Ah, the extremist calling the kettle black...you obviously didn't
read my post very carefully. As long as you continue to take logic to
extremes, you'll just make yourself look foolish. Nowhere did I say
everybody diagnosed with mental illness should be segregated. Only those
who pose a danger to the rest of us whose mental illness is mild enough
to fit in. Any logic can be taken to an extreme and made to sound
foolish - by your logic, if I considered it normal to crucify people for
making fun of me, I should be allowed to continue. After all, I'd be
considered insane by most people, but hey, I'm allowed to think
differently from everyone even though I might hurt or torture them,
aren't I?
Now doesn't that sound ridiculous? I think so. My post was in response
to someone who advocated the above idea - that just because someone
thinks differently, they should be left alone to decide their fate, even
at the expense of the rest of the community. I believe in balance -
balancing the right of an individual to control his/her own life versus
the right of the community to be safe from preventable violence.
Did you even bother to read the example I gave, my GF's old friend? I
suppose you'd let him decide whether he needs medication, and let him
wander the streets in spite of his making threats against her and already
attempting to kill his parents. After all, he was a teen and would be
let loose when he was 19 (or maybe 18, I can't remember). I am by no
means advocating locking up everyone with mental illness, just the ones
who have already shown a predilection to violence. Would you also let
the two militiamen in middle GA go free, even though they were caught
with bomb-making equipment, instructions, and targets picked out? After
all, they hadn't actually already blown anything up yet. Is that any
different than saying that it's OK to let people who have described acts
of violence, or who have shown signs of becoming violent (paranoid
delusions, as an EXAMPLE), wander around untreated and free to act on
those thoughts. I'm not saying they would act on them, anymore than I am
saying those militiamen would have acted on their plans. No, they aren't
two different things, they are very similar. It's a matter of where you
put the balance point - the side of the community, or the side of the
individual, or somewhere in between. My choice is in between. Yours?
Andrew Ray
aray at emory.edu
Emory University Neuroscience Program
Read the whole post, don't just pick and choose what you want to read.