I have only just now been able to read the thread on the other board detailing Pam's history.

This makes me so mad. The reason this woman is living on the streets is because a few decades ago some bleeding heart liberals decided that people who can't make decisions for themselves should be allowed the freedom to make decisions for themselves.

Many people with mental disorders are {i]fine, productive memebers of society so long as they take their medication[/i]. Unfortunately, too many of them look at their medication as a cure as opposed to a treatment. They start to feel okay and then decide they do not need to take it anymore. Years and years ago the courts could compel them to take their medication. Not so anymore, they have the "right" to be sick.

As a result, the streets and homeless shelters are full of "Pams". Being a libertarian, I am all for personal rights, but I am also practical enough to know that not everyone can judge what rights they should and can claim. We don't allow 9 year olds to drive and we shouldn't allow a mentally ill person who cannot function without medication and who becomes a burden on society without medication to decide whether or not they need medication. I certainly am not advocating the courts to decide what medical treatment is warranted for people who can make their own decisions. If I want to stop taking my insulin and die, that's my business. But if my not taking my medication, instead of causing me to die, causes me to lose sight of the fact that I need medication at all, and causes me to not be able to support myself, and causes me to not be able to manage my affairs, I would pray to God that someone would be compelled by law to force me to take it!

Along with deciding that people have a right to choose to become dependent on society, it was also made harder to hospitalize someone against their will. Pam has to either admit herself or be an immediate physical threat to herself or another human being. Of course, without treatment she doesn't have the capability to realize that she even needs treatment, so she's not likely to seek it.

Advocates for the homeless are usually quick to point out that homeless problem was nearly nonexistent until the mental hospitals started discharging their patients because the courts were losing the power to keep them hospitalized. Some people estimate that as many as 90% of the homeless people require treatment for drug abuse, alcoholism, or mental disease. My personal theory is that there are two types of homeless: regular folks caught in a temporary bind who are back on their feet shortly, and the Pams of the world, who spend the rest of their lives on the streets or going from temporary shelter to temporary shelter.

Also, so many people don't realize that all shelters are temporary. Many are only open at night, all have a very short maximum stay, usually 30 days or less. Even if Pam sought and received treatment, it would be impossible for her improve via her therapy, sort herself out, get a job, and save up the $1000 or so bucks it takes to get an apartment these days in 30 days. Almost all the homeless programs offer short-term fixes designed to take the place of a long-term solution.

Even the programs that have the resources to get Pam into an apartment are still not allowed to force her to take her medication. Thus, she is moved in courtesy of the taxpayer or charity donor and within months is once again on the street. Is that really a good use of resources? It would be a wonderful use of resources if someone could MAKE her take her pills everyday, then she would be self-sufficient in a matter of months, instead of right back where she started.

Anyway, I'm on a soapbox, and I'm rambling, and none of this helps poor Pam today. It just makes me so mad that a few liberals can make such vast changes to society and never have any accountability when the consequences become so dire.