Multiplicity

Keep in mind that every person is different and possibly he was concerned for your friend's safety... You can't be locked up just because you're multiple or have voices... you have to demonstrate some sort of self harming behaviour or behaviour that could harm others in order to get locked up so if you feel you can trust your psychiatrist then go for it:)

From:

This is not true in the case of people under 18. In many states (presuming you're in the US), parents have the ability to commit underage children without any kind of judicial proceedings. They do not have to display self-harming or violent behavior in order to be institutionalized-- they just need the word of someone who says they should be locked up. In the case of adolescents, this is done far more often than most people think on the basis of family disputes-- the parents find the child troublesome to have around, and simply arrange with the authorities to have him/her 'taken off their hands.' This happened to a family member of ours; I suspect the only reason it didn't happen to us was because we expended a lot of energy trying deliberately to cover anything that might be seen as 'crazy behavior.'

Some doctors have also been known to press institutionalization on children and adolescents (and adults) due to the insurance benefits-- for instance, diagnosing people with schizophrenia because their insurance company will pay more for a diagnosis of schizophrenia than for depression or anxiety. (A certain amount of MPD diagnoses a few decades ago, when it was considered a diagnostic 'fad,' were due to insurance fraud.)

Additionally, even in many adult cases, sometimes just the act of *talking* about sometimes wanting to harm yourself or hurt others is considered a sufficient pretext. You don't have to *demonstrate* the behavior-- you just have to have someone *believe* that you might harm yourselves or others, or to claim you might; for instance, "he might be dangerous" has been used as a way of getting homeless people "off the street" by putting them in psychiatric wards.

From:

You're right... I was way too general in my reply. As an adult I often forget that the juvenile system is different and in many cases as you pointed out can be used for the parents convenience rather than the child's health. And you're also right about talking versus demonstrating behaviour... I myself have been hospitalized based on what I said rather than what I did, although in my case it was a good thing:)
thanks for the really well put clarification and correction!

From:

No problem. I thought the original poster ought to know because she said she (the body, anyway) was 16. :)

-B

From:

Wrong...Parents cannot lock a kid up just because they feel like it. The person has to be an immenet risk to themselves or others or their condition is such that they will deteroiate signifigantly without treatment.

From:

Just on a side note... when I was 16 I was placed in an adolescent psych ward for 6 weeks, signed in by my mother, because I was "causing trouble"... I think it really depends on the parents, the doctors, the hospital and how the kid presents...

From:

I hear what you are saying. I did time time at a psyche hospital from age 13-17 1/2. What were you doing that was "causing trouble?" A parent cannot just take a child to a shrink and say, "Put them away" If a shrink does that without any evidence that you may be at risk of harming yourself/someone else or your condition worsening, is bad ethics. If anything the law falls on the side of the child. Did he question your mother or what was going on that was distressing to you? When you were signed in your parents would have had to go to probate court.

From:

I was taken to the emergency room after running away... I told the police what was going on in my house and THEY sided with my mom. I did end up going to court and my mom signed over custody of me to the state... basically I was causing trouble by speaking out. Also, the laws have changed a lot... this was 16 years ago!

From:

OK... i dont know what happened to my original reply but I will try to reiterate what I said.... darn LJ's been eating my posts!
Basically I ran away from home so I could tell someone what was going on in my house. I ran TO someone I knew and they called my mom and she said to take me to the hospital. When I got there my mom fed them some story about MY behaviour and when I was given the chance to talk, she was in the room so it wasn't until a week later that I finally told someone why I ran. Eventually we did go to court and my mom signed me over to the state so I could live in a group home for older teens, one that was mainly for abused kids. So I was eventually believed but initially I was locked up cus I was the troublemaker.

From:

Wow that sucks ass. I'm sorry that happened to you. Unfortunately running away is seen as dangerous behaviour and grounds to get a child locked up, until, a court hearing or released to their parents. Yeah it sucks but as a juvie that's how it goes.

From:

"In many states, a minor may be hospitalized at the initiative of a parent or guardian, without the consent of the minor and without judicial review." (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3882/is_200401/ai_n9383805) The 1979 Parham v. J.R. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=442&invol=584) decision reversed a federal district court ruling that Georgia's commitment laws for adolescents deprived them of due process.

The laws do vary from state to state-- for instance, in Florida, in order for a minor to be admitted to an institution on voluntary status, he or she must consent to the admission which their guardian applied for-- and some states (such as California) have differing laws for admission to public versus private institutions.

