Discussion The weaponization of wellness checks by prolifers

[TAW122]

Preface: This is something that has hit home hard for me IRL. No, I won't get into all the details as it is personal, want to protect my own privacy and identity, and also that isn't the main focus of this thread. Instead, I'm bringing up this topic as I feel it is an important one and want to raise awareness on the dangers and threat that wellness checks pose towards freedom, personal autonomy, and civil liberties especially regarding the right to die.

With that out of the way, this thread is going to be about how welfare (or wellness) checks (I will mainly be using the word 'wellness' as to not confuse the reader between welfare in another context), are weaponized by prolifers to invade another's privacy, allow authorities (LE and MHPs) as well as others (do-gooders, nosey people, and busybodies) to do harm to the subject. The nature and purpose of wellness checks by default are to ensure someone is alright but in the recent decades it has been increasingly invasive towards the subject's privacy and civil rights as they oftenly involve authorities who go to check on the subject. The person initiating the check (oftenly a 'concerned' individual) would almost not face any (legal and civil) consequences for doing so which is even more abhorrent. The subject would then have his/her peace disturbed and ruined by the presence of authorities doing a 'check in' on the person, being questioned (not in the sense of a 'crime') to assess risk of harm (to themselves and/or others), humiliated, and if said person was anxious and/or already in a bad state of mind, it doesn't help. If the authorities find and believe that the subject is a threat to themselves or others, then they will detain the subject temporarily to get an evaluation done on said person. (Which most of you know what I'm going to say next so I won't go into that and that itself is another topic altogether.) Oh additionally, if there were people nearby, then having authorities investigating and checking on the particular subject would ruin the subject's reputation and dignity (essentially being publically humiliated as a result of the encounter). This is not even considering the inconvenience and tranquility that has been broken by such an encounter.

Check out this reddit reply by the name of u/3141592653yum (I call the user 'pie yum' because the numbers in the username is a reference to the mathematical constant pi that is used in calculation and various mathematical formulas), who defends such a practice.

Reddit user, u/3141592653yum (below):

Call the hospital and explain the situation. You'll have to fill out paperwork, but you can probably get most (if not all) of it removed. If there's any left, talk to them about a payment plan.
As for whoever called it in - it may have been an overreaction, but it likely came from a place of love. You knew what was going on, so you know that was overkill. But as far as they were concerned your mental health declined and you were unavailable for comment. That's the type of situation where if someone doesn't do anything, and they later learn they could have stopped your suicide, they would never forgive themself.
As someone who has lost too many people to suicide, I can say that as a fact.

It's quite disgusting and infuriating. This is just another example of overreach by prolifers and people who wish to pry, be nosey, be busybodies while all under the guise of being 'helpful'. Not only was the user dismissive towards the OP, but also supporting such a broken and abusive practice. I would say if I was the OP in that thread, I wouldn't take it too kindly and I would refuse to pay such an unjust bill, but I digress.

Anyways back to my main topic. So regarding the weaponization of wellness checks is that the bar for what can be warranted for a wellness check is quite subjective and low. Basically if anyone (especially busybody prolifer) has reason or cause to believe the target person (the 'subject' in this case) is unwell (which is a wide latitude and can be very subjective), then the busybody prolifer would call LE or MHP (essentially the authorities or people with power of law on their side) to check-in on said subject. Additionally, these wellness checks are quite invasive as we know authorities tend to err on the side of caution and they would first protect themselves from liability and do their jobs before taking into consideration the subjects' rights. IANAL but wellness checks aren't necessarily the same as that of an investigation and search (at least not in the criminal sense) so it is possible for a subject to be falsely lulled into a false sense of 'safety' thinking that what he/she says can't really be detrimental when in fact, what he/she said can very well be used against him/her (depending on what is said). Also, IANAL but since it isn't an arrest, albeit a detainment, they aren't really under arrest so their "Miranda Rights" aren't really read, thus what they said isn't really protected in that sense as it's still treated as a normal conversation. So presuming that there isn't a crime and said subject did nothing wrong, still the damage resulting from the encounter cannot be ignored, the disturbance of a peaceful time and state of being, the humiliation and shame for authorities showing up at the subject's dwelling, invasion of privacy, and just being subject to scrutiny, unwanted encounters, and just being treated as someone who did something wrong (not necessarily a criminal).

Thus in conclusion, when someone involves authorities against another person, they have essentially altered the relationship between that person and him/herself. I see it as a breach of trust, a sign that they (the subject) cannot be trusted, has done something serious enough to involve authorities to check, investigate, question the subject, and if that person was good friends with the initiator (the person who called the check in), then that may no longer be the case. (While there are outliers and exceptions I won't get into that nor include that as that isn't the general scenario/case). It is also an assault on another's civil liberties, putting another's civil liberties up as a wager (aka gambling with another's civil freedom/liberties).

