Former Expo closers don't have a good mental health record.

Well, we should have known just by looking at his hat.

Presuming Wetteland gets help and is not too far gone, this could be a good story in the end. So many people (probably most people) with severe mental illness either end up committing suicide or harming someone else. And of course, when someone is really off his rocker and the patient's family and psychiatrist believes he might be dangerous, our stupid civil liberties laws force us to wait until he actually kills someone or himself or he commits some crazed crime before his liberties are taken away. The end result of that inaction is cases like the mass tragedy at Va. Tech or the recent case at UCLA. The answer is to forget civil liberties for severely mentally ill people. They don't have control of their faculties. Society owes it to them, just like it owes children, to care for them, as long as they are deranged. Locking up mentally ill people and letting them live on the streets is utter, libertarian madness.

At least he sought help unlike Robert Enke, the German national goalkeeper who killed himseld a couple of days ago.

IIRC, Wetteland retired at a young age when he still was clearly a MLB-caliber pitcher. It seemed strange at the time; perhaps now it is less curious.

What kind of police department wears argyle?

IIRC, Wetteland retired at a young age when he still was clearly a MLB-caliber pitcher. It seemed strange at the time; perhaps now it is less curious.

And wasn't he fired from the Nationals for excessive tomfoolery while in the bullpen?

He had that "closer mentality."

IIRC, Wetteland retired at a young age when he still was clearly a MLB-caliber pitcher. It seemed strange at the time; perhaps now it is less curious.

He had surgery before 1999 and lost his fastball. He wasn't really very good after that.

when someone is really off his rocker and the patient's family and psychiatrist believes he might be dangerous, our stupid civil liberties laws force us to wait until he actually kills someone or himself or he commits some crazed crime before his liberties are taken away

FWIW, there is a federal law known as the "Tarasoff" law that allows (requires?) a doctor or psychiatrist to violate patient-doctor confidentiality and give warning, if doctor/psychiatrist believes patient presents a threat to safety of someone.

I know this firsthand. My stalker's psychiatrist filed a Tarasoff notification with the SFPD to warn them that stalker was about to go off. The police then relayed the warning to me.

I didn't know about that, Johnny. I do know from experience with a family member (now an ex-in-law) who has schizophrenia and delusions about the CIA planting eavesdropping equipment in his attic that the cops told us there was nothing they could do until he did someone harm. A few times he was locked up on what is called a 5150-hold for 48 hours. While I don't claim to be an expert on how that law works, it seemed like after 48 hours, they had no choice but to release him, unless he was making some kind of threats. But even with the benefits of a 5150-hold, that doesn't relieve the longer-term problem of a psychiatric patient who cannot properly manage his own affairs, who runs his life into the ground, and who (many times) harms himself or others seemingly out of nowhere, with no one really caring for him.

Yeah - no doubt, Rich, I agree. The Tarasoff thing I mentioned only applies to the specific situation involving a doctor's professional opinion of their patient.

when someone is really off his rocker and the patient's family and psychiatrist believes he might be dangerous, our stupid civil liberties laws force us to wait until he actually kills someone or himself or he commits some crazed crime before his liberties are taken away

Who decides? Would there a board of specialists, or could any random psychiatrist decide someone needs to be locked up? For how long? Would certain illnesses be automatic or would there need to be a degree of inability to manage one's own affairs? Not everyone who harms themselves or other are noticeably ill, nor do all people who are noticeably ill ever harm anyone at all. What if the person in question has a family member/loved one who is willing to act as a legal guardian? If you allowed that, would a person under another's care be allowed to hold a job if they wanted/were able to? Not all mental illnesses prevent someone from participating in all aspects of society, you know. Would your proposition prevent someone with a mental illness from getting married? And I'm very skeptical about your categorical assumptiong that most people with mental illnesses hurt themselves or others; do you actually have any idea whether or not that's true? I don't, but "most" sure is a strong word.

The Mariners' broadcasters enjoyed Wetteland's "going to war" schtick in his role as bullpen coack: having the relievers march out to the pen, collecting real and fantasy combat helmets, and so on. It's not quite as cute when interpreted as the symptom of a disturbed mind...

Denton County officials say Wetteland was hospitalized for a mental health issue.

Okay, do we snark at right wing born again Christians or former Yankees? Do we flip a coin or lag for it? Wonder what Leyritz has to say?

yea, stupid civil liberties, #### them. Pre-Emptive ####### of people through government imposed operational definitions of mental health.