In many states, however, risk of harming self/others is not a necessary condition for the institutionalization of a minor-- for instance, in New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina. In New York, the only criterion required is that the adult applying for the minor's admission must understand that the child is being admitted to a psychiatric facility.

From:

Yes it does vary from state to state, hence Federal laws and state laws.

From:

ksol1460.livejournal.com

Oh, yes, they can, and they do it all the time. Kids can be locked up on any pretext whatsoever, and thanks to the Supreme Court decision in Parham vs JR, they have no legal recourse whatsoever.

Of course, there has to be an excuse, and this is where the diagnoses come in; "reactive problem of childhood", "oppositional defiant disorder", etc., etc. The shrink knows what is really going on, and so do the parents, but the official word has to be that the kid is a risk to self or others or will deteriorate without treatment (mind control, physical and emotional abuse, drugs, and electroshock, among other things).

Children have been locked up for everything from wearing pentagrams or spraypainting graffiti to being gay or getting bad grades. It's for his own good, after all!

From:

That was my point, that there has to be a stated reason, or excuse in your terms.

From:

Dude. Your country smells :P

Here jumping around and saying "HEY I'M SUICIDAL" won't even get you an in patient place. I know, I tried :P you have to like, actually make a very serious attempt to off yourself. Parents get stared at in a patronising fashion if they say you should be committed :P

From:

pengke.livejournal.com

That has more to do with how health care is funded than with the quality of the country/care. It's pretty easy to hospitalise someone if they have a liberal insurance policy or if they're rich enough to pay for themselves. For the majority, it's closer to your experience.

From:

Hrm. It certainly seems to have something to do with the *morals* of the system. Locking somebody up just because you can is a bit 'tarded, as well as outright sick.

(deleted comment)

From:

Yeah I tried to specially word what I was saying to avoid that in particular, because I know that having the option of committing yourself isn't strictly speaking a bad thing.

I was more speaking of how crap it is that if parents have too much money they can just lock their kids up. *that* is sick I think :(

From:

saturniakitty.livejournal.com

I think you should get a new therapist!

From:

ques-nova.livejournal.com

Yeah *points up* what they said...

From:

What are you seeing Dr. C for? Tell your mother that you want a different psychiatrist because you don't like his attitude towards patients-- that he's condescending, or doesn't like women, or is more willing to just throw pills at people than actually discuss their problems with them. It doesn't matter if he actually *does* any of those things (though they all sound likely if he's the type of person who advocates institutionalization on small pretexts)-- just give her a believable reason why he isn't someone you can work with.

From:

atrypical.livejournal.com

That wouldn't be true, because Dr. C is a woman.

From:

There are misogynistic female psychiatrists and doctors, actually-- we've run across a few.

But the sexism argument probably won't fly, then; okay. Would it be enough to say that Dr. C makes you feel uncomfortable, or patronizes you, and you don't want to work with her?

From:

faeriesxexist.livejournal.com

Do you, on the whole, feel comfortable with Dr. C? If so, there should not be a problem.

If not, and if your comfort with the doctor should ever change, seek a new therapist immediately. It is very important you feel comfortable with your therapist. It is entirely possible that your friend said or did some things to cause concern in Dr. C's eyes. It is equally possible that Dr. C does not understand (nor, possibly, care to) how one can be a functional multiple.

If it does come to changing therapists, it should be enough to the body's guardians that you do not feel comfortable with the therapist. However, I am a bit optimistic when it comes to parental units. (My Host is not so optimistic...)

Best of luck to you, and do remember: you do not have to tell Dr. C anything you do not feel comfortable telling him/her.

From:

atrypical.livejournal.com

We're not comfortable with her at all.

The thing is, we just switched to her about six months ago, and we don't want to cause trouble for our mother and make our dad furious by fucking up the insurance thing.

From:

Tell them, and if they suggest you should be locked up, point out that that is only their opinion and that you would like to see another doctor.

also, unless said voices are like "HAHAHA I BLOW PEOPLE UP YAY BLOOD", Dr. C is being highly unprofessional. Or just mentally retarded.

From:

echoesnspectres.livejournal.com

Or just mentally retarded.

Um. Excuse me. Stupid isn't the same thing as mentally retarded.

It's like saying about a two-faced liar that they have a "split personality".

From:

Good point! "nough said.

From:

Wow, touchy about it much.

