Addressing Violence With Social Programs

[Something Amyss]

I can only hope the Affordable Care Act changes some of this. Mental health is just as important as physical health when it comes to living a healthy and happy life.

At the very least, it removes lifetime caps.

 

[Ken Sapp]

In college my friend made the mistake of telling the University that he was severely depressed and considering suicide. They removed him from school and informed him that he would not be welcome back, worsening his depression and eventually resulting in the fulfillment of his death wish. Later I discovered that the school has a policy of removing "at risk" students. They see it as a liability. Better that he killed himself privately, that way they're not responsible.

I actually agree with the college's stance, although not for reason of liability. The key ingredient for treatment of potential suicides and many other mental illnesses is a strong support system. Most people at college are far away from home, family, friends and everything familiar. Sending them back to familiar surroundings and people who love and care about them makes sense, although they should also see a mental health professional.

OT: As much as believe in minimalist government and preventing government from acting outside of its intended purpose, establishing and maintaining a system of mental health care as outlined in the article is one of the areas I think that the public should bite the bullet and allow government pay for. It is too expensive for most average families to support a family member that needs long term care, whether that includes institutionalization or just regular outpatient visits and medication.

 

[taciturnCandid]

The truth though is that having the best mental health care in the world that treated all mental illness would only lower violent crime by about 5%. Mental illness is not a major determinant for violence

source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

I agree it seems that there is no one thing that you can point fingers at for violent acts like this, its many things.

First you have a base which usually is a mentally unstable individual. You add things like a abusive house hold or severe bullying at school. You add things for them to fantasize about by giving them video games, movies, television shows, books, etc. After a while the fantasy isn't good enough and then they turn to opportunities. This can be a weapon from as simple as a knife to as complex as a bomb depending on the intelligence of the individual. Give them a situation to fill out their fantasies and you have the Connecticut shooting.

Its exactly out of the serial killer playbook too... funny connection there, never realized it.

NOTE: As I said violent video games wont turn a normal kid into a killer. Only people who fantasize about killing their classmates will see a fps and imagine their classmates dying instead of the "aliens" or whatever.

 

[wrightguy0]

I think there's a lot we could be doing as a society to help people with mental health issues, we don't do enough here in canada either. then there's also the problem of getting youth out of violent activities by providing social programs and sports programs (those actually work) in my city one Councillor (who is absolutely stupid) opposes allocating $300,000 for new programs at a community center in one of our "Ghettos" but is perfectly willing to spend more on arresting prostitutes for "Jaywalking" or having a truck driving around the city to neuter stray cats.

$300,000 isn't that much, and it might prevent some young girls from turning to prostitution, as well as curb gang violence.

the problem with a lot of people is that they can't get their priorities sorted out, or have the wrong ones to begin with. If we want to prevent more Sandy Hooks, columbines, or gang related violence, then we need to seriously reevaluate the way we look at social programs and mental health issues.

though it's easier to blame the things we don't like, and i fear another oppertunity to fix some of the ills in our world will be lost among useless rhetoric and political posturing.

 

[Techno Destructo]

I've had this issue affect me on a personal level back when I was having issues in high school. Now, it wasn't a big issue compared to the next guy, and it might go off in a tangent only congruent to this issue but in my state of being, I thought that my behavior, my mental health, would eventually lead to the harm of myself or others around me. There was a constant threat to bullying in my High school for me that was nearly unavoidable, suffice to say, it got the better of me. I sought out psychiatric help to cope with my problems; regularly the facility I had gone to dealt with substance abuse, but also provided a place to treat those with mental illness and mental health issues. After one visit, I received a tremendous bill for the small hour session I had been given. Nothing had changed, nothing had been told or given to me to help improve my status; it ended up being me telling a professional psychiatrist about all the troubles I had been having for an hour for several hundred dollars.

From then on, it became a bizarre question that I don't think anyone should have to have: "Can I afford to be sane?"
I never did go back to that place, but it taught me that the value of ones own mental health in this day in age might be something that not everyone can afford.

