Page 29 of 29 FirstFirst ... 192526272829
Results 421 to 433 of 433

Thread: Congresswoman Shot in Head in Arizona

  1. #421
    Elite Member greysfang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Burning Down Your Windmill
    Posts
    48,670

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McJag View Post
    That makes me teary eyed. Bless her.

    Same here.
    FUCK YOU AND GIVE ME MY GODDAMN VENTI TWO PUMP LIGHT WHIP MOCHA YOU COCKSUCKING WHORE BEFORE I PUNCH YOU IN THE MOUTH. I just get unpleasant in my car. - Deej

    http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/signaturepics/sigpic4098_9.gif Healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

  2. #422
    Elite Member Dean James's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Methtopia
    Posts
    4,464

    Default

    That was a great moment. I was watching C-Span (nerd) and all of a sudden there was so much applause and I was confused because the vote was still live and I couldn't understand the fuss. Then the announcer woke up and said Gabby Giffords was on the floor to cast her vote and all my vision went bleary.
    Baby, by the time you have kids and they're in school, no one will care about you.

  3. #423
    *8*
    *8* is offline
    Silver Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msdeb View Post
    9-year-old victim of deadly rampage identified


    TUCSON - The identity of the 9-year-old tragically killed in this morning's deadly rampage is Christina Taylor Greene.

    Family says she was vibrant, excited about life, and she was the "best daughter in the world."

    Born on September 11, 2001, Greene was excited about the political process, was on the student government, and went to the Giffords event today to learn more about the political process, family members say.

    Greene attended Mesa Verde Elementary School. She was the only girl on the CDO baseball team - she loved the sport, as well as horseback riding and swimming.
    Christina Taylor Greene would have been 10 years old today.

  4. #424
    Gold Member eboni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    927

    Default

    I hate how the media refers to children by their last names only. I know it is only me probably but it seems so harsh.
    ...Stopped smoking on March 8, 2011. Was trying to put a fancy ticker in my signature but it didn't work...

  5. #425
    Elite Member McJag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    42,527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eboni View Post
    I hate how the media refers to children by their last names only. I know it is only me probably but it seems so harsh.
    No,Ma'm. I hate that,too. It reduces their very being to me.
    I didn't start out to collect diamonds, but somehow they just kept piling up.-Mae West

  6. #426
    fgg
    fgg is offline
    Elite Member fgg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    29,508

    Default

    Loughner pleads guilty to 19 counts in Tucson, Arizona, mass shooting

    Tucson, Arizona (CNN) -- Jared Lee Loughner, the alleged gunman in last year's mass shooting outside an Arizona supermarket in Tucson that killed six people and wounded then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, pleaded guilty Tuesday to 19 charges in exchange for the government not seeking the death penalty.

    Under the plea deal, Loughner will be sentenced to life in prison with no eligibility for parole, federal prosecutors said. His sentencing is scheduled for November 15, prosecutors said.

    In court, Loughner also waived his right to pursue an insanity defense.

    "My name is Jared Lee Loughner," the defendant told the court when he held up his right hand under oath.

    Loughner calmly told the court he understood his guilty plea. "Yes, that is correct," he said.

    "I'm 23 years old," he told the court. "I attended college for five years at a community college."

    "He's a different person in appearance and affect," the judge said about Loughner, who was present in the courtroom. "He's tracking today. He appears to assist his lawyers. Court's own observations are that there's no question he understands what's happening today."

    Loughner had been facing more than 50 federal charges, and the remaining offenses will be dropped in exchange for the guilty pleas if Loughner is sentenced within the terms of the plea agreement, according to the written agreement filed in court.

    Under the pleas, Loughner admitted guilt in the attempted assassination of Giffords and the murders of federal employees U.S. District Court Chief Judge John M. Roll, 63, and congressional aide Gabriel M. Zimmerman, 30, prosecutors said.

    Loughner also pleaded guilty to the attempted murders of federal employees and congressional aides Ronald S. Barber, 65, and Pamela K. Simon, 63, prosecutors said.

    Loughner also admitted causing the deaths of Christina-Taylor Green, age 9; Dorothy "Dot" J. Morris, 76; Phyllis C. Schneck, 79; and Dorwan C. Stoddard, 76, prosecutors said.

    Loughner admitted injuring with a Glock pistol 10 persons participating at an activity provided by the U.S. government and creating a grave risk of death to 13 more persons, prosecutors said.

    Prosecutors agreed to a plea deal -- and not to seek the death penalty -- after taking into account Loughner's history of mental illness and the views of victims and their families.

