[gamblor956]

They never had Reagan, so they still treat mental illness there.

More importantly, Finland allows for the involuntary commitment if the mentally ill. In the US, this is only allowed if the individual presents a danger to themselves or others.

[pjc50]

That's almost what the Finnish system requires: https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/handle/10138/231986/comp...

"The current Finnish Mental Health Act stipulates thefollowing criteria for compulsory admission:

.a person should be found to have a psychotic illness,and

.because of this psychosis, they are

(.in need of psychiatric care as their condition would otherwise worsen [this is the main different criterion], or

.a danger to their own health or welfare, or

.a danger to the health or welfare of others)

.no other mental health services are suitable or adequate

(Finland of course has proper free at the point of use healthcare for all residents, a far more important point for mental health than involuntary commitment.)

[DataWorker]

You can imagine how that’s an artifact of a more socialized health system. Perhaps unintentionally, it would function in many ways as a cost saving feature that would be very difficult to implement in the US system. Think about junkies. Can they be involuntarily committed because their condition would “otherwise worsen”? Imagine the legal implications in a system where hmo and insurers get to influence the decision about who is committed.

[DuskStar]

Or imagine a woman who has children out of wedlock, causing financial distress. Obviously, if she's not institutionalized she'll continue to have children out of wedlock, which will cause her condition to worsen.

And only a mentally ill person would have children out of wedlock, right?

And before you say that that's unrealistic... I'm pretty sure that that exact logic was used to institutionalize people in the US back in the 20s and 30s.

[gamblor956]

The main different condition makes all the difference...

That would describe more than two thirds of the homeless.

[didericis]

My understanding was that many of the institutions that housed and treated mentally ill people were closed in the 70s due to public outcry about mistreatment. The wikipedia article on deinstitutionalization in the US seems to corroborate this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalization_in_th....

It sounds like some institutions were closed after that movement got going, so I wouldn’t be surprised if institutions were closed under the Regan administration, but I think the decline in public mental institutions preceded his administration and was largely unrelated to it.

[gamblor956]

No, the closure of mental institutions occurred during the Reagan administration because he cut funding for treating mental illness from his budget.

In CA, when he was governor, Reagan ordered the closure of many facilities.

[refurb]

No, there was a society-wide push to close institutions. Reagan might make for a nice whipping boy, but putting it all on him is just silly.

[gamblor956]

No, this is false. The number of patients dropped but almost all facilities remained open and were improving care.

Reagan than decimated the mental health department in CA below sustainable levels, and followed that up by ending federal funding of mental health treatment only a few years after trying to make the federal government pay for it when he was governor. As most state budgets no longer covered mental health, the result was an enormous drop in government spending on mental health.

And yes, it's all directly traceable to Reagan.

[3fe9a03ccd14ca5]

It still amazes me that we closed down virtually all mental istitutions in the US, and then we’re surprised to see mentally ill people struggling on the streets?

According to research almost half of the homeless have a mental illness, with about 25% having a very serious one[1].

If you’ve ever been walking down SF you know exactly who that 25% is. They’re on the street and they need an institution not a needle exchange or free boarding.

1. https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/consequences/homeless-mental...

[raxxorrax]

The problem was that a lot of these mental health institutions were filled with dubious psychoanalysts that often worsened the problems of patients. They had to be booted out. Doesn't mean that there is not place for modern forms of mental health care.

[stjohnswarts]

The government shouldn't be able to just walk around pointing fingers trying to put individuals in "therapy". Particularly the sort the is available at minimal budget government facilities.

[AQuantized]

Do you feel that is an accurate characterization of mental health care in non-US countries with different requirements for commitment, like Finland?

[refurb]

They never had Reagan, so they still treat mental illness there.

This Reagan meme needs to die. The ACLU was very involved in "deinstitutionalization" as well since holding people against their will was regarded as problematic.

[gamblor956]

Deinstitutionalization is a very separate issue from closing facilities. The ACLU worked to prevent people from being committed who didn't need to be. Reagan simply shutdown mental health facilities regardless of need.

[Gravityloss]

There was a massive change from institutional care to ambulatory care at the start of the 90:s, coinciding with the severe recession. Basically a big resource cut. I don't think it was ever reversed. (Don't know much about the sector.)

[gamblor956]

Reagan was president in the early 1980s. The closure of most mental health facilities preceded the Bush recession.

[Gravityloss]

I'm talking about Finland.

[CryptoPunk]

The Deinstitutionalization movement started in California, long before Reagan. The reason institutionalization won't return is because of the left not because of people like Reagan.