. . . Or maybe I'm just a little emo ***** talking out of my ass here. . .you be the judge, everyone else has.

 

[Keltzar]

The truth though is that having the best mental health care in the world that treated all mental illness would only lower violent crime by about 5%. Mental illness is not a major determinant for violence

source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1525086/

You know I had been wondering how much of an effect mental illness really has on violent crime with all of this talk about it going on lately.

 

[redknightalex]

I find myself in this weird position of being a patient, as it were, of the mental health care system of the US and seeing the other side of it. My mother and her husband both work in the mental health field, a social worker and a private practice therapist repetitively, so I see their struggles on that end as well. Whenever I feel frustrated at the system, at my last therapist no longer taking my insurance, I was told that those in private practice are paid roughly 50% less by insurance than what they normally would/should charge. They too also need to afford their own health insurance, ironically.

Then, on a daily basis, I see my mother work at a hospital, doing admissions and discharges for the psychiatric ward, working the best she can to see families, to see patients, to see doctors, to call health insurance companies and all for the patient's benefit. More than 75% of the time she can't accomplish all of these things for the 1-6 patients she deals with on a daily basis and the regret is clear as day. And that's just the floor she mainly works on, voluntary.

Is everyone getting adequate mental health care? No. Should they? Absolutely, 100% yes and there is a solution. Forget the cost. This article was informative enough but, for the public at large, most don't understand that mental health care is not something those in need can pass up, it's required to live. Give people care and, maybe, they'll be able to function. At times, that's the best some can hope for.

I'm lucky in that I at least have access to a psychiatrist (my insurance labels it as a doctor's visitor and therefore falls under "health" not "mental health"), but the cost of finding a therapist is still high. Not to mention any medications one might need. I only wish that my mother could care for her patients better, that my step-father could get more from insurance, and that everyone could see a therapist. I think we've all needed one, at some time or another.

As for violence in video games and mental health...it's strange seeing catharsis coming up in these debates when it was previously doubted as reliable means of letting go of aggression and anger. I certainly use it that way, Quake 3 used to be perfect, but I know the difference. Teach kids at an early age -- for the most part they understand what is right and wrong -- and maybe our world will be a better place. Or, maybe, it won't. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

However, on another glance at this, I realize one thing that hasn't been brought up regarding video games: self-isolation. Just a point for discussion.

 

[attackshark]

i found this article to be delightfully informative.

it's difficult for me to comment intelligibly on social issue: any of them. pick one. the simple fact is that i just don't understand enough about them to have a reliable opinion. but i do know this: i know what i want. i usually stop there because what i want does not necessarily coincide with what i need or with what we need as a civilized society.

but if you were to press the issue a bit, i think my answer might be along the lines of, "we are asking the wrong questions and we can't agree on a goal."

 

[90sgamer]

Regarding the last question asked: yes, it appears we can afford to avoid them. How many people die a year in America from mass killings? How many millions of dollars are you willing to spend to avoid that many deaths? How do the above numbers stack up to other avoidable deaths caused by exposure or hunger? Are those kinds of death less or more expensive to prevent than providing universal mental health care? Lastly, of all the mas murderers in America, how many would have been confined to an institution before the murders?

You are making the mistake of assuming that preventing mass killings is the only benefit a society might get out of good mental health care. In reality that, if it is even true, would be only one of the smallest benefits to society.

Well said. I did not acknowledge that there are other benefits. What are they? Mind you, I am not interested in the health and wellbeing of individuals. What I am interested in is the benefit to society as a whole. I feel welfare and similar social programs are justified because the expense of not providing those programs is even greater. I can't think of how a mental care program will save us money, therefore, on to you, Mister, to provide some input.

