See above.
Spoilers Star Trek: Picard 2x09 - "Hide and Seek"
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
"When they are a danger to themselves" -> Please elaborate on the ethical way to determine whether this situation actually is on hand.
I think it’s pretty safe to say that locking someone in a room by themselves is pretty appalling even in our century, much less the 24th. She really just needs constant supervision. An Emergency Don’t Hang Yourself Hologram should just be following her around to make sure.
On hand?
I think it might have worked better if they made Guias Picard’s character a little more flawed. Like if he didn’t really give a crap about Yvette and just locked her in her room so he wouldn’t have to deal with her. Instead they make it seem like locking her in her room is the right move which might make sense in the 18th century but is insane in the 24th century.
“Humanity has evolved, we eliminated war, poverty, hunger, we are amazing”
“Do you still lock crazy people in their rooms by themselves against their will?”
“…”
“Humanity has evolved, we eliminated war, poverty, hunger, we are amazing”
“Do you still lock crazy people in their rooms by themselves against their will?”
“…”
Plan, intent, means, and willingness to do it us the first step. Second is are they willing to contract for safety. If not are they willing to use social supports, resources or professionals to ensure safety. If not, are they willing to go voluntarily to the inpatient unit. If not, then the counselor contacts the legally appointed responder to evaluate if the person is to be admitted involuntarily. The counselor does not make that determination.
This is how it functions in the state I practice in. Other laws may vary by location.
Forcing treatment is far more humane. "It's for your own good."
I think my issue with the series so far is that they've got too much going on. Like I wish they had picked on one or two of the villains and concentrated on them and their motivations rather than having what three all doing different stuff at the same time, it's the same with the themes. Or if they wanted to pick up all those things box everything into separate episodes. Season 2, seems to be at it's best early on when they had one thing to deal with per episode. They haven't fleshed out Q at all or really dealt with Soong's daughter at all. To be honest even though he's had more screen time, Soong feels very one dimensional. Although at the same time it seems like the amount of things that have actually happened could have been condensed down into a couple of episodes, and a lot of the plot threads didn't really go anywhere, so there just doesn't feel like there's any stakes. While I'm moaning I might as well mention that the characters motivations don't seem well thought out. Why did the Borg Queen decide it was best to leave earth and set things up for the confederation to form before trying to take on humanity when she could have just called the collective al la First Contact. Also Rios hasn't really done anything useful for the entire series, but basically been used for heavy handed "look at how bad these things are" scenes that don't further the plot. I'm not saying they can't have political messaging but it should be integral to the plot.
I agree that they inadvertently evoked the trope of the put-upon reasonable man who must use force against a hysterical woman for her own good. But, I do think they still made it clear Maurice was emotionally abusive. I mean, we literally never see him actually talk to Jean-Luc in any of these flashbacks.
Also, it's kind of disrespectful to James Callis as an actor to refer to his character as "Gaius Picard." Maurice and Baltar are completely different characters and he plays them very differently. Whatever I may think about that trope, Callis deserves credit for his performance.
Now: Which counselor? Seems that you seem to say if you want to determine whether someone is a danger to themselves, the first step is to call a counselor.
Very good idea. I absolutely agree. Not surprisingly, sending in a counselor was the thing I suggested in the first place. Thanks for agreeing with my original post after you had named it unethical before you thought through the process.
I never said anything about forcing treatment. I said she needs constant supervision.
The counselor doesn't involuntarily treat them.Now: Which counselor? Seems that you seem to say if you want to determine whether someone is a danger to themselves, the first step is to call a counselor.
Very good idea. I absolutely agree. Not surprisingly, sending in a counselor was the thing I suggested in the first place. Thanks for agreeing with my original post after you had named it unethical before you thought through the process.
Yeah, "involuntary treatment" came from you, not from me.
If you're that interested check out this site ...
https://mentalillnesspolicy.org/national-studies/state-standards-involuntary-treatment.html#:~:text=REV.-,STAT.,harm upon his own person.
You need to be aware that just about every State (and most Country's) have their own clinical and/or judicial definition of the subject matter and often times don't even follow them.
There is no ONE Golden Rule.
If they are not my client I am not assessing them.
I mean, his wife committed suicide as a direct result. We don't need to be told Maurice's idea was moronic.
Thank you very much for the background information.
To be honest, I put the question to see that fireproof78 and I are actually having the same idea of how this procedure works, mainly that this decision has to be made by a professional which means that we need a counselor (or other professional) here!
But still, the linked information is always welcome, because it is good to stay well informed about it.