I feel quite strongly about this topic as I have experienced something like this before (during the time I was away from SS, but before I came back, so sometime late last year), therefore I've took it upon myself to write in detail about it and wish to bring this issue to light and hope people are able to see the dangers and problems of wellness checks being weaponized to harrass, violate civil liberties, privacy, and even freedom of the pro-choicers. If anything, when more people know, they would have the knowledge to prepare and/or minimize the (potential) damage that could arise from such incidents. Again, this is quite a long thread but I feel like I hit all the relevant points that I can hit and covered them as thoroughly as possible.

 

[Cathy Ames]

weaponized to harrass, violate civil liberties, privacy, and even freedom of the pro-choicers.

Do you really believe that there is a group of pro-life folks specifically targeting pro-choicers via wellness checks?

 

[TAW122]

Do you really believe that there is a group of pro-life folks specifically targeting pro-choicers via wellness checks?

Not a specific group of pro-lifers, but when I use the term pro-lifers I am referring to people in general who are against CTB as a personal choice and view CTB as an irrational act coming from mental illness. I will say that there are people who will call in wellness checks on others if they deem to be a threat to themselves or others. While they are not specifically targeting pro-choicers, if they know someone who wishes to CTB or may CTB (even if the person willingly and rationally makes that decision to do so), they will not hesitate to initiate a check on that particular person.

 

[GentleJerk]

Do you really believe that there is a group of pro-life folks specifically targeting pro-choicers via wellness checks?

It's well known that people use the threat of suicide as a sort of bargaining tool, or a way to demand things. I see it happening in the department of corrections, child services, and especially the hospital system. Let me see my child or I'm going to kill myself. Let me out of this jail cell, or ward, or I'm going to kill myself. Give me drugs, or I'm going to kill myself. etc.

So what OP is saying, is true in some regards. They do use wellness checks and so called suicide-prevention tactics as a weapon in many cases, to take away a persons human rights, restrain, coerce and force them to comply, imprison them, exercise power and authority... Basically do whatever they like.

...For that person's own safety, and the safety of others of course.

 

[Forever Sleep]

Honestly, I can see this from both viewpoints. On the one hand, I'd be horrified to have a wellness check done on me. Also, if I knew a friend or relative wanted to ctb, I hope I would leave them in peace to make their own decision- informing the authorities feels a bit like snitching on them their deepest secret.

However, I imagine that it is mainly close family/friends- likely genuinely concerned people who request wellness checks- if they live too far away to do it themselves. Not all people tell their friends and family they are suicidal and wish to die. If the friends and family get the sense that there is something seriously wrong and get no response from the person, I feel it's kind of natural for them to pursue it. Kind of feel it would be odd for them not to.

Maybe I'm missing the point though. I'm assuming you mean just a random check being done? I didn't even know that was a thing. I would have thought the person would of had to be unreachable for them to go to this effort. Still, like I said- I don't know (thank goodness). Recently watched a documentary on 'Swatting'- when people call the emergency services out (needlessly) to someone's address. Kind of sounds like this.

Still, it's an odd conundrum. I absolutely respect a person's right to die but honestly- if I saw someone on a bridge about to jump, I do feel like I would want to at least try to talk to them. Not necessarily to talk them out of it but just to show that someone gives a shit about them. I quite often struggle with this duplicity- on the one hand, I think we all feel like we want to care about and support one another but on the other, it feels like there is a time to step back and wish them all the best with their decision.

 

[FuneralCry]

I just wish that we lived in a world where our right to die is respected and suicide is not so stigmatised. Wanting suicide can be perfectly rational in a world like this anyway. To me, any form of suicide prevention is just prolonging suffering. People should just respect others choices about their lives and not interfere against their wishes.

 

[want2dienow]

very weaponized since its done by complete strangers.
i dont have family or friends.
i shouldnt have to be forced silence about my pain from fear of having this weaponized from complete strangers; i've had it happen too much times.
this is the only place

 

[TAW122]

It's well known that people use the threat of suicide as a sort of bargaining tool, or a way to demand things. I see it happening in the department of corrections, child services, and especially the hospital system. Let me see my child or I'm going to kill myself. Let me out of this jail cell, or ward, or I'm going to kill myself. Give me drugs, or I'm going to kill myself. etc.

So what OP is saying, is true in some regards. They do use wellness checks and so called suicide-prevention tactics as a weapon in many cases, to take away a persons human rights, restrain, coerce and force them to comply, imprison them, exercise power and authority... Basically do whatever they like.

...For that person's own safety, and the safety of others of course.

I can see both sides of the argument (those who support having wellness checks and those against them), I am leaning towards the anti-wellness checks especially if the person being checked on is merely 'suicidal' and wishes to exit existence. It is indeed a problem if someone is using the threat of suicide to demand, bargain, manipulate, or otherwise as leverage to get what they want, but it is also very problematic for those who have carefully and thoughtfully planned out their CTBs only for some goody-twoshoes to stop them and force them to live. That is unacceptable. I believe there should be legalized voluntarily euthanasia for those who want it so that they won't have to resort to violent means to exit (sometimes causing collateral damage to others) and can exit peacefully with dignity.

Honestly, I can see this from both viewpoints. On the one hand, I'd be horrified to have a wellness check done on me. Also, if I knew a friend or relative wanted to ctb, I hope I would leave them in peace to make their own decision- informing the authorities feels a bit like snitching on them their deepest secret.

However, I imagine that it is mainly close family/friends- likely genuinely concerned people who request wellness checks- if they live too far away to do it themselves. Not all people tell their friends and family they are suicidal and wish to die. If the friends and family get the sense that there is something seriously wrong and get no response from the person, I feel it's kind of natural for them to pursue it. Kind of feel it would be odd for them not to.

Maybe I'm missing the point though. I'm assuming you mean just a random check being done? I didn't even know that was a thing. I would have thought the person would of had to be unreachable for them to go to this effort. Still, like I said- I don't know (thank goodness). Recently watched a documentary on 'Swatting'- when people call the emergency services out (needlessly) to someone's address. Kind of sounds like this.

Still, it's an odd conundrum. I absolutely respect a person's right to die but honestly- if I saw someone on a bridge about to jump, I do feel like I would want to at least try to talk to them. Not necessarily to talk them out of it but just to show that someone gives a shit about them. I quite often struggle with this duplicity- on the one hand, I think we all feel like we want to care about and support one another but on the other, it feels like there is a time to step back and wish them all the best with their decision.

It isn't necessarily always done by family and friends, sometimes it could just be a random stranger initiating such a check. As for the documentary regarding 'swatting', it is an extreme form of weaponizing law enforcement to harrass and (potentially put the victim in grave physical harm) oftenly done as a prank (usually an audience member in someone's stream). It is reprehensible and vile, and while those suffer, oftenly the perpetrator (the one who called in the false report) gets into legal trouble especially if the victim suffers damages from the incident.

I will concur that yes, naturally if you see someone on the bridge, you may be inclined to intervene by showing that you care about the person, but respect his/her wishes.

I just wish that we lived in a world where our right to die is respected and suicide is not so stigmatised. Wanting suicide can be perfectly rational in a world like this anyway. To me, any form of suicide prevention is just prolonging suffering. People should just respect others choices about their lives and not interfere against their wishes.

Absolutely, and until we live in a world that the right to die is respected and pro-choice is considered a valid, rational stance to take on life itself, there will be no peace and we will never be done with our work.

very weaponized since its done by complete strangers.
i dont have family or friends.
i shouldnt have to be forced silence about my pain from fear of having this weaponized from complete strangers; i've had it happen too much times.
this is the only place

I'm sorry to hear that and yes, contrary to what many people (on the outside) think, wellness checks can be called in by just about anybody on someone, if they have reason/cause/concern for another person's wellbeing. Then the law enforcement and authorities (if they believe there is just cause) will then act and respond to the report on the particular subject as part of their duty/job.

The fact that I made this thread highlights the issues and dangers of it being used in an abusive, invasive, and harmful manner. The fact that the initiator oftenly faces little if any repercussions from doing so is just wrong. If I were in charge, I would expect the person initiating the check face some penalty for doing so and also their credibility drop a bit (if they called in a false report or done so on bad faith, ulterior motives). Then also for authorities to allow some benefit of the doubt for the subject instead of going in to just about every situation assuming the person in the wrong until proven otherwise.

 

[chloramine]

Honestly, I can see this from both viewpoints. On the one hand, I'd be horrified to have a wellness check done on me. Also, if I knew a friend or relative wanted to ctb, I hope I would leave them in peace to make their own decision- informing the authorities feels a bit like snitching on them their deepest secret.

However, I imagine that it is mainly close family/friends- likely genuinely concerned people who request wellness checks- if they live too far away to do it themselves. Not all people tell their friends and family they are suicidal and wish to die. If the friends and family get the sense that there is something seriously wrong and get no response from the person, I feel it's kind of natural for them to pursue it. Kind of feel it would be odd for them not to.

Maybe I'm missing the point though. I'm assuming you mean just a random check being done? I didn't even know that was a thing. I would have thought the person would of had to be unreachable for them to go to this effort. Still, like I said- I don't know (thank goodness). Recently watched a documentary on 'Swatting'- when people call the emergency services out (needlessly) to someone's address. Kind of sounds like this.

