Very disturbing...one of our frequent psych patients (d/c'd) was picked up by the police. For what, I don't know. But I've never known the guy to assaultive. Agitated at times, yes. Assaultive, no.
Police apparently had him and he got agitated. He was Taser'd a few times and died when he got to our hospital.
This is the fourth time *this year* that police in our area have ended up killing a psych patient. Mostly from Tasering, once from being 'restrained' according to the news.
I just think police need some training on dealing with mentally ill people. This is a crying shame. Mentally ill and agitated is not the same as criminal!
If he had dementia, then how could he be held accountable for his actions? Am I going to read arguments that dementia does not excuse someone from not knowing what they were doing?
If a patient has dementia, psychoses or whatever ... and they're in a criminal psych facility because they're violent ... the healthcare system says it's not their fault.
BUT, if that same patient is in prison ... there's no excuses. That patient goes down.
So ... which system is right? In both cases the patient is violent, but the approaches are completely different.
If it's my life on the line, I side with law enforcement. Sorry ... I don't want to be beaten, severely injured, raped or, even worse, killed. Which, btw, happens too often in criminal psych facilities.
If a patient has dementia, psychoses or whatever ... and they're in a criminal psych facility because they're violent ... the healthcare system says it's not their fault.
BUT, if that same patient is in prison ... there's no excuses. That patient goes down.
So ... which system is right? In both cases the patient is violent, but the approaches are completely different.
If it's my life on the line, I side with law enforcement. Sorry ... I don't want to be beaten, severely injured or, even worse, killed. Which, btw, happens too often in criminal psych facilities.
:typing
I don't understand your question. Are we comparing two people with the same disease in two different settings? Or are we comparing a person who has a psychiatric disease to a person who committed a crime with full awareness of what they were doing and the ability to reason and make choices and understand the consequences of their actions? I think we can agree that is not a fair comparison although I realize that the mentally ill are often criminalized and do in fact "go down" for their crimes.
I don't understand your question. Are we comparing two people with the same disease in two different settings? Or are we comparing a person who has a psychiatric disease to a person who committed a crime with full awareness of what they were doing and the ability to reason and make choices and understand the consequences of their actions? I think we can agree that is not a fair comparison although I realize that the mentally ill are often criminalized and do in fact "go down" for their crimes.
Well ... the guy was about to rape a CNA. To me, that's criminal ... which is why I used the criminal comparison with both criminal psych and corrections facilities.
I look at it this way SharonH....if a demented pt kills someone...it is still murder under our society because murder is not right. It is when someone isn't murdered that it becomes a probelm...so then it goes straight to situation!
I didn't harm the pt, although I could have easily done so by pure instinct...I am so proud I didn't! However...if we go around saying demented pts are excused from improper behaviour that risks self and others..aren't we being a little two sided?
It is not an easy answer...too many factors! But I hold a demented pt to the same standards...do not harm self or others! And if they do so it is my job, and the job of security/police to stop the situation..and let the courts choose if it was right, wrong or indifferent! So in essence...my job is straight forward...it is up to the courts to deal with the other aspects....that is NOT my training or scope!
Of course murder is never right but I don't see how you can hold a person with dementia to the same standards as someone who has normal brain functioning. I mean, help me out nurses: isn't the definition of dementia a loss of ability to reason or think whether it be temporary or permanent? If someone has altered brain function which prevents their ability to perform these functions, then no you cannot hold them to the same standard as the rest of us. I would think that medical professionals above all else would understand that. Do I think you should allow yourself to be harmed? Um, heck no. But by the same token, I don't see how people can advocate that the person be "held accountable" which I assume means some sort of criminal prosecution.
If he had dementia, then how could he be held accountable for his actions? Am I going to read arguments that dementia does not excuse someone from not knowing what they were doing?
My question here was whether or not the facility provided extra protection for the staff if this person was proven to be a danger to himself and others. If it was a matter of a facility change or a ward change in order to accomplish that, why is that worthy of a remark which reads as sarcastic? I wasn't gunning for the perpetrator to be locked in a general population of a prison, but it sounded like Triage's facility was investigating *her* actions as being incorrect, as opposed to the person who violated her.
Just as a matter of how I was raised, and the life I lead with my husband as a law enforcement officer, my knee jerk reaction is to think in terms of how dangerous people can be protected from others and themselves. I also, as Motorcycle Mama put it earlier, jump to the defense of law enforcement officers, because I see these men and women doing an even more thankless job than ours. People instinctively trust and like nurses (at least in my experience) - Cops are always on the defensive. Public servants are held to a higher moral standard, and when they act like regular, scared people, they are villified in the media and among word of mouth. And by the way, my husband's IQ is in the 140's (according to his mother..LOL) - he's a street cop because he really loves being out there, and has the hours that allow him to work OT if needed or show up at the kid's school for a picnic in the middle of the day. All of the officers in his department had to either have a batchelors degree or an associates + military service with the contractual obligation to have a Batchelors within three years of hire. Anyone ranking above Sgt. has at least a master's degree. The idea that cops aren't bright is an antiquated notion.
