Can we have an agreed upon definition of "mentally ill"?

[YoungDemCA]

Because otherwise, I can easily see the ramifications of labeling " social deviants" or "suspicious people" as "mentally ill", and they aren't positive.

Now, I'm not saying that the young man responsible for Friday's atrocities didn't have incredibly serious, unaddressed issues (that should be obvious to anyone now). But surely, we need to do better than the incredibly vague and loaded phrase "mentally ill", no?

What exactly are we looking for here, when we say "we need to get the mentally ill treatment and help"? Not a facetious question, by the way; it's a question of real relevance for all of us.

[cliffordu]

1. WEll, there's always the DSM....

[Gman]

2. There's a whole thick book in mental disorders

That the profession uses. It once contined homosexuality as a disorder/illness. other parts are still in dispute. So we can't reach an agreement.

[slackmaster]

3. The current DSM is the closest thing we have to a source of truth

I suggest that people who are not familiar with it check out the definition of a form of mental illness that they have heard of.

The diagnostic criteria are quite detailed. It's not possible to have a purely objective system of definitions, but the DSM is the result of efforts to make it as clear as possible.

Of course not everyone agrees with the DSM's definitions. It's always been a work in progress, and it is the standard used to make determinations of insurance payouts, what drugs are approved for particular conditions, etc.

[YoungDemCA]

6. The problem is that most people with a diagnosed mental illness...

...really aren't more violent than the general population.

The other possibility is that a LOT more people in the general population are undiagnosed and untreated, which I can definitely see.

I just have issues with the stigma of mental illness, that the "Violent People=Mentally Ill" notion makes even worse.

[slackmaster]

8. Of course you are correct, and those that are dangerous are so mostly to themselves.

The biggest misunderstanding I think people have on this issue is the distinction between being mentally ill, which tens of millions of people are in some form and to some degree, and being adjudicated by a court of law as mentally incompetent.

People who are simply mentally ill and not officially incompetent have the same rights as do people who are not mentally ill. But the law prohibits possession of a firearm by, or the transfer of a firearm to, a person who has been declared by a court of law as mentally incompetent. Those individuals also lose other rights, such as the right to control their personal finances and to decide where to live.

I have personal friends who are mentally ill, with depression, who have voluntarily divested themselves of firearms. That's a sound decision by someone who is at risk for suicidality. However, I cannot support changes in the law to make it too easy to declare a person incompetent - Strong protections are needed to prevent people from being taken advantage of. For example, some elderly people could be victimized by family members if it was too easy to put them under the control of an administrator.

[GeorgeGist]

10. I disagree ...

I wholly subscribe to the notion that violent people are mentally ill.

[zappaman]

4. Anyone who is not like me or disagrees with me. n/t

[Cleita]

5. Actually, I would want a definition of mentally ill with a tendency toward violence,

or something like that. I have known plenty of mentally ill people, who are not violent, and many of whom have a lot of kindness and compassion in them even when they are abusing alcohol and drugs. So to lump everyone with a diagnosis of mental illness into a category of violence doesn't really address the problem.

[Fire Walk With Me]

7. Mental illness includes PTSD so it includes a large amount of US Veterans

whom we supposedly pinned yellow ribbons to SUVs and oak trees in support of. Where are we now when they need us, when some of us are rallying to "regulate" all "mentally ill" persons under a single definition of DANGER.

Fear much? :/

Mental illness can be as simple as a mild occasional withdrawal or confusion about "reality". It can also be as severe as complete catatonia. It also completely overlooks emotions as illness vectors, and many of us have experienced negative emotions or hurt, so where does that leave us?

BTW, studies have shown that mental illness is characteristic of high-profile wall street/corporate boss types. I'd REALLY like this to go THERE. Perhaps they don't shoot up crowds of people but the direct effects of some of their actions DO cause injury, deprivation, and death.

The "mental health" industry in this country is horrible. It's filled with profit mongers and all too few people who are actually, genuinely interested in helping other human beings in need. I disdain any cry to expand upon a broken system, and proffer that we need a far better, more human system in its place.

[Twinguard]

9. no.

"Mentally ill" encompasses a wide range of problems. Depression, PTSD, Alzheimer's, dementia, bi-polar disorder, OCD, homicidal, suicidal, schizophrenia, and enough others that I can't count or list them.

In the terms of gun regulation and how it relates to mental disorders... no... We can't lay down a blanket policy that people with "mental disorders" aren't allowed to own guns. Just because someone feels the need to wash their hands fifty times a day shouldn't exclude them from being able to protect themselves/their family/their property by arming themselves. What we need is more readily available counseling to determine which mentally disabled people could be considered threats to themselves and others. We also need some testing, licensing, and insurance for gun owners. There is a way to let responsible people continue to own guns and weed out (to some extent, at least) the people who shouldn't own (or have access to) guns. I don't have all the answers, but some regulation doesn't strike me as a bad thing.

[SoCalDem]

11. Probably not.

"Odd behavior" is an easier identifier, and once professional help is sought out, a more clinical assessment might be made.

Humans are pretty intuitive, if we pay attention to the gut feelings.

The underlying problem is that good quality psychological care costs BIG BUCKS and takes a LONG time..and even then it's not always successful....

and when someone is past 18, it's next to impossible to get them care unless they initiate it.