Wikipedia is not a source, it is a warehouse of information, of links to potential sources. Regardless, it is a distraction.
The article you provided from Alexandar Thomas actually affirms my assertions, does not dispute it. Allow me to pose some excerpts from that very same article, which you provided, to affirm every argument I posed. Here we go:
"Growing Discontent
The fight over involuntary commitment during the 1980s was in some ways separate from the Reagan agenda. But it was fortuitous since it coincided with the administration's desire to dismantle the liberal era reforms. However to understand why groups made committment an issue in the 1980s, we have to take a step back and look at reforms that occurred during the 1960s.
During the early 1960s a series of initiatives designed to reform the mental health system were passed. At issue was the system of state run hospitals for the mentally ill, which were increasingly perceived as inhumane and, with the help of new medications, rather unnecessary for large portions of the patient population. In 1961, the Joint Commission on Mental Illness released Action for Mental Health, calling for the integration of the mentally ill into the general public with the aid of Community Mental Health Centers. In 1963, the Mental ation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers instituted the centers, but due to the financial drain of the Vietnam War during the 1960s and the financial crisis of the 1970s, the program was not fully funded. 1 The result was the release of patients into an environment lacking the Community Mental Health Centers to adequately treat them (Becker and Schulberg, 1976; DeLeonardis and Mauri, 1992; Hollingsworth, 1994; Rachlin, 1974; Rachlin et al, 1975; Saathoff et al, 1992; Shwed, 1978, 1980; Talbott, 1992; Worley and Lowery, 1988; ). ~
http://sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas_d.html
All of this affirms my statement that the breakdown on institutionalization started
before Governor Reagan entered into office
(1967, years before many of the issues posed above). Now, at this point I must make it abundantly clear that I have no love for Reagan and am not a neo-concervative or Republican. I am not trying to defend him, I'm just pointing out that this blame game is inaccurate. There are plenty of things he did I am not okay with, but it's important not to fall into the trap of blaming him for things that were, for the most part, instituted because of public demand prior to his entry into office, and not merely extreme fiscal policies he later instituted.
"the administration did not, and perhaps could not, act in isolation and without public support. But they didn't have to. By the middle of the 1970s, there was a consensus among interested groups that reform of the Mental Health Care System was necessary. Lobbying on the part of special interest groups and a commitment on the part of President Jimmy Carter led to passage of the Mental Health Systems Act.
With the planned transfer of responsibility for the mentally ill to the states, reformers needed to build coalitions of fiscal conservatives concerned with the cost of social programs; "law and order" Republicans concerned with crime; and those who dealt with the mentally ill who, in the absence of more comprehensive reform, sought more limited alternatives (Becker, 1993). Within this context, statutes and procedures dealing with involuntary commitment of the mentally ill were attractive. Easing standards cost relatively little, allowed the Administration to claim action simultaneously on mental health care policy, crime, and homelessness, and appeased health care providers and families of the mentally ill." ~
http://sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas_d.html
"By the start of the Carter administration in 1977, involuntary commitment had been restricted to those who were deemed as potentially dangerous to themselves or, perhaps more significantly, those around them. 2 Typically, the commitment had to be sponsored by a family member and/or ordered by the court. A result of this policy was that the mentally ill patient who refused treatment typically did not receive any at all. If the patient had lost contact with family members, she or he would not be committed unless found to be a threat by the court. Often, those arrested ended up in jail rather than in treatment if they had not been found to be a threat but had committed a crime (Abramson, 1972; Conrad and Schneider, 1980). One result was a high degree of stress and frustration experienced by the relatives of the patient. Throughout the 1970s, family members organized with the purpose of correcting a policy that they perceived was wrong.
Professional organizations also joined the backlash against the liberal era reforms of commitment regulations. One obvious reason for this is self-interest. When some mentally ill patients do not receive treatment, mental health professionals have lost (or never gained) a potential client. These professionals as a group have much to gain in terms of patients and income if the laws governing involuntary commitment are expanded to include those patients who refuse help but do not pose a serious threat to themselves or the people around them.