IMO people who act like Dr. C DO have mental problems. I think that goes beyond being 'stupid'. Whether 'retarded' was the right word choice is up for debate, but do feel free to substitute 'delusional' or whatever else might fit.

From:

echoesnspectres.livejournal.com

Wow, assuming states of mind much. :-) No-one is mad at you; it was just to point out that what you intended as an insult to the psychiatrist was really an insult to mentally disabled people.

IMO people who act like Dr. C DO have mental problems. I think that goes beyond being 'stupid'.

I see your point; we've certainly met some "professionals" whose mental health seemed... highly compromised. It's as if being a psychiatrist puts one at risk for a special type of mental problem (http://isnt.autistics.org/dsn-psy.html). At the same time, there remains a factor of responsibility; unless "voices" cause serious problems, Dr. C. ought to know better than to want to lock someone up for having them. That's what I meant by "stupid".

From:

It's only an insult if taken as such. Peeps like pengke can vouch for me being sensitive to certain terminology, but I wouldn't care if somebody on my FList referred to something as "gay", because I am well aware that they do not intentionally or otherwise mean it as an insult to gay people. the usage of the word has simpley evolved.

As such I wouldn't expect anybody to care about my use of the term mentally retarded unless they had issues with it.

(half the time I think you have to be closed minded and mentally disabled to be a shrink, I really do. eh.)

From:

echoesnspectres.livejournal.com

Well, I understand you meant something like "having mental problems" or "delusional"; interestingly, it seems that the official validity of the latter term would depend on how many people in the surrounding culture shared the psychiatrist's belief that hearing voices is a good reason for being institutionalized... But yes, delusional, and a danger to others. Literally.

What I have issues with - or take issue with, rather - is the metaphorical use of language related to disabilities (things people can't help) to indicate various harmful attitudes (which they can help); such as calling a bureaucratic organization which systematically refuses to see the obvious "autistic". This enforces the already pervasive (but mostly implicit) belief that disabled people are somehow evil and/or responsible for being disabled and/or difficulties resulting from being disabled.

Concerning the use of "mentally retarded" as an equivalent for "stupid-and-ought-to-know-better" (which wasn't the case here, but does happen), I don't think the term has (d)evolved enough to make it harmless; it's still known (and used by some people) as something technical, unlike "idiot", for instance.

Also, there's a value judgement connected not so much with the term, but with the concept (which is why it doesn't disappear when people change the terms). Many people are extremely angry when [they think] someone mistakes them for being mentally disabled, even if the person [they believe is] doing so doesn't patronize them. That's one sign that it isn't a neutral concept in most people's minds.

I don't think "gay" is much of a parallel at all, for several reasons, but I'm going to stop now.

From:

Taking into account that I never meant to literally call him mentally retarded and I thought that was pretty clear:

You *do* have a point, and I *did* see it coming, and I *do* think the fault for being offended in this case and cases like it lies a lot with the person being offended.

If it's wrong to use one label (retarded) then I don't see why it shouldn't be wrong to use another label (gay), as both usages would 'continue the mindset that x label is bad'. Except that while some people are and always will be (I nearly said retarded lol) enough to think gay/retarded/autistic people are nasty and sick, a lot of the people using the terms have nothing against those individuals. I don't find the use of any of the terms to be a problem unless it is clear that the person is using the term because they are either uneducated and feel the term applies, or because they are causing offense and happy about it.

Gay is still known and used, many terms are. But retarded (and other terms) have been in circulation since my childhood and before, so I think the usage has been evolved for a goodly while. That it's still used in a technical fashion is irrelevant to someone like me because I am aware, generally, of that people aren't using it in an even vaguely technical sense so it is *not* an insult towards mentally disabled people.

I have never heard of 'autstic' being used as an insult before, but hey if it was used as a term for 'stupid' by someone who was clearly aware of that the person *wasn't* autistic then TBH I wouldn't hold it against them, regardless of how I personally get diagnosed.

I'm sure some stuff is offensive. When I was younger it was common to call someone a spazz or a mongo and make demeaning gestures. And I'm sure the people who did it wouldn't think twice about doing it to someone who *was* disabled. *that* is different. Maybe you don't think so, but I do, and I don't have a problem with using such terminology, just like I don't have a problem with cussing regadless of who doesn't like it ;)

But I wouldn't laugh at a retard, calling them a retard, and I wouldn't cuss my granny ;)

I'm babbling and really not sure I got what I mean across because it's a mindset more than anything else.

From: