Eg. A lot of people can have symptoms of a psychotic disorder but they are still "productive" and functioning.
On the other hand a lot of people with bipolar disorder go through "manic spending sprees" which leaves them in huge debt. Or, people start to be unable to hold a job or keep up with studies. They might quit their job impulsively persuing a delusion, or make unwise investments while manic. This can be a proxy for how they are doing with the illness.
Someone with this type of issue who is very wealthy kind of makes that kind of argument fall apart. Kanye can blow a lot of money and still survive. A more normal person with bipolar disorder would hit rock bottom from a financial standpoint much sooner.
Yes, and Kanye may have various financial and business problems, but by any sane metric is able to support himself.
> Kanye can blow a lot of money and still survive.
Yes, which makes the behavior less obviously irrational.
This is why diagnostic criteria have phrases like "cause marked impairment in social or occupational functioning" --- and meeting diagnostic criteria alone is not generally sufficient for involuntary commitment. There, we reach the legal system, and definitions that generally include a pretty strict definition of danger-to-self-or-others-or-gravely-disabled, which wouldn't include this kind of thing.
I agree, though it’s not clear if you’re talking 5150 or conservatorship.
IMO, a pretty clear argument could be made (if someone had standing and wanted to do so) for conservatorship, at least of the estate, and possibly for him individually, in Kanye’s case.
I don’t see anything even hinting at a justification for 5150 WIC, even without considering the de-facto loosening of when it’s applied, which is I’m guessing what you’re referring to.
Hell, even if you’re lunging at someone with knife while talking about killing your self, it seems like most jurisdictions won’t do it. (Especially SF). If particularly public safety minded at the moment, they might take away your knife if they don’t shoot you first.
Budget reasons.
As to where it would go, god knows.
Plenty of poor people say messed up things, alienate people around them, and screw up their employment. They generally don't end up with involuntary mental treatment. Even if the root cause is because of mania or something.
> I don’t see anything even hinting at a justification for 5150 WIC, even without considering the de-facto loosening of when it’s applied, which is I’m guessing what you’re referring to.
Well, the whole context we're talking about things in is in the context of involuntary treatment.
Budget has a big part to play in this.
I disagree with this assertion, too, BTW, but it's so far from what I set out to discuss that I'm not too interested in responding further.
It’s quite common for folks in entertainment and sports for people to accrue large ‘fixed’ expenses (property, debt, child support, etc), on a variable future income.
He’s earned a lot of money, but he’s also spent a lot of money, and he nuked his major source of income and wealth not that long ago.
The divorce clearly is setting up even more cashflow issues. That kind of thing has ruined many normal/objectively mentally stable men.
Unless he’s been carefully squirreling away something, or setting up trusts carefully to protect his ass - not something that seems characteristic for him - it’s possible he’s defacto negative cashflow and bankrupt right now, and just doesn’t know it. Or maybe he does, and that’s feeding the mania.
Not disagreeing with you. Noting that such a system does exist, is currently active, alive, and ‘doing well’, and applicable when someone’s decisions impact the economic well-being of others in a certain situation.
I think what you describe is completely orthogonal to what we were discussing-- whether seemingly acting in one's economic interest can be a measure on one's mental well being and used to judge whether someone is using their autonomy appropriately.
If we use outside economic tests, we become pretty fascist and authoritarian really-quick-like.