Who decides? Would there a board of specialists, or could any random psychiatrist decide someone needs to be locked up?

Say someone is restrained on a 5150-hold (which almost is always initiated by police or members of the family). A qualified psychiatrist needs to diagnose the person and determine if he has a severe psychiatric illness which, if untreated, puts him or others in danger. Once that determination is made, the time the patient can be held against his will must be much longer. However, to assure that the original diagnosis was correct, other independent psychiatrists should confirm or deny it. (In most of these cases, from the little I know, it is not a hard call.) Once multiple psychiatrists have confirmed the diagnosis, the patient needs to lose his "liberty." If he responds well to medications and can function safely in society, he should be freed; though a guardian (usually a member of his family) should permanently oversee his affairs to make sure he keeps taking medications and is not losing his faculties. If the patient does not respond well to medications or cannot function in society, he should be held in a psychiatric hospital. That's pretty much how our system worked before the civil libertarians went "nuts" in the 1970s, and the result, of course, was disastruous for the mentally ill and their families.

yea, stupid civil liberties, #### them. Pre-Emptive ####### of people through government imposed operational definitions of mental health.

Did you even bother to read the article?

The Denton County Sheriff's office says they took a call from the Bartonville area around 12:30 Thursday on a possibly suicidal person.

When officers arrived to the home, a man later identified as Wetteland came out with his hands in the air, saying he "needed help."

Wasn't Rifkin doesn't point out that this was abused by law officials to lock up people who they felt were not helping them out in investigations. Really, if you want to blame somebody, blame cops who abused their power to lock people up without actually arresting them because it was easier to hold them in the crazy house than it was to hold them in the local jail.

That's pretty much how our system worked before the civil libertarians went "nuts" in the 1970s, and the result, of course, was disastruous for the mentally ill and their families.

But you don't understand, Rich---they're now "free."

Wasn't Rifkin doesn't point out that this was abused by law officials to lock up people who they felt were not helping them out in investigations. Really, if you want to blame somebody, blame cops who abused their power to lock people up without actually arresting them because it was easier to hold them in the crazy house than it was to hold them in the local jail.

Nice rant, but it could use a footnote or three, preferably one with a few concrete facts and numbers.

In the 1980's, I used to represent one of the few private hospitals in the New York Metro area that would accept involuntary mental patient committals. I represented the hospital at hearings to retain the individuals in the hospital.

The individuals (who normally had health insurance which covered the commitment) were represented by attorneys appointed by the State of New York, through an office that would represent their wishes, even if, as a practical matter, they were not competent to express an intelligent wish. This all came out of the movement to protect the patients from the evil doctors pumping them full of drugs against their wishes.

Most of the patients were diagnosed with undifferentiated schizoprenia, which I came away believing stands for, "they appear to be schizophrenic, but we're not really all that sure what was going on, but they can't function on their own."

The initial intake was through a 2PC, a two physician certificate. You know the old jewish saying, "if two people tell you you're sick, lie down"? Similar principle. If two doctors sign a certificate saying you need to be examined because you appear to mentally ill and a danger to yourself or others, they can hold you for, I think, 30 or 60 days. After that, if you want to get out, and the hospital wants to keep you in, there has to be a retention hearing, to keep you in. I handled the retention hearing. This is all under the New York Mental Hygiene Law. Lovely name, that.

The standard for commitment, if I recall, was clear and convincing evidence that the patient was a danger to himself or others. Danger to themselves was the big one, because it could encompass not being able to take care of them self in any meaningful way. The fact that you weren't a danger to somebody else didn't matter, if the alternative to commitment was that you would deteriorate, get sick, end up homeless, and probably die of exposure.

There are two hearings I still recall. One involved a young woman with bipolar disorder who was in the manic phase, and who, like so many people in that situation, are convinced that nothing is wrong with them. She and the State Attorney dug up some looney tunes doctor, who did not believe in the then-standard treatment for bipolar disorder, lithium drugs, but said that it could be cured by psychoanalysis -- the talking cure. This is total bunkum -- my father was bipolar, so I know a little bit about this. He admitted under my cross-examination that he was pretty much alone in his thinking, but because there was a doctor willing to testify on her behalf, the legal standard could not be met. After the hearing, the dummy doctor walked up to me and said "You're despicable". It seems somehow appropriate for him to be quoting Daffy Duck. Some time later, the young woman went into a depressive phase of the bipolar, and voluntarily checked herself back in.

The other one I remember, the NYS attorney came up to me and said "I'm not going to fight you on this". I asked why. He said: "When I tried to talk to my client, he stopped me and said, 'I am Buddha. Call me Buddha.' I said, 'Okay, but for this hearing you are Joe Smith' [or whatever his name was], but he said 'I will not respond to that, I will only respond to Buddha'. So I'm not putting him on the stand."

Oh, by the way Tripon -- the cops had nothing to do with this.

Okay, do we snark at right wing born again Christians or former Yankees? Do we flip a coin or lag for it? Wonder what Leyritz has to say?

Well, since this is (ostensibly) a baseball site and there is a long-standing protocol to bash the Yankees, I think flipping a coin is probably unnecessary...

I think it's premature to conclude that Wetteland's problems are as major as what is being assumed by those who are commenting about the social/political ramifications of mental health issues. Let's at least hold out some hope that such is the case.

Clearly the "grey areas" in mental health policy that came from incursions by both the left and the right have left a morass of murky procedures to be navigated by troubled individuals and their families. But we don't know that this is going to be the case for Wetteland.

I think it's premature to conclude that Wetteland's problems are as major as what is being assumed by those who are commenting about the social/political ramifications of mental health issues. Let's at least hold out some hope that such is the case.

Of course we should, but two basic facts should still be noted: First, Wetteland has been a loose cannon for many years; and second, he's now asking for help himself, hopefully a sign of a touch of self-awareness.

Christine and Walter Collins

Walter James Collins, Sr. (February 1, 1890 – August 18, 1932)[22]
Christine Ida Dunne Collins (1891 – 1964)[23]
Walter James Collins. (September 23, 1918 – March 1928) presumed murdered at age nine.


Nine-year-old Walter Collins disappeared from his home in Mt. Washington, Los Angeles on March 10, 1928.[24] His disappearance received nationwide attention and the Los Angeles Police Department followed up on hundreds of leads without success.[9] The police faced negative publicity and increasing public pressure to solve the case,[25] until five months after Walter's disappearance,[9] when a boy claiming to be Walter was found in DeKalb, Illinois. Letters and photographs were exchanged before Walter's mother, Christine Collins, who worked as a telephone operator, paid for the boy to be brought to Los Angeles. A public reunion was organized by the police, who hoped to negate the bad publicity they had received for their inability to solve this case and others. They also hoped the uplifting human interest story would deflect attention from a series of corruption scandals that had sullied the department's reputation. At the reunion, Christine Collins claimed that the boy was not Walter. She was told by the officer in charge of the case, police Captain J.J. Jones, to take the boy home to "try him out for a couple of weeks," and Collins agreed.[25]

Three weeks later, Christine Collins returned to see Captain Jones and persisted in her claim that the boy was not Walter. Even though she was armed with dental records proving her case, Jones had Collins committed to the psychiatric ward at Los Angeles County Hospital under a "Code 12" internment—a term used to jail or commit someone who was deemed difficult or an inconvenience. During Collins' incarceration, Jones questioned the boy,[9] who admitted to being 12-year-old Arthur Hutchins Jr., a runaway from Illinois, but who was originally from Iowa.[26][27] A drifter at a roadside café in Illinois had told Hutchins of his resemblance to the missing Walter, so Hutchins came up with the plan to impersonate him. His motive was to get to Hollywood so he could meet his favorite actor, Tom Mix.[25] Collins was released ten days after Hutchins admitted that he was not her son,[28] and filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles Police Department.[9] This aspect of the case is depicted in the 2008 film Changeling[5], although in the film Hutchins does not confess until after Mrs. Collins has been released.

Collins went on to win a lawsuit against Jones and was awarded $10,800, which Jones never paid.[9] As Walter Collins' body had not been found, Christine Collins still hoped that Walter had survived. She continued to search for him for the rest of her life, but she died without ever knowing her son's fate.[29] The last public record of Christine Collins is from 1941, when she attempted to collect a $15,562 judgment against Captain Jones (by then a retired police officer) in the Superior Court.[30]

It was pretty big in L.A. around the 30's, and yes, the reason I know this is because of the Changeling movie. And before any of you say its only one case, please use your logic and ask yourself how many of these type of cases went unreported?

