Yeah, there's a whole other dimension of this where facilities and processes become oriented toward controlling and containing patients rather than empowering them. But I think it has the same root causes as the broader lack of motivation among authorities to seriously engage:

1) Mental health treatment represents a legitimately difficult set of problems with no known recipe for success in the general case.

2) Mentally ill people are routinely dehumanized and otherwise marginalized.

First of all, NO. I DO NOT understand. Nothing justifies treating people like this, and certainly not what was used at this facility. Week-long solitary confinement for nail biting ...

And let's not pretend this facility is a huge negative exception. It's not. It just got caught recording client-lawyer confidential conversations because they boasted about it in court. Yes, they actually boasted in court that they did this and used it in the case. That's how they got caught. Then the inspection report fell into the hands of the press and this patient treatment stuff leaked. In other words, this is a random sample.

And what does the government do about this ? They ask the management to come up with ideas by year-end. Clearly nobody cares or wants to see improvements.

So the problem that this is exactly what is being proposed here as the solution to mental health problems ... I feel like it would be more humane to just round up all mentally ill patients and shoot them.

Let's please not pretend that torturing them for a decade or two before they accidentally die in such a "fixation" is more humane, because it's not, it's far, far worse. Solitary confinement for weeks is torture, constantly living under that thread is also torture.

Needless to say, when you check your find the same ("internment") is done to their kids, even if the only thing against them is that one of their parents has some mental health problems. Doesn't matter if the parent recovers. Doesn't matter if they are 16 or even 18 years old (mental health "care" lasts until 25). There was a story of a 21 year old student ripped out of independent living (well, a student dorm she paid for herself) and studying at university because her mother got interned.

Leaving them to rot on the streets, again, is a far more humane approach than mental health care.

We cannot seriously suggest this as a solution until massive improvements are made to the system, starting with a minimum complement of actual mental health professionals. The system doesn't have that, nor are there any plans to change it, so ... it is not humane or reasonable to suggest mental health services as a replacement to letting them live on the streets.

I'm not saying it's justified at all. I'm not saying that I know what the solution is. I'm saying that these are all expressions of the same underlying set of attitudes rather than merely being poor policy. The reason there aren't 24/7 protests outside mental hospitals and politicians of every stripe calling for radical reform of the mental health system is the same reason that city councils pass "sit-lie" and "anti-camping" laws instead of providing needed services to the homeless. At a societal level, the desire is largely to make these people just go away, or at least to approximate that by keeping them so beaten down that they're afraid to engage in any noticeable behavior. Lip service is sometimes given to fundamental rights and humane treatment, but the attitude expressed by the behavior of our institutions is often closer to animal control than to a welfare system. When it comes to the mentally ill, the average person seemingly doesn't know the difference between treatment and abuse, and might not even care to know. As long as there's any room for doubt and someone with the right letters after their name says "it's for their own good", the conscience goes back to sleep.