|
Post by oliveoilmom on Oct 10, 2012 10:54:07 GMT -5
Making arguments from personal reactions isn't the only way to create workable legal policy, is it? In many countries, heroin treatment is a choice -- and they don't have nearly as much drug crime as we do, nor do their addicts die as often. Even the Swiss finally accepted the body of scientific data and stopped trying to jail every drug addict. The USA has become known for its paranoia in this regard - such that our kids will find their work lives consumed paying for a failed war on drugs and just plain old fashioned wars - which have also failed. Force seems to be weaker than we think - unless we exert it maximally and forever. Which is rather expensive. I wouldn't vote for ANYONE in this message board to be forced into treatment beyond the absolute minimums required to protect the public - and at that, if the person is mentally ill, I'd have trouble "treating" that with brute force. We aren't stepping up in time to prevent these things, near as I can tell, and it's a tad "too little, too late" to pop in with threats of prison after the person has gone so far down, they are dangerous to their neighbors. If personal reactions are the fulcrum, I wouldn't mind a little more law enforcement with regard to noisy neighbors too, but again, I wouldn't vote to harass people with armed intervention over piano lessons or even parties. These are torts and should be handled as civil matters, in my opinion. When you force someone into a hospital setting and pump them full of powerful psychotropic drugs, the results are not always what's expected or desired. Even something as common and benign as bipolar disorder has only about a 35% chance of long term management with drugs currently available. What are we supposed to do about this failure - jail the shrinks for fraud? Should hoarders be put into prison forever? It is obvious that it's a long term problem. IS that really how we want to run this society? I haven't advocated or seen anyone advocate that people here should be locked up, either in a nuthouse or a jail. Hoarding isn't a crime and most people are not put away for it. Most people are given treatment and most accept it because they know on a certain level that it's just not good. If those of us here didn't know that and believe it, we wouldn't be here trying to do something about it. Nobody wants to put hoarders in prison, and nobody wants to put somebody with a house full of junk into the hospital and pump them full of psychotropic drugs. That's beyond jumping to conclusions. I'd say that if somebody hoarded a house full of dead animals, and even dead bodies, and thought they dead animals and bodies were speaking to them and communicating to them and they thought that they should possibly burn down all 7-11's because they don't sell National Lampoon magazine anymore and there is no decent flavor of purple slushy, then yeah, I'd say give them some meds and put them somewhere and basicallu bulldoze the house because it's contaminated. That's not really just a "bad housekeeper". This lady knew she was eating stuff with poop on it. She knew it was in the air around her. Yet, she saw it as her "high" and her "last blaze of glory". Does that sound like any type of just bad housekeeping to you? There have been people on there who had human poo in their house, plenty of times. They knew they shouldn't, they saw the problems with it, but they just couldn't do something about it. That's where the help and therapy came in. When somebody just doesn't and can't see the problem with living in poo, and won't believe someone who explains it to them, don't you think that it might be best to make them see somebody about it?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2012 13:58:28 GMT -5
OK, I oculdn't stand to watch the first episode because it was way to depressing. And this one was way to disgusting to watch. I think that the show is now just being so exploitive, not helpful. It needs to go back to the previous seasons.
|
|
|
Post by Ally on Oct 10, 2012 14:11:24 GMT -5
Obviously Shanna felt that she could eat soup out of a can that had poo on it without getting sick. She had been doing it for years. Who are we to tell her that eating food out of a can that is filthy on the outside is not safe. The inside of the can is still sterile. (Yes I know, when the can opener penetrates that seal it pushes some of the bacteria into the food, and no I don't think it would be a good practice to do that, at least without sanatizing the outside of the can and the can opener first.) Just another point of view. Her method of dealing with waste was quite unbelievable though.
|
|
|
Post by maggie on Oct 10, 2012 14:11:53 GMT -5
Whether or not you agree on where the line should be drawn on individual choice/freedom/rights and the public good, it is very valuable to have the debate to keep us from becoming complacent or blind to issues of abuse and misuse of power. When individual rights are infringed, we SHOULD have to justify it -- we should never just say, "well, it's obvious it was okay in this case."
|
|
|
Post by dayeanu on Oct 10, 2012 14:38:23 GMT -5
I was not going to comment on this thread.
Sometimes hoarders/squalorers have been sent to jail for it.
We have had heated debates about it here, with some members saying jail is where they belong, and others believing they should receive help, therapy, etc.
|
|
|
Post by ClutterBlind on Oct 10, 2012 14:41:40 GMT -5
I think this particular episode was exploitative and in bad form. that woman is clearly has mental problems in which she was harming herself. Instead of publicizing her situation, when it became clear she had no real concept of reality, the show should have stopped filming, and quietly gotten her help. That would be doing an action that was greater than themselves and benefited only the woman. To air that episode was exploitation of a weak and vulnerable woman. It was more self-serving than it was done TO help the woman.
Also, this woman may have been a hoarder, but her mental issues weren't about hoarding, nor were they the cause of her mental decline. They were a symptom that appeared. But, it could have manifested in another way. To focus on it being about hoarding is like saying someone has a tumor in their arm and it was caused by their playing tennis. The pain while playing tennis may have brought up the pain, and created a situation in which the arm was furthered examined and the tumor found. But tennis was not the cause of the tumor.
|
|
|
Post by CourageouslyLion SeeksSerenity on Oct 10, 2012 14:48:13 GMT -5
I think this particular episode was exploitative and in bad form. that woman is clearly has mental problems in which she was harming herself. Instead of publicizing her situation, when it became clear she had no real concept of reality, the show should have stopped filming, and quietly gotten her help. That would be doing an action that was greater than themselves and benefited only the woman. To air that episode was exploitation of a weak and vulnerable woman. It was more self-serving than it was done TO help the woman.
Also, this woman may have been a hoarder, but her mental issues weren't about hoarding, nor were they the cause of her mental decline. They were a symptom that appeared. But, it could have manifested in another way. To focus on it being about hoarding is like saying someone has a tumor in their arm and it was caused by their playing tennis. The pain while playing tennis may have brought up the pain, and created a situation in which the arm was furthered examined and the tumor found. But tennis was not the cause of the tumor. AGREE!The portion about the woman who was unaware of the fecal health issues, should not have been called "Hoarders". It should have been part of a separate series called: "e xtreme mental illness -- oh wait, it's inappropriate to broadcast this as entertainment" (clarification that my statement was meant as a bitter remark. I'm not suggesting that such a show exist at all.) -
|
|
|
Post by CourageouslyLion SeeksSerenity on Oct 10, 2012 14:53:39 GMT -5
Whether or not you agree on where the line should be drawn on individual choice/freedom/rights and the public good, it is very valuable to have the debate to keep us from becoming complacent or blind to issues of abuse and misuse of power. When individual rights are infringed, we SHOULD have to justify it -- we should never just say, "well, it's obvious it was okay in this case." I think that exploitive shows like this episode are what causes the general public to lump everything together. I agree that this debate is HEALTHY -- even if we don't really know the solution.
|
|
|
Post by CourageouslyLion SeeksSerenity on Oct 10, 2012 15:06:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by messymommy on Oct 10, 2012 16:09:45 GMT -5
I agree, Lion. The two statements do strike a very balanced view. There is a difference between a kind but clear reality check and criticism that is really condemnation. Kind, gentle, supportive nudges are sometimes needed but if done in the spirit of camaraderie and encouragement, it shouldn't cause counter-productive guilt.
|
|
|
Post by oliveoilmom on Oct 10, 2012 16:54:50 GMT -5
My point was that the poo lady is not in any way a representation of most people with hoarding disorder. Even though many may have human waste in the house like that, her cognitave ability to understand that it's not ok was impaired, where others know that it's not ok but for other reasons are not able to fix it.
Knowing what is and isn't ok is the key issue, not whether or not you are able to fix it. I have seen people on the show with pretty bad human waste issues and even though they may act nonchalant in front of the cameras for the most part, they seem to understand that it's really not ok. They have adjusted their ability to live with it to their level of ability to change it. Whether it's mental ability or physical ability or both, they know on some level that it's not ok. This lady did not. That is the major issue where she differs from hoarders and where she crosses the line into needing treatment.
When I talk about a line that shouldn't be crossed, I'm not talking about the level of mess or the amount of the hoard. I've seen lots of really bad things cleaned up, and some places that were ruined even with what seemed like small or nonfilthy messes. I'm talking about the persons mental state. When someone defends their practice of not washing their hands before eating, after emptying poop, and they truly do not understand why they should do that and why they shouldn't live with poop all in the house, then they do need treatment.
Someone who mentally or physically cannot get rid of he poop may not need that type of treatment, although counseling is probably going to help them greatly. Most I've seen on there know that it shouldn't be like that but really have no way of fixing it themselves at the point they are at. Counseling to help them not get back to that point is good, but forced removal from the home and prevention from living alone and mandated treatment isn't really needed for them.
It's the fact that she didn't know or understand. She even said "See, I don't know. You have to tell me this stuff" or something to that effect, and when they did tell her she didn't believe them.
I'm not advocating that hoarders be sent to jail or the insane asylum. Not at all! Most people understand that somethings wrong and want it to be better. I'm saying that people who have sever biohazard issues in their home and don't believe or understand that, even after being told about it, are the people who need the treatment, forced or not.
I'm not talking about someone who says "Oh, I can save this table even though there is some mouse poop on it" even though some of the people on the show scream to throw out everything mouse poop gets near. I'm talking about someone who doesn't understand why it's not ok to sit next to a bucket of pee and poo and eat your supper, after not washing your hands when coming in contact with it.
Jail wouldn't help her at all. Jail doesn't help someone with a disorder like that. As long as their actions only effect them, then I see no reason to put them in jail. Jail and forced psychiatric treatment when you can't understand safety concepts are two very, very different things.
Should I be able to wash my dishes that I feed my family on it the toilet bowl? Why not? If I see no harm in it, and I'vef lushed first, I shouldn't be sent to jail for feeding my kids with them, right? (That's the kind of thing I'm talking about that's worthy of jail)
Should I be able to wash my own dishes in the toilet bowl then eat off of them if I've flushed first? If not, why not? If I see no problem with it, why can't I do it? It only hurts me, and I se nothing wrong with it no matter who explains it to me, so is it wrong to come in and haul my butt to the hospital where I'm forced to be admitted and checked for all sorts of diseases and also given psychological treatment so that when I get out I'll know better than to wash dishes in the toilet bowl?
That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. Not being a bad housekeeper.
If you don't think I should be forced into treatment for washing my own food dishes in the toilet bowl, tell me why not please.
|
|
|
Post by oliveoilmom on Oct 10, 2012 17:15:59 GMT -5
Also, this is very important to me to say. My approval of forcing help on those who truly have much more serious issues than hoarding etc isn't punative. I'm not saying "Oh God, she didn't know that? Take her crazy butt to the insane asylum, she doesn't need to be out here with the rest of us!" I'm saying "She really didn't know it and some people may not, but she cannot process it or understand it or believe it when it's explained to her by people who are professionals in that field. She won't believe she needs help then, and if she doesn't, we may have to force her to get it right now, so that she can gain the ability to understand these things."
In other words, it's not about the poo or the mess. It's about how she truly thinks about the mess and how she understands the consequences of the mess, once she has had it explained. Biohazard really, not just mess.
|
|
|
Post by bobolink on Oct 10, 2012 17:25:20 GMT -5
I'm not entirely sure where this discussion of forcing people into treatment is coming from. I don't see that anyone on the show was forced into anything. Given that Shanna's house was structurally unsound and severely contaminated, she could not continue to live there. She was clearly not able to live independently. The family and the Hoarders team made a decision about her care and presented it to her, based on an evaluation of the options, which included repairing the house so she could continue to live there. I did not see her express any resistance. I seem to recall that she accepted aftercare in the form of counselling. She could have refused.
|
|
|
Post by CaringFriend on Oct 10, 2012 18:12:04 GMT -5
This lady knew she was eating stuff with poop on it. She knew it was in the air around her. Yet, she saw it as her "high" and her "last blaze of glory". Does that sound like any type of just bad housekeeping to you? There have been people on there who had human poo in their house, plenty of times. They knew they shouldn't, they saw the problems with it, but they just couldn't do something about it. That's where the help and therapy came in. When somebody just doesn't and can't see the problem with living in poo, and won't believe someone who explains it to them, don't you think that it might be best to make them see somebody about it? In addition, she was heating soup in a PAPER bowl in the microwave. When Matt pointed that out to her, she saw no problem with that.....as the camera zoomed in on a written warning on the inside of the microwave. I could see her thriving in a group home where she could have supervision to keep her from harming herself in her daily living. However Matt wrote on the A&E site, "What doing this episode did for me was to bring up how fractured the mental health system is in our country. this lady has been cleared as perfectly competent to live on her own by her states mental health board. for the past 15 years, they have visited the home and said she was fine. i have a real problem with that. It's not just this city, it's nationwide." So, apparently, up to the intervention which was done in hazmat suits, the authorities said she was fine to be living on her own! My opinion on the discussion of help or not for anyone is to be sure they are not a danger to themselves or others. Sometimes people are too ill physically or mentally to understand just how ill they are. Shanna clearly was a danger to herself and by dumping her waste in her front yard (and elsewhere for all we know) she was a clear danger to her neighbors and their children. "Hey Billy, go get our ball. It landed in that lady's yard, over there by those trees."
|
|
|
Post by ClutterBlind on Oct 10, 2012 19:39:15 GMT -5
"What doing this episode did for me was to bring up how fractured the mental health system is in our country. this lady has been cleared as perfectly competent to live on her own by her states mental health board. for the past 15 years, they have visited the home and said she was fine. i have a real problem with that. It's not just this city, it's nationwide." So, apparently, up to the intervention which was done in hazmat suits, the authorities said she was fine to be living on her own! Unfortunately, the law in many states says that in order for a person to be involuntarily committed for a psychiatric evaluation, the person must be "a danger to self or to others." Here is the Wiki definition. Take it for what it's worth. It may or may not be accurate. But, I have heard that quoted definition above, being used for involuntary 3 day psych evaluations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_commitment Perhaps the people visiting her home never asked her if she ATE the feces lying around her home. It would be pretty unfathomable to most people. Living with it around is quite different than deliberately eating it. They probably took a cursory tour of the house and couldn't wait to get out fast enough. But, people spending 2 days with her are going to learn more of what is really going on in her mind and how she was an obvious danger to herself.
|
|