 

[90sgamer]

Regarding the last question asked: yes, it appears we can afford to avoid them. How many people die a year in America from mass killings? How many millions of dollars are you willing to spend to avoid that many deaths? How do the above numbers stack up to other avoidable deaths caused by exposure or hunger? Are those kinds of death less or more expensive to prevent than providing universal mental health care? Lastly, of all the mas murderers in America, how many would have been confined to an institution before the murders?

You are making the mistake of assuming that preventing mass killings is the only benefit a society might get out of good mental health care. In reality that, if it is even true, would be only one of the smallest benefits to society.

Well said. I did not acknowledge that there are other benefits. What are they? Mind you, I am not interested in the health and wellbeing of individuals. What I am interested in is the benefit to society as a whole. I feel welfare and similar social programs are justified because the expense of not providing those programs is even greater. I can't think of how a mental care program will save us money, therefore, on to you, Mister, to provide some input.

You may not care about the well being of individuals but I do. If someone you know or you yourself are affected by mental health that attitude may change. But neither of can know that today.

In any case I do not want to live in a society where I walk by homeless and mentally ill people every day, it brings me down. I live and work in a nice area, Contra Costa county but right by where I work there are several homeless people, several of them mentally ill. It brings down my standard of living seeing that human suffering every day.

Due to my experience with mental health I know that a lot of smart, driven and talented people can be brought low by mental health issues. Many of those people could directly contribute to society with proper treatment. Look at Howard Hughes, a driven man who accomplished a lot that ended up peeing in jars locked in a hotel room. Bottom line I put a lot of weight behind this statement, "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."

EDIT: In any case it does not matter at this point, the mandate is health care for everyone, the only thing left to see is the extent to which mental health services will be made accessible.

Thank you for the reply. It would seem that your position is based on an emotional response to the visual presence of homeless and mentally ill (how do homeless fit into this topic? They seem unrelated). You touch on a more practical concern regarding lost productivity as well. I must disagree with the emotional component and the claim of lost productivity.

Emotions have no place in legislation, especially legislation as broad an expensive as a national mental health care plan. Emotional responses are meant to guide your immediate survival, but are not a sound basis for long term planning.

Lost productivity is regarded as a slippery argument to make because it applies to so many things. Abortion: you can't abort fetuses because you might be killing off what could be a contributing adult. Death Penalty: many criminals are highly intelligent. We should focus on rehabilitation, pardons, then allow them to be contributing members of society. Immigration: We should let whoever comes into the country be a citizen, find work and pay taxes. Who knows how many immigrants will be intelligent and productive? Public education: Every citizen should receive free or subsidized higher education. Many people who are too poor to afford enrolling in a university have a very high potential. Welfare: People could be contributing adults if we just eased the burden of their existence to such a degree that instead of working two jobs they can work just one, while going to school part time. We'll pay for school too, as noted above. Health Insurance: So many people die a year or are unable to be productive because of illness. Of those that die, some were or could have been productive. Therefore, we should foot the bill for all or most medical expenses.

Obviously we have to draw the line at where "lost potential" is no longer a valid reason to do things, otherwise you'll be footing the bill for every else's education, kids, healthcare, mental care, and supplemental income. I propose we never accept that argument. It's largely hypothetical, which makes a cost-benefit analysis (ratio of dollars spent to productivity gained from treated individuals) impossible.

In response to your edit: just because there is currently a law that mandates health care does not make subsequent discussion of the subject "not matter." Laws change frequently.

 

[Murmillos]

While there are always many factors at play when it comes into mass-shootings; from ease of access to weapons, mental state and previous mental factors (bullying, learning disability, abuse) and the final emotional trigger and motivation; I still believe the number one culprit is the "News Media".

On some level, the people whom commit these acts, and by making such a gut wrenching act violent act of defiance against the system that they feel is against them, are still trying to reach out for help by making this public statement/display of violence. It's a morbid cry for help. They see the only course of future actions to stop what ever happened to them doesn't happen to anybody else; is to make themselves known, as loudly and largely known as possible.

The News Media makes this possible.

The News Media will display the shooters face all over the public internet and news channels for days. They will say his name a hundred times a day. They will rank his "achievement" in number of kills verses other mass shooters kill numbers. They will describe the manner in which every person they shot was killed; how long it took from the moment they knew they were in trouble, to dying, and perhaps, how long it took that person to die (instantly, hours..). They will plaster hours of "survivor stories" on to the air, asking those people to recounting how they felt, knowing that they too were so close to dying, but somehow, didn't.

The News Media gladly gives mass shooters metaphorical achievement scores on how well you did; by rewarding your act with more air time the "better" your crime was. Shooting a bunch of people at a mall? that's anywhere from Bronze, Silver or Gold depending on the body count before you self-out. But school children, 6-7 years of age, and their teachers; That's a News Media Double-Platinum Trophy right there.

And yet, ironically, again, the real message behind the mass shooting, the pure rage behind the act, is sweeped under the rug. Its easier to blame a un-tangable object that is obscure and still felt/looked at with reserve by most of the populace instead of trying to make understanding of the real message. Because its not the reason that matters, its the end result and the who. The News Media tries to say they care about the why.. but they know they don't care, because the why never sells the ratings.

And thus, the cycle will continue.

 

[90sgamer]

Regarding the last question asked: yes, it appears we can afford to avoid them. How many people die a year in America from mass killings? How many millions of dollars are you willing to spend to avoid that many deaths? How do the above numbers stack up to other avoidable deaths caused by exposure or hunger? Are those kinds of death less or more expensive to prevent than providing universal mental health care? Lastly, of all the mas murderers in America, how many would have been confined to an institution before the murders?

You are making the mistake of assuming that preventing mass killings is the only benefit a society might get out of good mental health care. In reality that, if it is even true, would be only one of the smallest benefits to society.

Well said. I did not acknowledge that there are other benefits. What are they? Mind you, I am not interested in the health and wellbeing of individuals. What I am interested in is the benefit to society as a whole. I feel welfare and similar social programs are justified because the expense of not providing those programs is even greater. I can't think of how a mental care program will save us money, therefore, on to you, Mister, to provide some input.

You may not care about the well being of individuals but I do. If someone you know or you yourself are affected by mental health that attitude may change. But neither of can know that today.

In any case I do not want to live in a society where I walk by homeless and mentally ill people every day, it brings me down. I live and work in a nice area, Contra Costa county but right by where I work there are several homeless people, several of them mentally ill. It brings down my standard of living seeing that human suffering every day.

Due to my experience with mental health I know that a lot of smart, driven and talented people can be brought low by mental health issues. Many of those people could directly contribute to society with proper treatment. Look at Howard Hughes, a driven man who accomplished a lot that ended up peeing in jars locked in a hotel room. Bottom line I put a lot of weight behind this statement, "A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."

EDIT: In any case it does not matter at this point, the mandate is health care for everyone, the only thing left to see is the extent to which mental health services will be made accessible.

Thank you for the reply. It would seem that your position is based on an emotional response to the visual presence of homeless and mentally ill (how do homeless fit into this topic? They seem unrelated). You touch on a more practical concern regarding lost productivity as well. I must disagree with the emotional component and the claim of lost productivity.

Emotions have no place in legislation, especially legislation as broad an expensive as a national mental health care plan. Emotional responses are meant to guide your immediate survival, but are not a sound basis for long term planning.

Lost productivity is regarded as a slippery argument to make because it applies to so many things. Abortion: you can't abort fetuses because you might be killing off what could be a contributing adult. Death Penalty: many criminals are highly intelligent. We should focus on rehabilitation, pardons, then allow them to be contributing members of society. Immigration: We should let whoever comes into the country be a citizen, find work and pay taxes. Who knows how many immigrants will be intelligent and productive? Public education: Every citizen should receive free or subsidized higher education. Many people who are too poor to afford enrolling in a university have a very high potential. Welfare: People could be contributing adults if we just eased the burden of their existence to such a degree that instead of working two jobs they can work just one, while going to school part time. We'll pay for school too, as noted above. Health Insurance: So many people die a year or are unable to be productive because of illness. Of those that die, some were or could have been productive. Therefore, we should foot the bill for all or most medical expenses.

Obviously we have to draw the line at where "lost potential" is no longer a valid reason to do things, otherwise you'll be footing the bill for every else's education, kids, healthcare, mental care, and supplemental income. I propose we never accept that argument. It's largely hypothetical, which makes a cost-benefit analysis (ratio of dollars spent to productivity gained from treated individuals) impossible.

In response to your edit: just because there is currently a law that mandates health care does not make subsequent discussion of the subject "not matter." Laws change frequently.

Laws don't change that frequently, not in this country. In any case I find your supposition that emotions have no place in lawmaking to be factually incorrect. Laws are just one way a society expresses its values. They are not made by balancing equations of cost and monetary benefit. A system of laws is enacted and enforced to enforce cultural values across a society.

One of those values is helping the sick. You seem to pretend to be an emotionless android, disregarding human suffering and "emotions meant for short term survival". Fortunately most American's do not take your same outlook on human suffering or the treatment of physical and emotional injury as a cost/benefit analysis.

Luckily in the democratic republic I live in I have many ways to try and effect our system of laws. Through polling, demonstrating, letters to elected officials, grassroots and non-profit organizations, voting, and of course through spending my money on issues and campaigns.

You may not care about seeing homeless people on the street everyday, I do. So I support policy that looks to reduce the occurrence of homelessness. The two primary conditions linked to homelessness are addiction and mental illness, although technically addiction falls under the latter category. I want to make clear that I am not just concerned about mental health issues among the homeless, I focused on that since you asked for some benefits that would arise from greater access to mental health care. Reducing instances of homelessness is one of those benefits. Homeless people are also part of our society, so your claim that my example is just an emotional response completely ignores the very real benefit to those members of society who are currently suffering from untreated mental illness. I assume you don't even consider them as part of your equation on societal benefits.

I really don't know why you would argue against increased access to mental health services though. Are you a Scientologist who thinks the whole field is quackery? Do you not think people with mental health issues deserve to have access to care? Just how big would the cost be of making more services available?

To me you sound a lot like a Tea Party member, quick to make the other guy justify his position while not offering any justification of your own position. You tell me why mentally ill people in this country should not have access to mental health services. The US already has one of the lowest tax burdens of any developed nation. So is it really a cost issue or something else?

Thank you, again, for your reply. I do not subscribe to any political party, but I voted Libertarian in the last election, so you may consider my values similar to libertarians, unless otherwise specified or corrected.

I understand that you feel emotions are a relevant concern when forming laws governing social policy. You have not provided any cause for me to agree with you, so we must agree to disagree. I will do nothing further to persuade you, but I will reply to your message in whole because you took the time to type it.

Fortunately, you are wrong in your assertion that I am an emotionless android, and I regret that I've given you cause to believe that. To clarify my position regarding human suffering: individuals are responsible to help themselves. The government is responsible to protect our basic rights. When deciding what social policies to uphold, I believe the government should only concern itself with the greater good, i.e. citizens under its care should have a very reasonable chance to stay alive and not be obstructed from achieving success. As such, there will be some people that are either unlucky or not well equipped to either stay alive or achieve success. As long such people are very small in number then the government is doing it's job well, as it can be accepted as fact that not everyone can live full lives and not everyone can achieve success however they define it (within reason). The group of people you are describing--the mentally ill and the homeless--are very small in number. In other words: the money we would spend to institute national mental health care would be quite large, and the number of people who need it desperately is quite small. Only 0.002% of the US population was homeless (sheltered and unsheltered) in 2009 according to Wikipedia(population of homeless)and USNews.com(total US pop). I can't find good numbers for the population of mentally ill. What I have found is not helpful as there is no suitable distinction between people who have a "serious mental illness" and people who have a mental illness so serious that they cannot function within society without treatment. For example, bi-polar is considered a "serious" mental illness and I've known enough bi-polar people (dated two) to know that some people with that "serious" disorder can function in society without treatment. They will not be comfortable, but I do not think the government is compelled to make all citizens comfortable. On the other hand I believe Schizophrenia is a "serious mental illness" that really is serious, but it's in the same category as depression and bi-polar.

The homeless (0.002% of US population) are also not completely without help. Certain charities and religious organizations take up the cause of helping them. The government subsidizes those charities and religious organizations by making their earnings tax exempt. Additionally, Federal and State governments already have their own departments in place to help people obtain basic sustenance, shelter, and even assistance finding jobs. I think we are already doing enough, if not too much, to provide basic human services.

You assert that "The two primary conditions linked to homelessness are addiction and mental illness." Would you cite your source? The information I have seen says that poverty and unemployment are the two largest causes of homelessness. I have not looked into it too much and I am certainly not prepared to refute your claim, and I have no intention of doing so with subsequent posts, but a source or two would be very helpful for me.

To answer your questions, in the order asked: 1. I am not a Scientologist. 2. I do not think people deserve access to mental health services. I am construing your use of "deserve" free from it's moral frame work as it would be impossible to tell you if people I do not know deserve anything. Instead, I am switching "Deserve" with "Entitled," as I believe that was your intention. I currently believe that people are not entitled to health or mental services other than those necessary to preserve life when death is imminent. 3. I am not qualified to assess the total cost of providing mental services to the US population. I do know that the US population was about 305,000,000 in 2009 and that providing mental services is very expensive. I know it's very expensive because I am a recipient of mental services myself. I can't even afford to purchase those services for myself, let alone anyone else. The only reason I receive them is because my costs are subsidized in part by my insurance. The reason I have insurance is because I am employed and I pay for it; however I was not always been employed and I have not always held insurance. When I was not employed and not purchasing insurance I received no health or mental care. So to answer your question as best as I can: it would cost a whole hell of a lot to provide mental health services to the entire US population. 4. It is really a cost issue. I see no reason why you or anyone else would want to make the US more like any other developed nation.

 

[Your Gaffer]

snip - these quotes will start taking up whole pages in and of themselves

I think you believe I am advocating for free mental health care for all. I am not. I think for those small number of people, as you yourself have admitted those who are too sick to care for themselves are very small in number, should be given subsidized access to mental health services. The rest of us will pay for it, whether nationalized or not. The assumption seems to be that "the government" is going to be paying for these services when that is just a matter of perception. The government taxes citizens and businesses, those are the two largest sources of income for the government, well that and deficit spending, which I do not believe is sustainable. So do not assume you understand my point of view at all based on one statement that everyone should have access to mental health services. The fact that I could only get in to be seen once every three weeks with very good insurance shows that across all strata of society access to these services is too limited. Luckily I only sought talk therapy for some family issues and moderate depression.

I have some fairly libertarian views and would like the government to stay out of my personal life, insofar as I do not impose on others (i.e. theft, assualt, etc.). That being said I realize that it just makes sense for the government to manage some things, such as interstate commerce, police and fire, local utilities, and the like. If we had stronger anti-trust laws in this country that were not circumvented and ignored all the time, just look at the number of anti-trust suits since Reagan for confirmation, then I would trust the free market to take care of a lot more things. But the free market is prone to monopolies, anti-consumer behavior, and price fixing.

One of the things that really turns me off from hard core libertarianism is the kind of stuff epitomized by Ron Paul's answer to a question during one of the Republican primary debates. He was asked during the CNN hosted debate if an uninsured working man got into an accident, should he be treated. Ron Paul's response was this, ?What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself,? Paul responded, adding, ?That?s what freedom is all about, taking your own risk. This whole idea that you have to compare and take care of everybody??

Ron Paul hemmed and hawed during the answer but he basically said let the guy die. Wolf Blitzer made it easier by using the language "chooses", implying that someone would choose not to have health care (yes, some younger and healthier people do choose to forgo health care but most uninsured do so because they can not afford it, not because they don't want it). What really sickened me were the Tea Party guys in the audience who cheered and were baying like hounds for the blood of this hypothetical person. They were cheering at the idea of letting someone die when treatment was available. That is anathema to my value system and I find it abhorrent.

All of these discussions we are having as a nation are to determine which services will be available to whom and who will pay for them. I hope you are working hard to represent your position because I am doing so in the representation of mine.

EDIT: I do appreciate you staying civil in this long winded exchange that probably only we two are reading. By this point most conversations on a forum have devolved into "you are Hitler and should be shot".

 

[medv4380]

You assert that "The two primary conditions linked to homelessness are addiction and mental illness." Would you cite your source? The information I have seen says that poverty and unemployment are the two largest causes of homelessness. I have not looked into it too much and I am certainly not prepared to refute your claim, and I have no intention of doing so with subsequent posts, but a source or two would be very helpful for me.

"Primary" might be the point of confusion. Sure people who are homeless are probably poor, and probably unemployed. If you're unemployed chances are you're ether very poor or very rich. However, when you look at the points in time where we have had major job surplus, needing to employee more people then there are (late 90's), there are still homeless, and unemployed. For many it's not that they don't have a job. It's that they can't hold down a job for very long. That is where Addiction and Mental Illness comes into play.

Try this from [a href="http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/addiction.pdf"]National Homeless.org[/a] who advocate for treating addiction as a mental illness in the homeless population rather than just sluffing them off as addicts.

A common stereotype of the homeless population is that they are all alcoholics or drug abusers. The truth is that a high percentage of homeless people do struggle with substance abuse, but addictions should be viewed as illnesses and require a great deal of treatment, counseling, and support to overcome. Substance abuse is both a cause and a result of homelessness, often arising after people lose their housing.

Try this from [a href="http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?ContentID=52920&Section=Homeless_Vets&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm"]National Alliance on Mental Health[/a] who address homeless veterans in the Veteran Resources Center.

the vast majority are single, most come from poor, disadvantaged communities, 45 percent live with a mental illness and half have substance abuse problems

 

[blackrave]

Ah, therapies...
Do they ever work?
I once got into an argument with my psychology lector about "curing" depression
While in some extremely rare cases it is brain chemistry that makes state of non-depression impossible, in majority of times it is life itself that causes suicidal depression.
So there are only 3 things that can be done to prevent suicide.
1.Changing whatever causes you to hate your life
2.Changing perception on that thing
3.Drugging yourself into vegetative state (yes, yes, overexaggeration, I know)
Best solution would be nr.1, but it isn't always possible (sometimes it's not going to happen, sometimes it is totally impossible)
Solution nr.3 is worst case scenario, that should be avoided at all cost (I personally would prefer death over personality altering drugs)
I can see how therapy could lead to outcome nr.2, but to really achieve this specialist must know patient better than patient knows himself, and he should deeply care for this patient. So it seems unlikely that it would be even remotely possible.

 

[medv4380]

Ah, therapies...
Do they ever work?

I don't think the article is advocating Therapy any more than it is already used. If anything it's advocating Reinstitutionalizing which isn't even considered in your 3 options. It's not for your standard "I'm depressed and suicidal" types. It's for these people who are schizophrenic or worse. If you're deranged to the point where you want to kill people and you're just mumbling about it we probably shouldn't let you out and about. It's admitting that therapy won't work long term in some cases. If you're that bad chances are you're not capable of taking care of it yourself ether, or afford to institutionalize yourself. The deinstitutionalizing that we've done for the last 50 years has just left these people roam free untreated till they kill someone.