Olmsted Opinion

[Bunx]

Olmsted Opinion

Hide them from you
for you might find the truth.
Disabilities often have no cure 
we'll lock them up to feel secured. 

Put them away for their delusions.
Fine their families, put them in institutions.
How dare they dream of something more
than the help they can't afford. 

Turn them into problems with a price tag.
Paint them as parasites, take their hope away. 
Invest in their suffering then get paid.
America works in a predatory haze.

Though the truth is,

those who can't feel their legs
will climb the capital if it takes a day.
They can be treated, and be stable
for decades to life if society is able.

Those who tell you to fear
have the most to lose when you choose love.

[dukealien]

I believe you meant "than" on line 8.

Presumably this poem refers to the DOJ memo proposing stricter limits to application of the 1999 Olmstead decision.  Opponents of that proposal  use the word "segregation" a lot - it became kind of a magic this-is-evil label in the 1950s and 1960s, but (it seems to me) does not apply here in that sense of working from prejudice against (in this case) people displaying unusual behavior.

The questions are, what's best for those with whom the people in question come in contact, what's best for the people in question, themselves, and (least important but most difficult) who decides.  Advocates for minimum restraint on the oddly-behaving push the pre-judgment that they're harmless until proven dangerous; those willing to apply greater restraint push the potential for harm to self and others from unexpected or irrational behavior.

If a state obtains responsibility for a person due to odd behavior, it will as a first cut treat the person in accordance with the state's interest - which may involve institutionalization when less restraint would be possible but inconvenient, expensive, or difficult for normal-behaving citizens.  The 1999 Olmstead  decision tried to prioritize the patient's liberty as a value the state must maximize as much as is "appropriate."

My impression, and this is what the new DOJ proposal seems to be addressing, is that the Olmstead decision has been too broadly interpreted - that people who are not suited to community care or independent living have been pushed into those situations because otherwise there will be lawsuits.  The stereotype cases are people who are OK when they take their meds but not when they don't, and the subway pusher/train stabber who is not being handled by criminal courts (for irrelevant reasons) but can't be institutionalized, either, on account of broad Olmstead interpretation so keeps hurting other people.

Those may be minor issues numerically, but very serious for the people involved.  Since these things keep happening and Olmstead is implicated, DOJ may have a point.

[Bunx]

Hey Duke, I was thinking about titling this poem "Them" but thought it would be interesting to change the title to what inspired the writing. The legal analyses I've seen whether they're right or not ague that the recent legal opinion could open the door to a higher rate of forceful long-term institutionalization base on any number of factors. How that opinion could be implemented is really up to the state government to interpret and implement. I have researched the case and think the original ruling strengthens disability rights.

The example you use is interesting, I'd love to see the specifics. In my state (MT) you can't even use mental health as a legal defense, or call a crisis team to help a individual without their consent.

I think I'll change the title regardless not be overtly political

[milo]

Hey Duke, I was thinking about titling this poem "Them" but thought it would be interesting to change the title to what inspired the writing. The legal analyses I've seen whether they're right or not ague that the recent legal opinion could open the door to a higher rate of forceful long-term institutionalization base on any number of factors. How that opinion could be implemented is really up to the state government to interpret and implement. I have researched the case and think the original ruling strengthens disability rights.

The example you use is interesting, I'd love to see the specifics. In my state (MT) you can't even use mental health as a legal defense, or call a crisis team to help a individual without their consent.

I think I'll change the title regardless not be overtly political

I actually prefer the original title - don't be afraid to be political

[dukealien]

(snip)

I think I'll change the title regardless not be overtly political

I actually prefer the original title - don't be afraid to be political

I'm in two minds (groan) about the title.  I had to look up Olmstead to get the reference, but "Them" eliminates useful specificity.

Further thoughts:  the central problem is definitional - that is, some pretend they can't define normal behavior, but the real issue is the specific nature of the abnormal behavior.  Yes, everyone's a little crazy, there but for God's grace go I, but outside the normal envelope there's a whole universe of vectors... willed or not, dangerous, vulnerable, at-risk, organic, genetic, delusional.  And emphasis on one axis (vulnerable/dangerous) ignores all the others.  As in medicine, everyone's the same but everyone's also different.

I'd see the first boundary or dimension to consider as can't behave/won't behave.  Szaszians, of which I'm basically one, are prejudiced toward won't-behave.  This makes sympathy harder to achieve, but not impossible.

[Michael Anon]

"Those who tell you to fear
have the most to lose when you choose love."

These are the most powerful lines in the poem also because they are in the clearest language and register. Good poetic style rescues prose argument.

My advice is to be guided by those lines and avoid the vague use of the words like "they" and "them" even though they have a rhetorical appeal because general moral statements carry less weight than precise contextual ones. Maybe you simply need a stronger narrative about for example the experience of being "without legs".  

What do you think?

Them

Hide them from you
for you might find the truth.
Disabilities often have no cure 
we'll lock them up to feel secured. 

Put them away for their delusions.
Fine their families, put them in institutions.
How dare they dream of something more
than the help they can't afford. 

Turn them into problems with a price tag.
Paint them as parasites, take their hope away. 
Invest in their suffering then get paid.
America works in a predatory haze.

Though the truth is,

those who can't feel their legs
will climb the capital if it takes a day.
They can be treated, and be stable
for decades to life if society is able.

Those who tell you to fear
have the most to lose when you choose love.

[busker]

Them

Hide them from you
for you might find the truth.
Disabilities often have no cure 
we'll lock them up to feel secured. 

Put them away for their delusions.
Fine their families, put them in institutions.
How dare they dream of something more
than the help they can't afford. 

Turn them into problems with a price tag.
Paint them as parasites, take their hope away. 
Invest in their suffering then get paid.
America works in a predatory haze.

Though the truth is,
those who can't feel their legs
will climb the capital if it takes a day.

They can be treated, and be stable
for decades to life if society is able.

Those who tell you to fear
have the most to lose when you choose love.

I like “Turn them into problems with a price tag.”
I don’t think I’ve heard that expression before.

I got a bit confused with the subject sometimes as “you” and at other times a “them.

The theme is certainly quite topical. We’re grappling with how the government can fund a disability insurance scheme in this part of the world.

[Bunx]

Hey Busker thanks for the read and reply,
You refers to the reader or someone who is neuro-typical. Them refers to someone deemed disabled physical or  intellectual.

Michael- I might try and edit this further though I have to admit writing this was a response too the Olmsted Opinion. I use "they / them" to create distance from disabled demographic in question. My hope is that the reader feels empowered to help those who need assistance seeing them as worthy of love, family, and support. The last few stanzas turns the table suggesting a society that would rather hide those with disabilities is "stunted by fear". These topics are complicated, but I do believe people disabled or not deserve a chance at family and love.

Duke- thanks for the thoughtful feedback. These issues are complex and  there are dangerous people out there (many of whom have a diagnosis) that should definitely be supervised or institutionalized. I was hoping the original title would voice the argument for those who are disabled and don't poise a threat to others while accepting treatment. I feel like the mental health issues in America have a long way to go, issues that directly deal with crime, enforcement, stigma, care capacity and access.

My opinion is that the fight for preventative treatment advancement, humane descalation, and accessable timely care access would be in societies best interest.

Milo- I agree with you. I think changing the title back to original would better serve the poem.