    "It is my hope that this decision will allow the Tucson community, and the nation, to continue the healing process free of what would likely be extended trial and pre-trial proceedings that would not have a certain outcome," U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement.

    U.S. Attorney John S. Leonardo in Arizona added: "Given the defendant's history of significant mental illness, this plea agreement, which requires the defendant to spend the remainder of his natural life in prison, with no possibility of parole, is a just and appropriate resolution of this case."

    Walking with a bit of a slouch, Loughner cast a sneer at the packed gallery when he entered the courtroom. During the guilty plea proceedings, the gallery was quiet, with some people sniffing and wiping away tears.

    An order from the court indicating the planned change of pleas was released Monday.

    Loughner earlier had pleaded not guilty to the charges against him, including murder and attempted murder.

    The January 8, 2011, attack killed six people and wounded 13 others, including Giffords, who was holding a meet-and-greet event with constituents.

    Giffords, who was shot in the head, stepped down from her position in Congress in January 2012 to focus on her recovery. Ron Barber, an aide also wounded in the attack, now holds the seat.

    Giffords' husband, Mark Kelly, said in a statement Tuesday that he and his wife are satisfied with the agreement.

    "The pain and loss caused by the events of January 8, 2011 are incalculable," Kelly said. "Avoiding a trial will allow us -- and we hope the whole Southern Arizona community -- to continue with our recovery and move forward with our lives."

    Susan Hileman, 58, who was wounded, said after the court proceedings that she was proud to be an American.

    "This is the system doing its best. It's not a perfect solution," Hileman told reporters. "This is the best that can be expected."

    Loughner was facing the possibility of a death sentence if convicted.

    Dr. Christina Pietz, a forensic psychologist, told the judge Tuesday that Loughner is "one of the worst" mentally ill patients she's ever seen.

    But she continued, adding that Loughner has shown improvement and he's no longer in restraints. "He is competent to proceed," Pietz told the court.

    He's no longer hearing voices, and he has no difficulty in understanding, Pietz said. Loughner is rational and able to consult with his attorneys, she said.

    Loughner also understands that he will never leave prison and has told Pietz: "I'm 23 years old, this is it. This is my life."

    Loughner is worried that he will be harmed by other inmates, but Pietz said she thinks Loughner would be all right in the general prison population.

    Loughner, however, is still on suicide watch, Pietz said.

    Pietz met Loughner in March 2011 and determined he had schizophrenia and wasn't competent to participate in court proceedings. She was the first doctor to diagnose him with a psychotic disease, Pietz said.

    Loughner was disappointed and upset upon hearing the diagnosis, Pietz said.

    Loughner said he wished he would have taken medication and that things might have been different.

    He started taking medication for the first time on June 21, 2011, and over time, he expressed remorse about what he did, Pietz testified.

    By July 9, 2011, Loughner expressed regret and "assassination remorse," Pietz said.

    Loughner told Pietz that he was especially sad about the child killed in the shooting -- Christina Taylor Green, age 9, who was remembered nationally because she was born on September 11, 2001.

    Loughner also spoke with Pietz about Giffords. Pietz testified that Loughner told her: "I know she's alive" and "there's no way she survived a shot to the head." Loughner said he feels like he set out to do the shooting and failed, Pietz said.

    Loughner said if this is true, "Jared is a failure," according to Pietz.

    In discussion with prison officials, Loughner has said, "I'll never get out," Pietz testified.

    Loughner likes his prison jobs and he gets paid for them, which is important for him, Pietz said. The work makes him feel proud to do well in something, Pietz said.

    Pietz recounted Loughner's teenage years, saying that he appeared normal until age 16.

    Then he showed symptoms of depression in 2006, and his girlfriend broke up with him and a friend died, Pietz said.

    Loughner sought treatment and was diagnosed with depression, Pietz said.

    He saw a psychiatrist again after he was caught drunk at school, Pietz said. According to records, he didn't take his anti-depression medication, Pietz said.

    In high school, he began hearing voices and yelling out things in the classroom -- behaviors that are symptoms of schizophrenia, Pietz said. He wrote nonsensical things on the chalkboard, showed a disorganized thought process, and became obsessed with the Constitution, Pietz said. Friends feared he would commit suicide, Pietz said.

    Loughner became ostracized in high school, but at that point, there were no signs he would hurt anyone, Pietz said.

    Loughner's mental condition has been central to much of the related court proceedings since the shooting.

