Christian Community and Mental/Emotional Illness

[MaxPC]

Note: this is a sincere query, not a demonization of those who have these issues.

Now that that's clear I'll ask:
How does your fellowship deal with these issues, e.g.
-manic depression
-obsessive-compulsive disorder
-schizophrenia
-addictions of any sort
-autism
-developmental disabilities
-sensory disabilities (blind, deaf,etc)

[temporal1]

How to identify problems, how to prevent, how to respond, i know of none doing well with any of these important things.

From what i witness in my own family, today's laws guarantee victims "the right" to freely die in gutters. That is, if help is not requested by the victim, family, friends, others, have no recourse.

Important topic.

[Bootstrap]

From what i witness in my own family, today's laws guarantee victims "the right" to freely die in gutters. That is, if help is not requested by the victim, family, friends, others, have no recourse.

A lot of this goes back to a Supreme Court decision. Unless you can show that a mentally ill person is a danger to others or to himself, you cannot incarcerate him or force him to be in a mental institution. And the standard for proof is pretty high.

May the State confine the mentally ill merely to ensure them a living standard superior to that they enjoy in the private community? That the State has a proper interest in providing care and assistance to the unfortunate goes without saying. But the mere presence of mental illness does not disqualify a person from preferring his home to the comforts of an institution. Moreover, while the State may arguably confine a person to save him from harm, incarceration is rarely if ever a necessary condition for raising the living standards of those capable of surviving safely in freedom, on their own or with the help of family or friends. May the State fence in the harmless mentally ill solely to save its citizens from exposure to those whose ways are different? One might as well ask if the State, to avoid public unease, could incarcerate all who are physically unattractive or socially eccentric. Mere public intolerance or animosity cannot constitutionally justify the deprivation of a person's physical liberty. In short, a State cannot constitutionally confine without more a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends. ...

A lot of this comes down to a very difficult question: how much freedom does a mentally ill person have to make his own decisions about his life?

[MaxPC]

The query is how does your fellowship deal with individuals who have these issues?

Leave out the politics, please.

Note: this is a sincere query, not a demonization of those who have these issues.

Now that that's clear I'll ask:
How does your fellowship deal with these issues, e.g.
-manic depression
-obsessive-compulsive disorder
-schizophrenia
-addictions of any sort
-autism
-developmental disabilities
-sensory disabilities (blind, deaf,etc)

[Josh]

MaxPC,

Why don't you get started with telling us how your fellowship deals with these things?

[Josh]

How to identify problems, how to prevent, how to respond, i know of none doing well with any of these important things.

From what i witness in my own family, today's laws guarantee victims "the right" to freely die in gutters. That is, if help is not requested by the victim, family, friends, others, have no recourse.

Important topic.

This hasn't been my experience. When someone close to me became suicidal, I went to the nearest hospital, went inside and explained the situation, and the patient was commmitted. The patient was offered a choice between voluntary and involuntary commitment - with a warning about the consequences of the latter.

When someone close to me has been a danger to himself and others, he has been involuntarily committed multiple times.

Our mental health infrastructure in America is not particularly good, but it does work pretty well in crisis situations. Many places (including where I live) have a crisis centre one can call which is a step down from full blown impatient commitment.

At the end of the day, people do have the right to do unhealthy things, like overeat, until their poor choices put them in the grave.

[RZehr]

Note: this is a sincere query, not a demonization of those who have these issues.

Now that that's clear I'll ask:
How does your fellowship deal with these issues, e.g.
-manic depression
-obsessive-compulsive disorder
-schizophrenia
-addictions of any sort
-autism
-developmental disabilities
-sensory disabilities (blind, deaf,etc)

Seems like there is a difference in the first 6 and the last 1. Regarding the first 6, these have not been a very high profile or divisive issue at our church. Of course there are opinions of both sides, some strong. The stronger opinions against medication generally come from people that have little or no experience with these problems. In a nutshell, I'd say our most common course of action is to go to a medical doctor and take medication.

We shouldn't pretend to be experts in these things if we have no training. Some people seem to have a propensity for fringe healing techniques that have no trial data, and no oversite. I personally have little time for these methods.

What we should be experts in, is discerning the spirits; if the person is obviously a Christian and loves the Lord, then it is easy to trust and believe them when they say that the medication is helping them. But if a persons life does not add up in other areas, and then that person claims a mental illness, then I'm prone to skepticism about it being a medical need.

As long as they aren't involved in the occult, they are free to use whatever works.

[KingdomBuilder]

My church has a few people who struggle with these things. The stance seems to be that the illnesses are a result of the devil's influence in the world; those with illnesses are encouraged to combat the issue spiritually and through medical treatment (if necessary).

[temporal1]

Threats of suicide, often homicide, will often result in direct response.
But many in trouble know not to use those words, to avoid those consequences.

Many in trouble are intelligent, they know how to avoid system consequences they don't want, while taking advantage of system benefits+freedoms they do want.

Critical cases can be committed for help.
Once they are stabilized with drugs and counseling, they are allowed to go free ..
they often return to "critical," then go in this circular pattern for years, sometimes going from state-to-state. this is not an answer.

this is where i say, victims of mental illness are "free to die" in gutters.
and, yes, we are all crippled by human laws in this mire. victims, their families+friends, doctors, teachers, first responders - all are under threat of "potential litigation," when we dare to "step in" to help.

plus, once the step is made, when the victim is stabilized, he/she is free to return to harm anew.
am i repeating myself?!

the medical-psychiatric ability to stabilize exists. i've seen it happen.
without oversight, the potential to "fall away" is great (often, "simply," not continuing required meds.)

professionals know that many people will attempt suicide multiple times.
they patch people up, set them free, wait for their return.

families suffer. children suffer. communities suffer.

hair stylists.
i just saw a report that in Illinois, a law has been enacted to require hair stylists/barbers, to be trained in how to spot abuse in families, so they (will be held accountable?) to report these cases. hmm.

presumably, this new certification is additional tax revenue, and may result in increased prices for haircuts. more human law is always a good thing.

b.t.
in Illinois, the few people remaining are either law makers or those receiving gov subsidies.
Illinois is not the only state with more living on subsidies than are employed.
i'd like to send the law makers to the unemployment lines. they're a public nuisance.

[Josh]

If you say lawmakers are a "public nuisance" what model of government do you propose? Anarchy?

We used to have trouble with people routinely being locked up in mental institutions - basically imprisoned. Mennonites and Quakers did a lot in the 1940s to significantly improve the conditions in the mental institutions of the time. Part of this was recognising that some people should not have been confined.