UFollowing a catastrophic failure of economic policy, the state of California has decided to systematically detain, imprison, forcibly strip, and drug a sizable population that is now homeless.
rent management, Out of control zoning laws, and other red tape have long plagued California’s housing economy, limiting the supply of housing despite high demand. The most vulnerable citizens are forced onto the streets and unable to find long-term housing options where they feel safe. Advocates are promoting “housing first” as a solution to the problem of homelessness, which would grant unconditional housing as a right, regardless of mental health or addiction status.
The feelings of hopelessness, isolation, paranoia, and mental breakdown that often (understandably) characterize the experience of homelessness are interpreted by some as symptoms of an “unsound mind” rather than a failure of social policy. There are many. The abuse and neglect that homeless people suffer at the hands of the state is ignored by society and has devastating effects on the social policies surrounding those affected.
Despite being a cheaper alternative to forced institutionalization, Housing First lacks similar political support. Providing long-term shelter without conditions does not benefit people. Governor Newsom’s donors to the health care industry. Unfortunately for the unhoused residents under his administration, their needs, as well as those of California taxpayers, are considered irrational.
In fact, not only is it cheaper than forced institutionalization, but housing comes first. save the people a lot of money.Rather than allowing homelessness to decline can lead to mental distress, substance abuse, and sometimes crime., where you solve the problem at its root reduces the need for services that address the symptoms of the problem, saving you money. Addressing the basic needs of unhoused people reduces the need for all types of services and promotes public safety.
But these facts are as irrelevant to California as anything that exposes the policies that created the homelessness crisis in the first place. Rather, the government would like to view the people most hurt by its policies as having “unsound minds.” They can therefore override standard inalienable rights to victims and all liability for themselves.
The consequences of the concept of “unsound mind” are dire and have led to countless human rights violations. Many psychiatrists, both historically and currently, believe that a person freed from the sufferings of “schizophrenia” would rather be homeless than incarcerated in a psychiatric hospital and put on antipsychotic drugs. He hinted that he wasn’t there. This claim is Created and published by lancet, is a well-regarded journal despite not providing any factual basis or argument. This shows how powerful the bias is to bring up psychiatric diagnoses to discredit critics.
This makes psychiatry unique among medical specialties in that the responsibility for unattractive services is shifted entirely to the target population, who are often forced to engage with the specialty. placed in a position. and, Long-term results are predictably worse., psychiatrists then claim that their “services” are needed now more than ever. They then pile on more drugs and electric shocks, sometimes without consent and rarely with fully informed consent. All trauma is ignored as a reason for further progression of the disease and forcing additional “help”. (This happens in all social classes; this is very famous. what happened to britney spears. If world-famous pop stars couldn’t protect themselves from psychiatry, what chance could poor outcasts have?)
Additionally, symptoms of “schizophrenia,” a typical diagnostic label for being “mentally unsound,” include delusions, hallucinations, disorganized speech, catatonic or incoherent behavior, and decreased emotional expression. Must pay attention. To receive a diagnosis, you only need to have six months of disability and one month of the aforementioned symptoms. Some of these are signs of fear (speaking slurred, not showing emotion, etc.), and they are all associated with constant hunger, irregular sleep, little support, and potentially being in danger. It makes sense in the context of the often daunting and harsh outdoor experience. violent police state. Attacking their freedom will only create more trauma than they already have.
A few months ago, I spoke with a homeless man at a bus stop in California. He seemed surprised that I had bothered to talk to him and almost cried. He asked if I was a psychiatrist and I said no. (Now that I think about it, I wonder if he was afraid that I would violate him.) We talked for hours. When the topic of psychiatric wards came up, he thought it was inhumane to be sent to a psychiatric ward against one’s will. He also detailed why so many unhoused people are currently unsheltered. The reasons range from strict rules to poor conditions to only being allowed for short periods of time. Essentially, the unhoused homeless are in this situation because, among several unpleasant alternatives, they have decided that freedom on the streets is best for them. (Or they have run out of options.)
In investigative reporting, Homeless people fleeing forced treatment. If I had a choice, I would also like to take to the streets. At least there’s more freedom there. I’d be surprised if someone who has researched, researched, or been to most of these places from a user’s perspective disagreed. I myself live in California and I know a lot of people who go to the wards or are passionate about their wards, but I’ve never heard of any positive experiences. Their mental health unanimously either did not improve or worsened. (Of course, there are good treatment centers, but most people who are homeless or in crisis don’t have access to such facilities, which is a big part of why they don’t go voluntarily. )
The paranoia characteristic of many of those labeled as “mentally unsound” can and is being addressed with great success by addressing its root causes. like a house and employment. Additionally, more consensual services that maximize relationships while minimizing drug use could significantly improve outcomes. Forcing people who don’t want to be hospitalized is not only more expensive, more traumatic, and has worse outcomes than admitting them in the first place; increase risk of suicide. For experts to advocate such invasive, inhumane, and drastic measures violates the principle of doing no harm, especially when even minimal measures have not been tried.
Another problem with forced hospitalization is that it diverts resources from voluntary patients, puts a strain on staff, and creates a worse scenario for everyone involved except for the profiteers at the top. I once spoke to a woman who told me how she was in a state of despair after being turned away because her bed was full. She told me that that night she almost committed suicide because her emotions were so out of control. She had already recorded multiple suicide attempts, but her doctors didn’t care. There are estimates that many, if not most, patients experience forced hospitalization; This means that the results will be worse.it’s an injustice that she wasn’t allowed a bed, to lock up people who probably didn’t even want to be there.
Anyone in crisis needs an environment where they feel safe. From policies targeting the most vulnerable to the notoriously corrupt Los Angeles Police Department, California doesn’t offer this. Resources are being diverted away from freely enacted policies that save taxes, reduce crime, and create a more caring society, increasing incarceration in prisons and psychiatric hospitals. As a result, everything around them diminishes, making the world crueler and harsher for those most affected.
What California is doing is a form of DARVO. The state denies wrongdoing to its people, institutionalizes its people, and makes the people who suffer the most the root cause of social ills. Recent legislation has given psychiatry an even greater role in coercive social control, a major victory. Its historical and current role as an arm of the state is becoming stronger, using its power against the most disenfranchised in society. (Though these facilities claim to be well regulated, the picture inside is quite different.) When people who are being abused are deprived of the right to fight back in any way, the letter of the law does not apply. (No.)
The most logical, cheapest, and most humane solutions are being ignored by lawmakers in favor of violent gaslighting of the state’s most economically vulnerable people. Despite creating this crisis, California politicians are being released while throwing victims into asylums.