Still, it's an odd conundrum. I absolutely respect a person's right to die but honestly- if I saw someone on a bridge about to jump, I do feel like I would want to at least try to talk to them. Not necessarily to talk them out of it but just to show that someone gives a shit about them. I quite often struggle with this duplicity- on the one hand, I think we all feel like we want to care about and support one another but on the other, it feels like there is a time to step back and wish them all the best with their decision.

I very much relate to what you're saying here and I think we can balance both. We can say "hey I'm here, let's talk" and then respect what someone decides. It feels wrong to leave or just watch someone in pain that way, but taking away their autonomy and dignity obviously isn't helpful. I think the best we can do is say "I'm here and I won't try to force or threaten you into doing what I want".
My friends called a wellness check on me a few months ago and it completely broke my category of safety and trust. It was pretty limited to start with and that just. Shattered it. Luckily the police officer actually listened to me and concluded that my going to a hospital would make me more likely to kill myself long term, but the whole thing is easily one of the worst situations I've ever been in.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I very much relate to what you're saying here and I think we can balance both. We can say "hey I'm here, let's talk" and then respect what someone decides. It feels wrong to leave or just watch someone in pain that way, but taking away their autonomy and dignity obviously isn't helpful. I think the best we can do is say "I'm here and I won't try to force or threaten you into doing what I want".
My friends called a wellness check on me a few months ago and it completely broke my category of safety and trust. It was pretty limited to start with and that just. Shattered it. Luckily the police officer actually listened to me and concluded that my going to a hospital would make me more likely to kill myself long term, but the whole thing is easily one of the worst situations I've ever been in.

I'm so sorry to hear this happened to you. I think you're absolutely right. It's important as a society to offer help but not to force it on people and certainly not to strip them of their own autonomy if their ideas differ from the established order. It should be something that helps people- rather than makes them worse.

I guess they are always going to play the card- the person isn't in their right mind though- so- needs to be 'protected' until they 'get better.' I guess I do wonder if this is ever a thing- kind of sounds like a totally different entity has taken over the person's mind- which seems unlikely. Just don't know that much about mental health.

While I largely think we should have autonomy over our own lives, I think there are grounds for detaining the mentally unwell when they threaten other people's lives. There were at least two instances where I used to live where people who really shouldn't have been in the community were. One man was on day release from a facility, bought an axe and killed a man riding his bicycle through a park (a stranger to him). Another woman set fire to the block of flats she lived in (although thankfully- no one was hurt). I think mistakes are made in both directions. I suppose it's just so hard to diagnose mental health compared to physical ailments that show visible symptoms.

 

[chloramine]

I'm so sorry to hear this happened to you. I think you're absolutely right. It's important as a society to offer help but not to force it on people and certainly not to strip them of their own autonomy if their ideas differ from the established order. It should be something that helps people- rather than makes them worse.

I guess they are always going to play the card- the person isn't in their right mind though- so- needs to be 'protected' until they 'get better.' I guess I do wonder if this is ever a thing- kind of sounds like a totally different entity has taken over the person's mind- which seems unlikely. Just don't know that much about mental health.

While I largely think we should have autonomy over our own lives, I think there are grounds for detaining the mentally unwell when they threaten other people's lives. There were at least two instances where I used to live where people who really shouldn't have been in the community were. One man was on day release from a facility, bought an axe and killed a man riding his bicycle through a park (a stranger to him). Another woman set fire to the block of flats she lived in (although thankfully- no one was hurt). I think mistakes are made in both directions. I suppose it's just so hard to diagnose mental health compared to physical ailments that show visible symptoms.

Yeah if someone is a danger to others then I don't think it's unreasonable to remove them from their ability to do harm. I just wish we had more humane ways to do that.

 

[GentleJerk]

@TAW122 "Always for that person's own safety, and the safety of others, of course" <--- *insert sarcastic tone*

I actually do see it used as a weapon, rather than always purely a safety measure- and not always against those people who do pose a legitimate undue risk to themselves and others. Just google 'psychiatric abuse'. Health and safety has always been a great excuse for those wishing to justify heavy-handedness, take away rights, and use extreme force. We're doing this for your own good!

They only get away with it because of those cases were it may be justified.

...But who decides when it is justified, and when it's not? Certainly not the person being wellness-checked.

 

[want2dienow]

@TAW122 "Always for that person's own safety, and the safety of others, of course" <--- *insert sarcastic tone*
We're doing this for your own good!

this is making me physically ill, reminded of what happened then

heavy-handedness, take away rights, and use extreme force.

doing this on a non-confrontational me. i only wish my right to die respected please
nope, now its justified; use force, inject me with substances, to align me with your 'duty'. happy now? no
rinse repeat — justified; too stubborn to accept being forced alive
now you see why im slug