When do we declare that someone's in need of mental treatment?

Where's the borderline between "different" or "quirky" and "too insane to accept"? How do we decide who gets to choose mental health care and who gets it whether they want it or not?

That is a Riddle for the Ages. Some people are quirky and under some parts of psychology would genuinely qualify as mentally ill, but they function fine in society. Some people show no outward signs and yet pull the kind of stuff that logically can only be concluded as "s/he's fucking crazy" out of the blue.

I really don't know if there is an answer to that.

The moment they decide to Jump the Shark.

^ XD

That's priceless, SJ!

If it comes to a point where it's obvious they're hurting themselves or others, for one answer. Course, then the problem is convincing them to seek help. And it's a very very very difficult problem if they're suffering from clinical paranoia.

edited 12th Jan '11 8:41:41 PM by Bur

And where do you draw the line for "hurting themselves/others", also.

In the case of a friend it had gotten to the point where she couldn't go get groceries because WHAT IF SOMEONE IS OUT TO GET HER and stopped ordering pizza because IT WOULD BE A STRANGER AT THE DOOR AND WANT TO ROB HER. And if she could hear a siren it meant THE COPS WERE COMING FOR HER. Clear cut case of diminished quality of life.

edited 12th Jan '11 8:54:11 PM by Bur

Sadly, too many people will use this as an excuse to say "I don't like you". And as soon as someone will brand themselves in the label and reclaim it, will come back with "You're not crazy, you're normal and just fail at life. Stop acting like you're some special wonderful butterfly".

Anyway, I think that it should be limited to those who are delusional and so much that it causes them pain. Or anyone who has trouble functioning, essentially. It shouldn't be us putting our values onto others, but seeing whether people are able to function in a way that helps themselves enjoy lives without destroying the lives of others.

edited 12th Jan '11 9:14:57 PM by Ukonkivi

When a parent is mentally ill, how do you distinguish between "ruining their child's/ childrens' life". to minor annoyance?

I don't know how serious the OP is, but obviously only a trained professional psychiatrist or psychologist is qualified to make this determination. It's pretty complex, and depends in part on the expectations of the person or persons seeking treatment. If you're asking when someone else should be referred to professional care for assessment, ideally that should be a pretty low bar, since all an assessment does is provide information about a persons mental status and make recommendations about further treatment, if appropriate. Unfortunately, not all insurance plans cover this, and psychological assessment services can be pretty expensive, at least in the US.

The medical association here has defined the line as "When the mental state of the individual is interfering with his ability to interact with society in a meaningful or safe manner." So that also covers mental states which, by itself could be considered a gift in other societies, but disallows them from getting a job or something here. They can always choose to leave to the other society (well sorta).

I don't really like that whole "interact with society in a meaningful" statement. It's too ambiguous sounding. And sounds as if some kind of justification for the status quo. I tend to think that if a person at least isn't harmful to others and their rights by mental state, or their own ability to enjoy life, they are in no need of mental treatment.

I know that such words aren't meant to imply that "eccentric/nonconformist = ill". But the wording sure sounds that way, and it irks me.

When they begin hurting others.

functionalism ftw.

Human minds act essentially in the same way as other human minds. Helping or hurting others is not functionally different from helping or hurting yourself. Therefore I would disagree with you that hurting 'others' should be the rule for counting someone insane.

Contradicting myself somewhat, I would also claim that it should be a fundamental human right to harm yourself, purely because it fulfils preferences and sometimes fulfils pleasures, thus infringing on this right runs the unacceptable risk of harming preferences and pleasure. So I guess I do agree with you that in terms of the way society, and not individuals, works, harming oneself should be acceptable, and not an act that could get ya sectioned.  ^*

I guess that suicide would hurt those close to you, so attempted suicide counts under your view as evidence of insanity.

All in all I think it's a lovely and pithy summary of insanity, and approve the message. Whether you approve of my convoluted approval or not is an altogether different matter.  ^*

edited 13th Jan '11 2:40:47 PM by mmysqueeant

"I would also claim that it should be a fundamental human right to harm yourself"

"I am very very drunk right now. I am trying to make sense, though."

Damn, the irony....

That is not ironic, that is appropriate.

Yeah, I'd agree that the right to harm yourself is something you have.