Mental Health Database?

[hakujinbakasama]

The following is directed primarily to United States Citizens.

**warning**
While this subject does have ties to gun control, that subject is being discussed else where. While GC is a part of a supporting list it is not the discussion.


Coming off the heels of Boston as well as Newton, I'm wondering if the vote was given to the populace, how would you vote for a Mental Health Database?

There has been a great deal of attachment to the idea of a MHD for a while no due to the mass shootings, terror attacks, or even exposed mass violence plots. What bothers me personally is that a lot of "average" people seem to support this idea/measure, as it claims to "be possible in preventing further violence."

Now, IF YOU AGREE TO SUCH A MEASURE... I really hope you read the rest of this post and my concerns or potential issues are something you've thought about.



The dominate issue which circles in my head would be the legality of such a database. It comes to my mind that such a collection of data would inherently violate Doctor Patient Confidentiality in some way. If someone is depressed or having problems and seeks out mental health from a professional, the only legal right said person has to disclose any information shared is if a crime has occurred or they believe a crime will occur.

But, as example, lets say I'm really depressed because my Uncle just died and my girl friend broke up with me. It happens... to a lot of people I'd assume. I decide I need to go speak to someone about it all because I'm having a really hard time getting up in the morning and dealing with the day to day trivial bullshit, as it were. Well... what happens if that "professional" I see says "You're depressed." Would I go on a list somewhere as a potential threat risk? What level or degree of "mental illness" would we qualify as being "watch" worthy?

Further more, how long should I be on that list? What is the reasonable time in which I could/should be taken off that list? I mean, does the mental health professionals of the world all diagnose the same? (The answer is completely NO btw.) What happens if someone is diagnosed with bi-polar instead of A.D.D.? (Which happens far too often)

Also, if we should catalog people based on "potential" threat issues, should we do the same with people who have or previously contracted an STD into a database to be tracked? Due to the Freedom of Information Act wouldn't all of this information be publicly accessible?

In the end, a lot of reality gets blurred into "nice language." While I agree that something needs to be done about mental health in the United States, I'm not confidant that those proposing or supporting the movement is really thinking about the details and how it can effect even the most basic of situations or at what level such a logic could be taken and expounded.

[Rukentuts]

Doctors can already report those that they believe are an imminent threat of hurting others.

[hakujinbakasama]

Doctors can already report those that they believe are an imminent threat of hurting others.

or better put "public safety is in danger." The issue is that someone being "crazy" (completely scientific term) doesn't automatically mean imminent danger. Again, they would have to say something which would lead to that. However, that's (as far as I can tell) not the fine print which is being expressed by legislators.

Also, we don't have laws or a system to force a mental health screening just because we think someone is weird.