But by the same token, I don't see how people can advocate that the person be "held accountable" which I assume means some sort of criminal prosecution.
So ... do we not prosecute the guy because he has dementia? TriageRN said the facility that was supposed to take him refused after this incident.
Or, do we wait until he actually rapes someone when no one is around to stop it?
I have to say with all the drug addicts in our society and the bizaar behaviour they can exhibit I can understand why not only a police officer finds the need to defend him or herself but, even the average person that a psych patient or drug addited might approach.I work in the field of drug and alcohol addiction and have encounter a person or two high on drugs.I have to say that unless you know the person it would be very difficult to distinguish someone who is high on drugs as opposed to someone who has a psych history and has stopped taking their medication.I will admit that it is a very sad state of affairs for a psych patient.If there were only a way for them to be followed very closely after discharge.
There seems to be a problem with tasers and psych patients. There have been many incidents of death. I wonder if the medications have a potentiating affect of ithe taser. It is an issue that should be investigated. Tasers on the surface, are a better choice to guns.
My question here was whether or not the facility provided extra protection for the staff if this person was proven to be a danger to himself and others. If it was a matter of a facility change or a ward change in order to accomplish that, why is that worthy of a remark which reads as sarcastic? I wasn't gunning for the perpetrator to be locked in a general population of a prison, but it sounded like Triage's facility was investigating *her* actions as being incorrect, as opposed to the person who violated her.
I'm sorry if you read sarcasm in my question. As a matter of fact, it did sound like you were gunning for the perpetrator to be locked up but you meant something else and I understand and accept that.
So ... do we not prosecute the guy because he has dementia? TriageRN said the facility that was supposed to take him refused after this incident.
Or, do we wait until he actually rapes someone when no one is around to stop it?
:typing
If the guy has dementia, then NO we do not prosecute him, I know that sounds dissatisfying but that's the way it should be. And there is no need to wait until he rapes someone. Why must it be either one of the two? It sounds to me like Triage handled the situation fantastically as a matter of fact, but there also seemed to be quite an inadequate response by security in this situation and I think that should be addressed to prevent further assaults on staff.
If the guy has dementia, then NO we do not prosecute him, I know that sounds dissatisfying but that's the way it should be. And there is no need to wait until he rapes someone. Why must it be either one of the two? It sounds to me like Triage handled the situation fantastically as a matter of fact, but there also seemed to be quite an inadequate response by security in this situation and I think that should be addressed to prevent further assaults on staff.
Ok so ... Triage said the facility that was supposed to take him refused because of the attempted rape. Her facility is already overflowing with psych patients who are waiting weeks, if not months, for placement elsewhere.
I'm sure security should be improved but if the facility is already overflowing with patients how realistic is that expectation? Can security be at all places at once with so many patients? And what if the hospital refuses to hire more security (which, in my experience, they often do).
Meanwhile ... we know this guy is a danger, and he will, more than likely, put the staff in danger. Just because Triage handled it well ... does that mean that she or some other nurse should be subject to further assault, molestation and much worse ... again?.
You know ... this is one of the reasons we have a nursing shortage. Triage had to go through an investigation over this, even though she did nothing wrong but defend herself and the CNA. Meanwhile, the system expects her and other nurses to be exposed to this dangerous patient all over again.
The victim of his next crime is probably not going to care if he has dementia or not. They're going to blame the healthcare system for not doing something about this guy when they had the chance. Do you see the absurdity here?
I'm sorry but, at the very least, this patient has to be prosecuted and placed in a criminal psych facility. At a criminal psych facility he will receive treatment but, hopefully, he will also be prevented from harming others. At least the opportunity to harm others will be much more limited.
Very disturbing...one of our frequent psych patients (d/c'd) was picked up by the police. For what, I don't know. But I've never known the guy to assaultive. Agitated at times, yes. Assaultive, no.
Police apparently had him and he got agitated. He was Taser'd a few times and died when he got to our hospital.
This is the fourth time *this year* that police in our area have ended up killing a psych patient. Mostly from Tasering, once from being 'restrained' according to the news.
I just think police need some training on dealing with mentally ill people. This is a crying shame. Mentally ill and agitated is not the same as criminal!
This happens all too often here in the Bay Area fo San Francisco as well.
Sheri257
3,905 Posts
If a patient has dementia, psychoses or whatever ... and they're in a criminal psych facility because they're violent ... the healthcare system says it's not their fault.
BUT, if that same patient is in prison ... there's no excuses. That patient goes down.
So ... which system is right? In both cases the patient is violent, but the approaches are completely different.
If it's my life on the line, I side with law enforcement. Sorry ... I don't want to be beaten, severely injured, raped or, even worse, killed. Which, btw, happens too often in criminal psych facilities.
:typing