    In February, a federal judge ruled Loughner could receive medical treatment for another four months. A psychologist found "measurable progress" in the suspect's condition.

    The medical treatment plan for Loughner was aimed at improving his mental state so he would be competent to stand trial.

    Loughner was declared incompetent to stand trial in May 2011 after an initial evaluation term at a federal mental hospital in Springfield, Missouri.

    In July 2011, what officials described as bizarre and suicidal actions by Loughner while in custody pushed a federal appeals panel to allow authorities to force the defendant to take anti-psychotic medication.

    Prosecutors said then that Loughner had been deteriorating: He displayed screaming and crying fits that lasted hours, harmed himself and made claims that the radio was inserting thoughts into his head.

    His attorneys consistently fought court rulings that Loughner continue his treatment at the hospital.

    In November, defense attorney Ellis Johnston argued before a different federal judge that the side effects of the psychotropic drugs his client had been receiving during his court-ordered treatment may interfere with Loughner's ability to work with his attorneys.

    But Assistant U.S. Attorney Christina Cabanillas said that Loughner "could revert to being a danger to himself" if the medication were halted.

    Court documents released a few days after the shooting showed that investigators found a letter from Giffords in a safe at the house where Loughner lived with his parents, thanking him for attending a 2007 event.

    "Also recovered in the safe was an envelope with handwriting on the envelope stating 'I planned ahead,' and 'my assassination' and the name 'Giffords,' along with what appears to be Loughner's signature," the affidavit stated.

    Loughner pleads guilty to 19 counts in Tucson, Arizona, mass shooting - CNN.com
    can't post pics because my computer's broken and i'm stupid

  7. #427
    Elite Member Kathie_Moffett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    just another freak in the freak kingdom
    Posts
    6,956

    Default

    Yet another severely mentally ill person who should have been in hospital, not running around out of control with weapons. When are we going to learn? We have to rebuild our mental healthcare system to look after individuals like him so they are no longer a danger to themselves or others.

    I used to work for a lady whose son behaved like Laughner. He hasn't shot anybody YET but he has seriously injured his now-elderly mother (and other people) on several occasions. He would spend brief stints in a private hospital when the family could afford it; when they couldn't, they would try desperately to get him into a public one, or at least a group care home where he could be carefully watched. I used to be so happy when I knew he was confined; when he wasn't, I was perpetually nervous and worried that he would make his way to the store and bother me. The one time he did, he terrorized me. I thought he was gonna rape me and I was just so grateful that the back storeroom door had a lock and there was a phone in there.

    I don't blame him. The poor guy had no fucking clue what he was doing. He was truly batshit crazy, a violent, paranoid schizophrenic, and he did not respond well to meds, ever. They tried every drug invented, they were always getting him on a new one, and he would never improve. It was tragic, and it was scary as hell.

    So much pain and suffering could be avoided if our society and government would take some responsibility for this problem. So it would cost money. So fucking what. Honestly, taking care of people like my ex-boss's son and Jared Laughner is one of the FEW things I WOULD pay higher taxes for.

    Why does seemingly nobody give a shit about this?! They blame guns, they blame media violence, they blame the poor families who could not control the crazy, WTF people WTF. Lately it seems like there's a new case along these lines every damn week! How many people have to die before we get a fucking clue?
    Did you know that every time a parent gives in to their kid's whines and buys them candy at the checkout lane, a kitten gets diabetes?-Dlisted
    I dislike groups of people, but I love individuals. Every person you look at, you can see the universe in their eyes, if you're really looking.
    -George Carlin

  8. #428
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    32,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kathie_Moffett View Post
    Yet another severely mentally ill person who should have been in hospital, not running around out of control with weapons. When are we going to learn? We have to rebuild our mental healthcare system to look after individuals like him so they are no longer a danger to themselves or others.

    So much pain and suffering could be avoided if our society and government would take some responsibility for this problem. So it would cost money. So fucking what.

    It's not quite that simple.

    The mentally ill and their advocates fought long and hard for the right not to be institutionalized long term against their will. SCOTUS heard cases, and agreed that involuntary hospitalization and/or treatment violates an individual's civil rights. This goes back to the early 60's, and the CMHA.

    There are many issues that go along with forced institutionalization, not least of all socioeconomic and racial bias, and a long history of horrible mistreatment of patients in institutions.
    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  9. #429
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,316

    Default

    We have to rebuild our mental healthcare system to look after individuals like him so they are no longer a danger to themselves or others.
    We do have to rebuild the mental healthcare system in terms of a budget that makes sense. I remember the reduced federal funding for mental institutions during the Reagan Administation. Reagan, in the interest of reducing spending, left the states to fund this stuff. As a result, there was something like a reduction of about 40% in beds at institutions for the mentally ill. And the institutions responded by re-assessing their patient populations and dumping a bunch of people back on the street. Where they proceeded to live homeless, chaotic existences.

  10. #430
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    32,426

    Default

    Massive deinstitutionalization began in the 60's and 70's, long before Reagan was president. The issue of federal funding being cut and passing to the states also goes back to JFK and the CHMA which made the states repsonsible. Then it 'hot potatoed' back and forth under Carter and then Reagan. It's not a simple issue, and never has been.

    And if we did go back to funding institutions with federal money, how do we turn back the civil rights of the mentally ill?


    HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN


    THE policy that led to the release of most of the nation's mentally ill patients from the hospital to the community is now widely regarded as a major failure. Sweeping critiques of the policy, notably the recent report of the American Psychiatric Association, have spread the blame everywhere, faulting politicians, civil libertarian lawyers and psychiatrists.

    But who, specifically, played some of the more important roles in the formation of this ill-fated policy? What motivated these influential people and what lessons are to be learned?

    A detailed picture has emerged from a series of interviews and a review of public records, research reports and institutional recommendations. The picture is one of cost-conscious policy makers, who were quick to buy optimistic projections that were, in some instances, buttressed by misinformation and by a willingness to suspend skepticism.

    Many of the psychiatrists involved as practitioners and policy makers in the 1950's and 1960's said in the interviews that heavy responsibility lay on a sometimes neglected aspect of the problem: the overreliance on drugs to do the work of society.

    The records show that the politicians were dogged by the image and financial problems posed by the state hospitals and that the scientific and medical establishment sold Congress and the state legislatures a quick fix for a complicated problem that was bought sight unseen.

    'They've Gone Far, Too Far'
    In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr. The senior Mr. Brown now expresses regret about the way the policy started and ultimately evolved. ''They've gone far, too far, in letting people out,'' he said in an interview.

    Dr. Robert H. Felix, who was then director of the National Institute of Mental Health and a major figure in the shift to community centers, says now on reflection: ''Many of those patients who left the state hospitals never should have done so. We psychiatrists saw too much of the old snake pit, saw too many people who shouldn't have been there and we overreacted. The result is not what we intended, and perhaps we didn't ask the questions that should have been asked when developing a new concept, but psychiatrists are human, too, and we tried our damnedest.''

    Dr. John A. Talbott, president of the American Psychiatric Association, said, ''The psychiatrists involved in the policy making at that time certainly oversold community treatment, and our credibility today is probably damaged because of it.'' He said the policies ''were based partly on wishful thinking, partly on the enormousness of the problem and the lack of a silver bullet to resolve it, then as now.''

    The original policy changes were backed by scores of national professional and philanthropic organizations and several hundred people prominent in medicine, academia and politics. The belief then was widespread that the same scientific researchers who had conjured up antibiotics and vaccines during the outburst of medical discovery in the 50's and 60's had also developed penicillins to cure psychoses and thus revolutionize the treatment of the mentally ill.

    And these leaders were prodded into action by a series of scientific studies in the 1950's purporting to show that mental illness was far more prevalent than had previously been believed.

    Finally, there was a growing economic and political liability faced by state legislators. Enormous amounts of tax revenues were being used to support the state mental hospitals, and the institutions themselves were increasingly thought of as ''snake pits'' or facilities that few people wanted.

    One of the most influential groups in bringing about the new national policy was the Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health, an independent body set up by Congress in 1955. One of its two surviving members, Dr. M. Brewster Smith, a University of California psychologist who served as vice president, said the commission took the direction it did because of ''the sort of overselling that happens in almost every interchange between science and government.''

    ''Extravagant claims were made for the benefits of shifting from state hospitals to community clinics,'' Dr. Smith said. ''The professional community made mistakes and was overly optimistic, but the political community wanted to save money.''

    'Tranquilizers Became Panacea'
    Charles Schlaifer, a New York advertising executive who served as secretary-treasurer of the group, said he was now disgusted with the advice presented by leading psychiatrists of that day. ''Tranquilizers became the panacea for the mentally ill,'' he said. ''The state programs were buying them by the carload, sending the drugged patients back to the community and the psychiatrists never tried to stop this. Local mental health centers were going to be the greatest thing going, but no one wanted to think it through.''