Perhaps more important than self-interest is the burden that deinstitutionalization put on mental health practitioners. Time spent in court took away time spent with patients. Moreover, the medical profession saw themselves as being second-guessed by others outside the medical community: lawyers, judges, policy makers, etc. The treatments that psychiatrists and psychologists viewed as necessary for the well being of the patient often could not be applied because of the legal rights of the patient. Involuntary commitment would force those who needed care into the hospitals and force patients to keep appointments and take medication. Without commitment, these things were more difficult for the practitioners (La Fond and Durham, 1992, 112-13).
Critics of Community Mental Health charged that in the rush to shrink the state hospital population, many patients were released prematurely (Robitscher, 1976; Yarvis et al, 1978 ). Some patients went off their medications after being released into the community. The criteria of "dangerousness" for civil commitment also meant that some patients who needed treatment but were not a danger could not be committed. As a result, patients whose behavior was considered odd by the community in which they lived were increasingly arrested for bothersome and minor infractions such as vagrancy. These individuals were thus detained in the criminal justice system rather than the mental health system (Abramson, 1972; Conrad and Schneider, 1980)." ~
http://sociology.org/content/vol003.004/thomas_d.html
To continue with what was presented above by the article you provided, shortly after Reagan entered into Presidency, he marginalized the 1980 Mental Health Systems Act that was previously placed into effect by President Carter (
click here) . This was, in no uncertain terms, unconscionable and it is this and other actions that demonstrate Reagan was a pissant. But, as I stated previously, this was when he became the U.S. President. His actions as a Governor were largely reactive and due to actions imposed by patients rights advocacy groups and the ACLU.
Now, I requested you review the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, which it is clear you did not. It addresses your arguments regarding Governor Reagan and his policies imposed at that time, effectively disputing your claims. I provide to you an excerpt from the LPS Act:
"5001. The provisions of this part shall be construed to promote the legislative intent as follows:
(a) To end the inappropriate, indefinite, and involuntary commitment of mentally disordered persons, developmentally disabled persons, and persons impaired by chronic alcoholism, and to eliminate legal disabilities;
(b) To provide prompt evaluation and treatment of persons with serious mental disorders or impaired by chronic alcoholism;
(c) To guarantee and protect public safety;
(d) To safeguard individual rights through judicial review;
(e) To provide individualized treatment, supervision, and placement services by a conservatorship program for gravely disabled persons;
(f) To encourage the full use of all existing agencies, professional personnel and public funds to accomplish these
objectives and to prevent duplication of services and unnecessary expenditures;
(g) To protect mentally disordered persons and developmentally disabled persons from criminal acts." ~ Part 1, Chapter 1, General Provisions: The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (
click here)
The goals were honorable, and they were imposed upon the State of California (through California State Assemblyman Frank Lanterman (R), California State Senator Nicholas C. Petris (D), and California State Senator Alan Short (D)) by public interest groups, patient advocacy and the ACLU, and signed into effect by Governor Reagan. De-institutionalization and patient rights, those were the goals. The intent was to bring patients out of medical warehouses and into care homes, to humanize them.
The result wasn't quite as effective, largely due to the judicial involvement associated with such and that "private" institutions provided no greater assurances for patient care than State or Federal care. The benefit for the government, however, was less lawsuits directed their way. It is disputed whether there was any actual savings. But the point made here was that it was this Act and previous decisions that resulted in the eventual task reassignment of State
(and later Federal) mental health hospitals that previously served as warehouses for psych patients. These hospitals were a bad idea from a bygone era that were long overdue for closure.
But, Reagan didn't "close" these facilities outright. This is the false sell that I seem to be having difficulty communicating to you. They were closed because they no longer housed patients, due to patients having obtained "rights" and because the structure of those hospitals were not geared to stabilization for reentry into society, instead serving to house, to incarcerate. The changes imposed, by the LPS Act, in addition to prior decisions and later decisions, made such hospitals obsolete. Unless of course you are arguing that psych patients
should be incarcerated, in which case by all means keep fighting the good fight in this debate. Of course, you don't need my participation for that. hehe
So here it is, I yet again corrected your correction. Should we continue this dance or will you let this drop to focus on the topic of this issue?
If money can not buy happiness... THEN RENT IT!!!!