IUBio

[Fwd: LET IT BEGIN: Brain Awareness Week/BRAIN BOYCOTT]

Leslie E. Packer, PhD lpacker at nyc.pipeline.com
Sun May 26 20:38:15 EST 1996


On May 26, 1996 15:53:50 in article <Re:  [Fwd: LET IT BEGIN: Brain
Awareness Week/BRAIN BOYCOTT]>, '"Andrew P. Ray" <aray at emory.edu>' wrote,
in part: 
 
 
> 
>Of course the law found him sane.  First, the legal system has its own  
>version of sanity which is not the same as the mental health profession.  

 
Excuse me, but the MH profession doesn't _have_ a definition of "sane."  It
is not a psychological or psychiatric concept;  only a legal one. 
 
> No  
>psychiatrist or psychologist worth his salt would say the man was sane  
>(off the record, that is).  
 
And even if they did, it would only reflect their understanding of the
legal standard. 
 
>He was a sociopath - he could tell the  
>difference between right and wrong (the def. of legal sanity) but didn't  
>give a damn about it (probably a prefrontal lobe dysfunction, based on  
>previous case studies of people with traumatic prefrontal brain damage).  

 
Do you have any evidence that he had prefrontal damage?  I didn't see any
reports.  I hope that you're not (just) falling into the trap of
medicalizing all bad or abhorrant behavior. 
 
>There is a very good body of research that suggests that personality and  
>social interaction (e.g. inhibitions on extreme behaviors) are mediated  
>primarily by prefrontal cortical areas.  If a PET scan could have been  
>done while he was alive, I'll  bet you would see decreased prefrontal  
>activity.  Autopsies won't show functional problems very well, unless  
>there is gross structural abnormality. 
 
Ah.  You just answered my question.  You're speculating.   And plenty of
people have decreased prefrontal activity without engaging in cannibalism. 
 
 
<snip> 
 
>When they do get caught, it's even money  whether they go to trial.  The  
>man in New York who opened up on the people in the subway train, for  
>instance, would have been found insane had he not chosen to defend  
>himself.   
 
That's not accurate.  The sanity hearing was held and Colin Ferguson was
found to be sane.  Otherwise he wouldn't have been allowed to defend
himself pro se. 
 
>The judge just wanted to try him and be done with it, but after  
>the trial several psychiatrists and psychologists were interviewed, and  
>all of them said he was probably a paranoid schizophrenic.  
 
But again, not all paranoid schizophrenics are violent.  And Ferguson
pleaded "not guilty," not "not guilty by reason of insanity" or "guilty but
insane."   
> 
    
>> >Generally, if someone is getting Thorazine, they usually need it. 
 
In your opinion.  You have data to support that? 
>>  
> 
>>From what I have seen working in a biological/psychological  
>field, this is pretty close to a typical case.  The nonviolent  
>schizophrenics usually are let loose onto the streets due to lack of  
>funds, and so are unmedicated.  Many wind up as homeless street denizens  
>because they can't hold a job or focus well enough to function in  
>society.  
 
True. 
 
> Some do commit violent acts, but this is rare. 
 
Not _that_ rare, unfortunately.  But whether that is due to mental illness
or homelessness is another question. 
 
<snip> 
 
>  And before you say,  
>"But the drugs are being forced on these people against their will...",  
>that's what the DUI laws are doing.  They're forcing him NOT to drive  
>even against his will.  
 
Poor example.  Many people who have their licenses suspended or revoked
continue to drive illegally.   
 
> The big point here, is that there has to be  
>balance between community rights and individual rights, especially where  
>the potential for death to members of the community is concerned.  What  
>it boils down to is, who decides whether these people are making  
>judgements based on impaired decision-making abilities.  I'd rather put  
>my trust in a person who's been immersed in psychology and medicine for a 

>few decades, and who has himself/herself been evaluated objectively by  
>someone else, than in a person who has not been evaluated by anyone and  
>is making a subjective decision based on his own personal feelings.  Just 

>like when you sometimes need outside advice on a bad relationship because 

>you're too close to the whole mess - seeing the proverbial forest, rather 

>than the trees.. 
 
Then why do we allow depressives to choose not to take medication, Andrew? 
You argue that they are not a danger to anyone else, but they're certainly
in no state to make an informed choice.  So we decide that it's OK for them
to forego medication.  Now we have someone who may be schizophrenic but is
competent.  Let's say he expressed violent ideation and threatens but has
no history of ever actually being violent.  On what grounds do you medicate
him?  To protect society, in your framework, right?  Why not medicate the
depressive who may attempt suicide, fail, and land up on disability or
welfare or may crash their car head on into someone else, etc.?  Somehow
your logic doesn't quite hold up. 
 
Come to think of it, if I extend your logic one more step, let's lock up
all AIDS patients to protect society. 
 
What's wrong with this picture? 
 
 
Leslie E. Packer, PhD



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net