    Dr. Bertram S. Brown, a psychiatrist and Federal official who was instrumental in shaping the community center legislation in 1963, agreed that Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson were to some extent misled by the mental health community and Government bureaucrats.
    ''The bureaucrat-psychiatrists realized that there was political and financial overpromise,'' he said.

    Dr. Brown, then an executive of the National Institute of Mental Health and now president of Hahnemann University in Philadelphia, stated candidly in an interview: ''Yes, the doctors were overpromising for the politicians. The doctors did not believe that community care would cure schizophrenia, and we did allow ourselves to be somewhat misrepresented.''

    ''They ended up with everything but the kitchen sink without the issue of long-term funding being settled,'' he said. ''That was the overpromising.''
    Dr. Brown said he and the other architects of the community centers legislation believed that while there was a risk of homelessness, that it would not happen if Federal, state, local and private financial support ''was sufficient'' to do the job.

    Resources Vanished Quickly
    The legislation sought to create a nationwide network of locally based mental health centers which, rather than large state hospitals, would be the main source of treatment. The center concept was aided by Federal funds for four and a half years, after which it was hoped that the states and local governments would assume responsibility.

    ''We knew that there were not enough resources in the community to do the whole job, so that some people would be in the streets facing society head on and questions would be raised about the necessity to send them back to the state hospitals,'' Dr. Brown said.

    But, he continued, ''It happened much faster than we foresaw.'' The discharge of mental patients was accelerated in the late 1960's and early 1970's in some states as a result of a series of court decisions that limited the commitment powers of state and local officials.

    Dr. Brown insists, as do others who were involved in the Congressional legislation to establish community mental health centers, that politicians and health experts were carrying out a public mandate to abolish the abominable conditions of insane asylums. He and others note - and their critics do not disagree - that their motives were not venal and that they were acting humanely.

    In restrospect it does seem clear that questions were not asked that might have been asked. In the thousands of pages of testimony before Congressional committees in the late 1950's and early 1960's, little doubt was expressed about the wisdom of deinstitutionalization. And the development of tranquilizing drugs was regarded as an unqualified ''godsend,'' as one of the nation's leading psychiatrists, Dr. Francis J. Braceland, described it when he testified before a Senate subcommittee in 1963.

    Dr. Braceland, a former president of the American Psychiatric Association who is a retired professor of psychiatry at Yale University, still maintains, however, that under the circumstances the widespread prescription of drugs for the mentally ill was and is a wise policy.

    ''We had no alternative to the use of drugs for schizophrenia and depression,'' Dr. Braceland said. ''Before the introduction of drugs like Thorazine we never had drugs that worked. These are wonderful drugs and they kept a lot of people out of the hospitals.''

    Testimony to Congress
    His point is borne out repeatedly by references in Congressional testimony, such as the following exchange at a House subcommittee hearing between Representative Leo W. O'Brien, Democrat of upstate New York, and Dr. Henry N. Pratt, director of New York Hospital in Manhattan, who appeared on behalf of the American Hospital Association.

    Mr. O'Brien: ''Do you know offhand how much New York appropriates annually for its mental hospitals?''

    Dr. Pratt: ''It is the vast sum of $400 million to $500 million.''

    Mr. O'Brien: ''So you see that, through a real attempt to handle this problem at the community level, the possibility that this dead weight of $400 million to $500 million a year around the necks of the New York State taxpayers might be reduced considerably in the next 15 or 20 years?
    Dr. Pratt: ''I do, indeed. Yes, sir.''

    He then told the subcommittee that ''striking proof of the advantages of local short-term intensive care of the mentally ill was brought out'' in a Missouri study.

    Dr. Pratt's testimony and the Missouri study were repeatedly cited in subsequent Congressional debates on the community centers bill by such politicians as Senator Hubert H. Humphrey of Minnesota and Representative Kenneth A. Roberts of Alabama.

    The Missouri study, which compared a group of 412 patients in two intensive treatment centers with patients admitted to five mental hospitals, showed that the average stays for patients in the large hospitals were 237 days longer than for similarly diagnosed patients at the treatment centers.

    But Dr. George A. Ulett of St. Louis, the psychiatrist who directed the study as head of Missouri's Division of Mental Diseases, now says the numbers cited, though correct, were misinterpreted. ''We did have dramatic numbers, but the initial success of the community centers in Missouri hinged on the large numbers of psychiatrists and support personnel who staffed the centers at that time,'' Dr. Ulett said.

    The centers were two pilot projects that were given special staff and attention to demonstrate what could be accomplished, he said. By linking the community centers to large teaching hospitals in major cities and providing adequate funds for their maintenance it was possible to attract the quality of staff that all but guaranteed better results than the old state hospitals, he said.

    ''Unfortunately,'' he said, ''over the years the budgets were progressively reduced, the professional staffs were cut, and the program regressed to right back where it started.''

    Dr. Frank R. Lipton and Dr. Albert Sabatini of Bellevue Psychiatric Hospital in Manhattan, who have done research on the problems of the homeless, say one of the major flaws in the concept of deinstitutionalization was the notion that serious, chronic mental disorders could be minimized, if not totally prevented, through care provided within the local community.

    ''This philosophical and ideological shift in thinking was not adequately validated, yet it became one of the major conceptual bases for moving the locus of care,'' they said in a recent study.

    Value and Danger in Drugs
    Some problems have actually been brought on for mental patients by long-term use of drugs. This condition has been considered by Dr. Loren Mosher of the Uniformed Services Medical University in Bethesda, Md., who says that from 15 percent to 40 percent of such mental patients develop uncontrollable movements of the mouth and neck that can only be cured by taking people off the drugs.

    The consensus seems to be that the more intelligent approach to the overall problem is to realize both the limitations and value of the drugs, the importance of combining drug treatment with proper care - either in hospitals or local clinics, depending on the individual case - and that mental illness is a sociological fact that cannot be ignored simply out of a desire to save tax dollars.

    Jack R. Ewalt, who directed the staff of the Joint Commission when it was founded in 1955, says now that he remains ''a great believer in the use of drugs, but they are just another treatment, not a magic.''

    ''Drugs can help people get back to the community,'' he said, ''but they have to have medical care, a place to live and someone to relate to. They can't just float around aimlessly.''

    Dr. Ewalt said the 1963 act was supposed to have the states continue to take care of the mentally ill but that many states simply gave up and ceded most of their responsibility to the Federal Government.

    ''The result was like proposing a plan to build a new airplane and ending up only with a wing and a tail,'' Dr. Ewalt said. ''Congress and the state governments didn't buy the whole program of centers, plus adequate staffing, plus long-term financial supports.''

    HOW RELEASE OF MENTAL PATIENTS BEGAN - NYTimes.com
    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  11. #431
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    Massive deinstitutionalization began in the 60's and 70's, long before Reagan was president. The issue of federal funding being cut and passing to the states also goes back to JFK and the CHMA which made the states repsonsible. Then it 'hot potatoed' back and forth under Carter and then Reagan. It's not a simple issue, and never has been.

    And if we did go back to funding institutions with federal money, how do we turn back the civil rights of the mentally ill?
    I didn't intend to imply that deinstitutionalization began under Reagan. but rather that I remembered that there was a major negative jolt to federal funding under Reagan. 40% less beds at public and private hospitals is a huge reduction, and doesn't allow for particularly careful decisions by mental regarding who should or should not be released. Increasing funding for federal funding for mental health services, for the most part, just means increasing resources for providers. It doesn't necessarily have to be coupled with enhanced tools for forced institutionalization.

  12. #432
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    32,426

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post
    I didn't intend to imply that deinstitutionalization began under Reagan. but rather that I remembered that there was a major negative jolt to federal funding under Reagan. 40% less beds at public and private hospitals is a huge reduction, and doesn't allow for particularly careful decisions by mental regarding who should or should not be released. Increasing funding for federal funding for mental health services, for the most part, just means increasing resources for providers. It doesn't necessarily have to be coupled with enhanced tools for forced institutionalization.
    There was a big hit under Reagan, and it definitely did have an impact. I don't mean to dismiss that. But the issue as a whole is tough. We need improved medical care on all levels, mental health included.
    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  13. #433
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    24,316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    There was a big hit under Reagan, and it definitely did have an impact. I don't mean to dismiss that. But the issue as a whole is tough. We need improved medical care on all levels, mental health included.
    I agree. I don't think there are any easy answers. And I think the answers are only going to get tougher and more unpalatable with federal, state and local spending sure to spiral downward.

Page 29 of 29 FirstFirst ... 192526272829

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 13
    Last Post: October 27th, 2010, 05:35 AM
  2. Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 19th, 2009, 11:54 AM
  3. Brother of actor Mark Ruffalo shot in the head
    By Moongirl in forum Latest Gossip
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: December 10th, 2008, 02:23 PM
  4. Replies: 15
    Last Post: November 20th, 2008, 09:46 PM
  5. Replies: 19
    Last Post: August 27th, 2008, 03:27 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •