So we can force developers to build unprofitable buildings but we can't force destructive, sick, mentally ill addicts to get help for their own good and the good of society...
Evening_Presence_927 t1_iz2cco9 wrote
Yes? Developers don’t have rights.
happybarfday t1_iz2dy6z wrote
I don't have the right to go piss on the door of your building, shoot up heroin, then pass out there and shit myself and then attack you when you try to wake me up to get the fuck out of the way, but this shit happens on the daily in our city. Happened right outside my own building.
Evening_Presence_927 t1_iz2kxou wrote
Huh? That’s not how civil rights work. Also lmao at you defending big real estate like that.
> Happened right outside my own building.
Sure it did.
happybarfday t1_iz2neki wrote
You have anything to actually contribute other than naysaying and condescending remarks? Solutions? Research studies? Insights of your own? No?
[deleted] t1_iz2qzqs wrote
[removed]
happybarfday t1_iz2ra7i wrote
Won't happen, might as well say we should give them magic beans... let me know when it does and I'll eat my hat.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments