Believing Yourself a Werewolf

[Kitsune]

I want to state that Broomstick is right and stating that she needs medication specifically but that she does need councilling and a medical professional to determine if she needs medication. As well, the children should not necessarily be taken away but the authorities do need to watch the situation.
I needed to talk this through with other people which I thank you all for.

I do want to add that it is specifically the caloric intake of the food she was feeding her children was not enough although I personally did not like what she was feeding them as far as them.

With the raw meat, I am concerned about a person getting salmanila which I understand can be very deadly. I specifically know that the child was mostly fed regular food.

No matter what, I don't know exactly where she went and cannot do much as such. I needed to get the situation off my chest and compare it to what people state here about psychologist. I have often felt the same way that many people do about psycology and have stated it often including to her.

[SecondStorm]

Good luck to your friend and I hope this turns out well for everyone .

[Darth Wong]

At the least she should be charged with attempted child endagerment or abuse.

That whole "innocence until proof of guilt" thing escapes you, doesn't it?

If evidence can be presented that she is abusing her children or neglecting to provide them with the necessities of life, fine. Take action just as you would when anyone else does something like that. But simply saying "she's delusional, so force her to take drugs or lock her up" is crazy. I could very easily use the same argument to take every Jehovah's Witness's child away from them and throw them all in jail.

Unless you can show that the damage she's doing to the kids is worse than the monstrous damage that would be done by charging her with a felony and potentially tearing their family apart by putting her in jail, you're just talking out of your ass.

[Broomstick]

Why are you so averting of classifying her as insane when she at the least appears to be quite mentally disturbed?

If you go by the DSMV-IV diagnostic criteria MOST of us could be described as "mentally disturbed" or "symptomatic" of one disorder or another for a good portion of our lives. Indeed, sometimes it is NORMAL to show symptoms of mental disturbance - after the death of a friend or loved one, for example, or after a traumatic experience. It would, in fact, be abnormal to not exihibit "symptoms"

Hence why I have been saying I would need more information to feel comfortable making a firm statement one way or another. If she is coming from a recent abusive situation disordered thinking is not unusual and may well resolve on its own with the passage of time and a better environment without the need for drugs.

If someone's fucked in the head, I say something should be done with them.

I have not yet seen enough evidence of real psychosis to declare WolfWoman to be "fucked in the head".

At the least she should be charged with attempted child endagerment or abuse.

Again, this situation, as presented, is not severe enough to warrant the label "neglect" or "abuse", at least not in the sense that removing the children from the home would be justified.

Define "Just drug her up" please. She definately do *need* some form of drugs.

No, not necessarially.

First of all, we don't really have good drugs for delusional thinking such as "I think I'm a werewolf". We just don't. The new drugs that have been so hyped lately, such as Prozac, are for entirely different disorders. For disordered thinking we're basically stuck with the likes of thorazine and its cousins. These are drugs that function mainly as tranquilizers, to calm down the psychotic and make them less violent and dangerous. They can actually dimish a person's ability to take care of him or herself. They are very strong drugs with very strong side effects - and not all of those side effects go away when the drug is stopped. Thorazine is infamous for causing disorders of muscle coordination and inducing a very distinctive gait referred as the "thorazine shuffle". It can cause permanent nerve damage. You should NOT give these drugs out lightly. Their abuse and mis-use can be just as damaging as too much or misapplied electroshock. So... what about WolfWoman justifies the use of medication that may cause permanent physical damage to her body?

It appears that she's already on some form of medication although she's probably not taking it .

Where did Kitsune indicate that she is on medication? I must hav missed that...

Most patients with severe psychiatric illnesses require medication AND counselling. Just receiving one of those treatments wont help.

Could you please explain that to the big health insurance companies in the US? Part of my gripe is that society is all too rapidly adopting a "drug 'em and forget 'em" attitude.

But all of this is moot as what she REALLY needs is to get herself to a psychiatrist who can diagnose her properly.

On that we can agree. But you shouldn't assume the diagnosis will be some sort of psychosis.

What I *think* Broomstick is trying to get at here is that there are degrees of insanity. Its more important what effect a persons illness has than the fact that the person is "insane".

Precisely -- the standard used for involuntary committment and/or treatment is that the person is a danger to either him/herself or others. And if they ARE a danger, and they DO resist, what you're talking about is more indefinite imprisonment than true medical treatment. Trying to treat someone with a psychiatric disorder who is uncooperative is like trying to treat a diabetic who won't adhere to the necessary diet and insulin dosing schedule - you just won't make much progress. Some illnesses require cooperation from the patient in order to really get them under control.

So, if they are not a danger to themselves or others - usually determined by such factors as whether or not they practice appropriate hygiene, can hold down a job, pay the bills, focus on a task such as driving enough to perform the task safely, and so forth - they are not forced to undergo treatment. There are actual checklists used for these sorts of evaluations, and standard practices/guidelines in making these determinations.

IMO what is needed is for the children to go to foster-care and she should receive a treatment-sentence. Clean up her act and get her children back. If she cant do that then perhaps its better for the children to stay in foster-care.

The problem with removing the children from the home is that, even in cases of blatant abuse, separation from parents is invariably traumatic to the children. Remember that children are not as rational as adults (even "sane" adults can be plenty irrational about family ties). You can't reason it out with them - "Timmy, you're much better off with Mr. and Mrs. Smith because your daddy beat you bloody twice a week and Mr. and Mrs. Smith don't do that". Timmy will still want his daddy. His "good" daddy, the one he knows on the days he isn't beaten.

So the situation must be dire enough to justify causing pain and trauma to the children who are removed from the home. Immediate physical danger, sexual abuse, and abandonment are the only situations that result in automatic removal. Mommy thinking she's a werewolf and having an occassional snack of uncooked hamburger may be disturbing, but it's not in the same league as an adult using a stove burner as a means of "discipline", rape of a child, or abandoning a child in a home with no power, no heat, no water, and no food.

Let me express a thought one more time: removing a child from their parents ALWAYS causes pain, suffering, and trauma to the child.

If you think WolfWoman's situation warrants the drastic actions of either removing her children or charging her with a crime defend your position. Don't just say "ewwwwwwwww, she's all fucked up" - pretend your in front of a judge and you have to argue your position.

You see, I have actually been in that unenviable position - when I worked at a clinic in Chicago I actually did join in discussions and help draft letters and legal documents that argued both for and against involuntary committement, returning someone to jail, or terminating their parental rights. I don't know which was worse - trying to convince a judge that a wealthy North Shore socialite beat her children severely enough to cause blindness in one and maim another, or the situation where I helped to argue that a 45 year old pregnant heroin addict who made her living as a whore should NOT lose custody of the twins she would shortly give birth to. And if you ask WHY I argued against terminating custody... well, Joyce had had five other children, all of whom stayed out of trouble, stayed in school, and went on to college or apprenticeship programs. So her children the lawyer, the plumber, the electrician, the nurse, and the dental hygenist also showed up in court to argue on their mother's behalf - argubably, the ONLY thing Joyce ever did right in her life was raise healthy, well-educated, successful children. Pretty amazing, when you consider that she herself was functionally illiterate. It was an unusual situation, but so what? These things SHOULD be considered on a case-by-case basis. In this situation, Joyce's children did better than most children in the foster care system, in which case they probably were better off remaining with her.

And it's my experience in such matters that makes me so reluctant to pass firm judgement on WolfWoman. Having weird notions does not automatically make someone a bad parent. Having weird notions does not automatically mean you need to be "treated". I fully approve of the current "danger to self and others" standard because I know my history well enough to know of the forced treatment to "cure" homosexuals, women with sex drives, and women who did not want to have children in the US. In the Sovient Union, dissedent politcal views were considered delusional and "treated" in order to "cure" the holder of those ideas. There have been serious and life-destroying abuses in the past. Consider that before you start advocating the forced medication, treatment, or incarceration of someone with "weird notions" you don't approve of - because next time it might be YOUR ideas that need "treating".

the authorities do need to watch the situation.

I certainly agree with that.

do want to add that it is specifically the caloric intake of the food she was feeding her children was not enough although I personally did not like what she was feeding them as far as them.

Insufficient food can qualify as neglect. In most such situations I've seen, though, even young children can be quite resourceful in getting the calories they need, even to the point of stealing food or begging from neighbors. If it gets to that point then yes, it is time for someone to step in. If, however, the children are growing and gaining weight within the normal range for their age, though, they are probably getting enough calories.

With the raw meat, I am concerned about a person getting salmanila which I understand can be very deadly.

Actually, listeria is a more deadly killer, as are two varieties of E. coli. Not that samonella is OK, either. MOST of the meat supply, particularly if it's fresh and stored properly, will not make you sick. Even most of the pork - a meat that has been historically associated with illness when improperly handled - produced in North America these days could be consumed raw without causing illness. More children are killed every year because their parents didn't properly restrain them in a moving car than are killed by food contamination. If it's an occassional thing it's probably not a huge problem - good lord, it's unbelievable what a toddler will put in his mouth, things MUCH worse than a little raw meat from the grocery store. Frankly, I'd be more worried about a pregnant woman eating raw or undercooked meat than a toddler - a pregnant woman's immune system is not as able to fight off such an assault as a two-year-old's.

Unless you can show that the damage she's doing to the kids is worse than the monstrous damage that would be done by charging her with a felony and potentially tearing their family apart by putting her in jail, you're just talking out of your ass.

And, as usual, Darth Wong sums it up succintly.

[SecondStorm]

Define "Just drug her up" please. She definately do *need* some form of drugs.

No, not necessarially.

First of all, we don't really have good drugs for delusional thinking such as "I think I'm a werewolf". We just don't. The new drugs that have been so hyped lately, such as Prozac, are for entirely different disorders. For disordered thinking we're basically stuck with the likes of thorazine and its cousins. These are drugs that function mainly as tranquilizers, to calm down the psychotic and make them less violent and dangerous. They can actually dimish a person's ability to take care of him or herself. They are very strong drugs with very strong side effects - and not all of those side effects go away when the drug is stopped. Thorazine is infamous for causing disorders of muscle coordination and inducing a very distinctive gait referred as the "thorazine shuffle". It can cause permanent nerve damage. You should NOT give these drugs out lightly. Their abuse and mis-use can be just as damaging as too much or misapplied electroshock. So... what about WolfWoman justifies the use of medication that may cause permanent physical damage to her body?

All drugs have side effects. And there ARE drugs that targets a person hallucinations. They do have the sad side-effect of being tranquilizing. And rather potently if its a high dosis. But its not the drugs main purpose. And Ive seen those side-effects close-hand.

It really depends on HOW she goes about her dis-orders. But we cant rule out the possibility(or even the likelihood) of her needing drugs.

Ive always considered electro shock a rather severe treatment but for some persons its really a help.
It reminds me of one of my teachers back in Nursing School. She had been assisting with lobotomizing unwilling patients back in the 70s when it still considered a viable treatment(for some reason ).
Now theres a proper example of treatments that violate a persons basic rights!

Where did Kitsune indicate that she is on medication? I must hav missed that...

Gah ofc she didnt. She doesnt go to the doctor. My mistake. I must be delusional(Spanky lock me up!) .

Could you please explain that to the big health insurance companies in the US? Part of my gripe is that society is all too rapidly adopting a "drug 'em and forget 'em" attitude.

And thats a very fair gripe but I think you mean American society . The emphasis on drugs seems far less severe in Europe.

IMO what is needed is for the children to go to foster-care and she should receive a treatment-sentence. Clean up her act and get her children back. If she cant do that then perhaps its better for the children to stay in foster-care.

I dont think I made my position clear then. Its up to the social services and a judge to decide why and if the children needs to be taken into foster-care or not.

All of the rest I either agree with or already were aware of .

[Broomstick]

All drugs have side effects. And there ARE drugs that targets a person hallucinations. They do have the sad side-effect of being tranquilizing. And rather potently if its a high dosis. But its not the drugs main purpose.

Of course the side effects are not the main purpose. The main purpose of cancer drugs is not to make you vomit, lose your hair, or develop mouth ulcers, those side effects are completely secondary to the main purpose, which is to kill cancer cells. The only justification for pumping such toxins into a person is that they are suffering from a disease that will kill them if you don't use those drugs.

Likewise, there are certainly cases where the anti-psychotics are appropriate, even a godsend. But those are really extreme cases. Back when I lived in Chicago we had a full-blown schizophrenic living in the neighborhood who went by the name "Crazy Mary" (that's how she introduced herself) On drugs - well, a little fuzzy around the edges, but coherent, and while she still hallucinated while medicated she could still usually recognize them as hallucinations and ignore them. Off drugs -- man, it really brought home the phrase "in another world". And she would become an instant victim, unable to defend herself from criminals and prone to wandering in front of traffic. In her case, yes, potent chemicals were absolutely justified, they vastly increased her functioning as a human being.

But, like I said, I'm not convinced WolfWoman is that far gone.

It really depends on HOW she goes about her dis-orders. But we cant rule out the possibility(or even the likelihood) of her needing drugs.

No, but it shouldn't be the first, last, and only choice. My objection was how fast people moved to "take the kids away and dope her up"

Ive always considered electro shock a rather severe treatment but for some persons its really a help.

Again, the treatment must be justified by the extreme nature of the disorder. It was overused at one time in the past. For extreme depression it IS effective, but it should never be the first treatment tried in depression, even in the suicidal.

It reminds me of one of my teachers back in Nursing School. She had been assisting with lobotomizing unwilling patients back in the 70s when it still considered a viable treatment(for some reason ).
Now theres a proper example of treatments that violate a persons basic rights!

Absolutely. Certainly, the icepick school of lobotomy was a travesty and a tragedy. There are cases of such things as brain tumors or other physical abnormalities manifesting psychiatric symptoms where brain surgery is justified, but in such cases today the decision is made by more than one person, usually involves a hospital's ethics committee, and also usually involves a judge and a court order. At least in this country

Could you please explain that to the big health insurance companies in the US? Part of my gripe is that society is all too rapidly adopting a "drug 'em and forget 'em" attitude.

And thats a very fair gripe but I think you mean American society . The emphasis on drugs seems far less severe in Europe.

Well, I do live in the US so of course my perception is biased by that. Too many over here view psychiatric illness as a failure of character. And drugs alone are cheaper than real treatment, which employs a combination of drugs and "talking cure".

I also believe that sometimes the problem isn't biochemical, it's a person's environment. If a woman is being stalked by her ex-husband and displaying signs of paranoia it might be because someone really is after her and not because she's "crazy". Which calls for a totally different treatment than the psychosis called "paranoid". Someone caring for a chronically ill or dying relative will probably display signs of depression - but they most likely need a vacation from the constant care-taking, not Prozac.

Psychiatric medication can mask symptoms without really dealing with the source of the problem. If we can't cure the disease, treating the symptoms might be our best course, but whenever you can get to the source of an illness and deal with that it is preferable.

SecondStorm, I think you and I are mostly in agreement here.

IMO what is needed is for the children to go to foster-care and she should receive a treatment-sentence. Clean up her act and get her children back. If she cant do that then perhaps its better for the children to stay in foster-care.

I dont think I made my position clear then. Its up to the social services and a judge to decide why and if the children needs to be taken into foster-care or not.

All of the rest I either agree with or already were aware of .

Well, OK, but I'm not the one who said that last quote. Just wanted to clarify that.

[SecondStorm]

SecondStorm, I think you and I are mostly in agreement here.

Well it certainly looks like it .