MLB.com:

"Thank you for your concerns," Wetteland said in a release by the Mariners on Thursday night. "My wife and I are very appreciative of the over and above care of our local officers and paramedics. The circumstances leading to my elevated blood pressure and heart rate have been addressed. I am currently resting safely at home." ...

Mariners general manager Jack Zduriencik said in a statement, "We were relieved once we heard the details from John and Michelle and that John is safe at home and in good health. Contrary to earlier news reports, the reason John was hospitalized was because of an extremely high heart rate. We have let them know that the Mariners will do whatever we can to assist them."

It was pretty big in L.A. around the 30's, and yes, the reason I know this is because of the Changeling movie. And before any of you say its only one case, please use your logic and ask yourself how many of these type of cases went unreported?

Probably none, since it took a rather unique set of circumstances to trigger that case.

But say that instead of none, there have been a few hundred cases like that over the years. And that there have been an indeterminate number of other cases where perfectly functional people were railroaded into a mental hospital for reasons that had nothing to do with their actual state of mental health. Clearly such cases exist, even if you don't buy the overly broad definition of "functional."

Now compare that to the number of helpless people who were set out of those hospitals in the 70's. There are far more of them than there are of the misunderstood artist types who get sent away for being merely unconventional according to Leave It To Beaver standards.

What you had in the 70's was a perfect storm of quack philosophy grafted onto the rhetoric of the civil rights movement, and wildly misapplied to people who were "functional" by only the most literal of definitions. The Loony Left took up their cause because they saw both "victims of the government" and the latest version of the noble savage. And what the Loony Left began, the Righteous Right embraced---at least as long as these noble savages were armed and spouting anti-government rhetoric, a la the Branch Davidians. It was a hell of a de facto coalition, with a common ground of avoiding unpleasant facts about the reality of what was often going on.

The bottom line is that it's great to make it hard to commit people to mental institutions against their will, but it shouldn't be impossible in cases where the disfunctionality is evident. These people aren't usually victims of the government; they're victims of the demons within them. And it's not helping them to pretend that they aren't.

Do we flip a coin or lag for it?

Lag. Every time.

The bottom line is that it's great to make it hard to commit people to mental institutions against their will, but it shouldn't be impossible in cases where the disfunctionality is evident.

Again stipulating that I have no credentials to back up my views, my sense is that it would only be a very small percentage of people with severe mental illness who need to be locked up long-term against their will. (The range of antipsychotic medications are effective for most patients, according to this review.) A far greater percentage just need a guardian to look after their interests and take control when things spin out of control, especially to have the ability to force someone who is helped by antipsychotic meds to keep taking them.

According to this 2008 article, 40-45% of homeless people are mentally ill. And even if most of them are no danger to anyone (though I sense that some really are dangerous), what does it say about our "free" society that we don't institutionally care for people who are hearing voices and so on? A lot of these homeless have families, but the families lose touch because they are powerless ultimately to help their loved one. But for churches (and like groups) in cities which dedicate themselves to feeding the destitute, the crisis would be even worse.

Also, this 2006 article says that a majority (56%) of prisoners are mentally ill. Even if that estimate is too high, doubtless many violent offenders could have been helped before harming someone and avoided prison altogether, if we didn't err so steeply on the side of "civil liberties." When we fail to act responsibly for people who cannot manage their own affairs, we victimize both the mentally ill and the person who gets attacked for no reason whatsoever. Does that kind of a system make sense to anyone with a heart?

Men--use your heads. What's to stop the "authorities" from claiming someone's mentally ill and putting them away for political and/or economic reasons? If you think they wouldn't, and haven't, you're the ones who are cuckoo.

That's an easy thing to point out and argue, Vaux, but it doesn't offer much in the way of an alternative solution.

The argument is basically: There are bad people. And that fact is known. But there ARE checks and balances to prevent the type of abuse you describe. Other than trusting and continually trying to improve those checks and balances, what do you propose?

In response to #27, I don't know a lot about this subject, but I do know that the ACLU sued to stop authorities from depriving the mentally ill of their civil liberties any more than is necessary. The idea was that if someone only needed in an assisted living situation, then the state did not have the right to basically incarcerate them in an institution. The epidemic of homelessness among the mentally ill was caused by the failure to fund living spaces that met that legal standard.

So many people (probably most people) with severe mental illness either end up committing suicide or harming someone else.

I doubt that, or everybody would be dead.

I hope Wetteland gets whatever help he needs.

The junkman in my dad's town when he was growing up had a framed certificate of sanity mounted on the wall of his office. Apparently, there had been an effort to involuntarily commit him, similar to the one described above, but he was able to successfully resist it, and at the end of it they gave him some kind of document indicating that he'd passed the test.

Add me to the list of those dealing with a family member with mental illness (bipolar disorder, w/psychosis).

A LICSW told me that the number of homeless mentally ill on the streets these days is a gift from the Great Communicator, Uncle Ronnie Reagan, who, as Governor of California in the 60's, decided to underfund the state's mental health system, changing the criteria needed to warrant inpatient stays in mental health hospitals, effectively releasing hundreds, if not thousands, of ill patients to fend for themselves. As many couldn't, they ended up on the streets, homeless, talking to telephone poles, etc.

That policy spread across the country, as states saw this as a way to save their budgets.

Nice guy, that Reagan.

I believe--although I'm a little hazy on this as its pre-coffee--the law in NY, which was similar to how Bivens describes it, got a little more inclined to pay for people to stay in treatment after someone was released for a state facility and promptly went out and crushed some poor woman's head with a concrete block in the subway.

My office deals with dangerousness hearings, which is pretty depressing stuff, the only upside of which is that I get to say "dangerousness." I think Rich (and, to be fair, Vaux) are over-simplifying this a lot.

There are a handful of "easy" cases for the obviously dangerously nuts who are allowed to wander the streets, and a handful of the reverse, but the vast, vast majority lies somewhere in an undetermined middle. I'd rather err on the side of not locking them up, but I suppose opinions differ.

IINM, Reagan's cuts also denied those who would voluntarily commit themselves, unless they had insurance to cover the costs.

edit...even the most rabid of libs wouldn't suggest that anyone who would voluntarily commit themselves to a state hospital shouldn't be allowed access to that care, right? Ha.

Add me to the list of those dealing with a family member with mental illness (bipolar disorder, w/psychosis).

Same here, except that in my case it's in the past, since my mother died 25 1/2 years ago. Same diagnosis, I'm almost sure, though at the state hospital they told me they thought she was schizophrenic. All the time I was growing up, though, her behavior was textbook bipolar.

(I've inherited a touch of it myself, & it's no fun ... except when it is. There's always hell to pay later, though.)

I'm no clinician, but I'd bet you don't have the psychotic component. I don't believe that goes away, when the mood swings shift back and forth. At least, in my dealings it doesn't seem to.

Which is good, for you. OMG. Very good.

True enough.

Unless the subject is politics, of course.

As a mental health professional:

There are multiple limits to confidentiality.

Tarasoff states that a provider has a duty to warn the potential victims of a violent act if the provider feels that an act is imminent. Not every state is a Tarasoff state.

In short, if OJ Simpson were to tell me that he killed his wife and Ron Goldman (or even that he was merely considering it), I'm powerless to say anything about it. But in a Tarasoff state, if he told me that he was going to kill them after our session (or he had a plan to do so imminently), I would have to attempt to reach them, or have the authorities reach them, to warn them.

Commitment laws also vary by state. In Maryland, you can get a short involuntary committment if two mental health professionals agree that the patient requires immediate attention. However, long term stays are rare, for the reasons specified by other posters.

Confidentiality laws are also broken in cases where the patient is an imminent harm to himself, and when the patient (even adults in some states) report child abuse by an adult. It also gets dicey depending on if your treatment is offered by the government or an employer, and they expect feedback as a condition of employment. These terms would be negotiated in advance.

In Wetteland's case, it seems like the call was made from his wife, so there is no expectation of privacy on a 911 call. The hospital (or Mariners), under federal laws, could not discuss his case without his permission.

In MA, there's an order you take out with the court (I forget the #) that requests a 2 or 3 day involuntary commitment, but the individual has to be deemed a threat to his/her self or others to meet the standard required. I think only one MD has to examine the patient.

edit...41B! ( I think)

The upshot of being 2PC'd in New York is that the patient can submit a "72-hour letter," after which he cannot be retained past three days without a hearing. Where I worked, it was not uncommon for 72-hour letters to be withdrawn, once it became clear that some sort of supportive situation was being worked out by social workers. The goal is certainly community-based treatment (my wife is a psychiatrist who makes home visits to the severely mentally ill every day), but a mechanism to confine patients on the occasions when they spin out of control is absolutely essential.