OT: Krauthammer

[Larry Blanchard]

It's a rare day when I agree with Charles Krauthammer, but I think he hit the nail on the head (ObWWR) with this column:

[Swingman]

Saw that, and agree.

Problem is, the knee-jerks from both sides will put more weight toward the source (he is a "conservative", after all) than any thoughtful consideration of the actual content he puts forth.

"You can't fix stupid", and that is preponderance of the extreme on both sides of the issue ...

[Lew Hodgett]

----------------------------------------------------------------- Yep.

I am afraid the folks in OZ had it right.

They bit the bullet and seem not to have regretted it.

As bitter a pill as it would be, it's one solution.

Lew

[Larry Jaques]

He seems unreasonably sensible for a liberal. ('cept for not having a problem with the concept of gun control. As he stated, it doesn't change what the psychotics do, and they're the -only- ones doing the mass murders.)

I'd much rather see concealed carry permits issued to multiple teachers on each school campus. Gun Free Zones are a real, real strong attraction to the crazies.

-- There is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action.

--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

[HeyBub]

At another time a poster, in response to a Krauthammer article, said: "What the f*ck does a TV commentator know about economics or psychology?" (The article to which he referred evidently had Krauthammer addressing both.)

I responded:

Charles Krauthammer

McGill University (Montreal) B.A. in Economics, with highest honors Commonwealth Scholar, Politics, Oxford Doctor of Medicine, Harvard Chief Resident in Psychiarty, Massachusetts General Hospital Board certified in psychiarty by the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology

Evidently more than you.

[Larry Blanchard]

Chuckle.

But he's the only columnist I've seen address the problem of the mentally ill running loose with involuntary commitment almost impossible.

No, I don't think they should all be locked up if their problems can be controlled with medication. But how to ensure that they take that medication - that's the rub.

Is it possible for an improved mental health system to catch most of the dangerous ones before they act out? I don't know.

[Unquestionably Confused]

No, I suspect the "rub" occurs with the theory that there's a pill for everything. We don't want to lock people up (or institutionalize them) if we can just slip them a feel good (who feels good? Them or us?) pill and send them off to mingle with the general population and do cool things like head off to the mall or a school and...

Interesting reading here:

additional information, supporting documentation, etc, back it up to the home page and spend some time exploring.

[Larry Jaques]

That subject is starting to go around the media now, luckily.

How about ensuring that someone volunteers to watch them daily? Holding the person responsible for their health also responsible for crimes if necessary. They won't allow lapses if they're tied to the nutjob's crimes. Release the nutjobs to their care.

All? No. Most? Maybe. A whole lot? Absolutely. And it is most definitely worth the try. I'll bet it's more cost-effective in the long run, too.

-- Learning to ignore things is one of the great paths to inner peace. -- Robert J. Sawyer

[J. Clarke]

If they're harmless when unmedicated and harmless when medicated and harmless when overmedicated and harmless when withdrawing from meds I don't see any need to lock them up. But if they're dangerous in any of those conditions it's another story.

[Larry Blanchard]

What if they're dangerous to themselves? If suicide is a crime, should we allow someone to commit slow suicide because of a mental illness? In some cases a person may not refuse treatment for as physical condition, should the same be true for a mental condition?

Lots of questions but I don't have the answers. I just wish the politicians would address the issue instead of blaming it all on the NRA. No, I'm not a member :-).

[J. Clarke]

I dunno. Personally I think that in general the government should stay completely out of decisions in which the primary risk to the person making the decision, but if that person is nuts it's a harder question.

[HeyBub]

My wife, whose last job was Intake Clinician at a mental health hospital, has a seemingly-effective solution.

As it stands now, when a person is involuntarily committed, they are medicated, sometimes forcibly. The rub is, as soon as they start acting normally, they have to be released. The mental health workers counsel the about-to-be-released regarding the necessity to maintain their meds.

Almost always, they don't and they revert to their previous anti-social behavior, sometimes for the worse. For example, Heroin mimics many anti-psychotic drugs.

Anyway, the wife's suggestion is a variation of the "Three Strikes" rule. The third time a whacko is involuntarily committed, he goes away to the Grey Padded-Bar Hotel for a very long time. If that doesn't motivate the insane to do the right thing, at least it will prevent downstream tragedies.

Special Note: If you are ever involuntarily committed, almost always the intake facility offers you the chance to change your comitment to "voluntary." You should swallow your pride, abandon the notion "I'm not crazy," and take the offer. Here's why: If you are EVER "involuntarily" committed you lose forever the right to own a gun. Any gun. Every gun.

[Larry Blanchard]

That's one of the problems that concerns me. I've considered a system where the patient has to show up daily at a health facility and watched while he/she takes his/her meds, but I'm sure that would be expensive. Would it be more expensive than the three strikes method? I don't know.

[krw]

The mentally ill have the *right* to be mentally ill. They can't be forced to take the meds.

[Larry Blanchard]

I *do* hope you're being sarcastic.

[krw]

I *do* hope you've been listening to the lefties. That is *exactly* their position, fully backed by the ACLU. Oren has made these points here.

[Doug Miller]

Bill wrote in news: [e-mail]:

We tried that already. Didn't work very well.

[Larry Blanchard]

Agreed.

[Larry Blanchard]

There has to be some balance between the rights of an individual to do as they wish and the restrictions needed to protect society as a whole. the disagreement is where that point lies.

If someone is diagnosed as needing medication to control their propensity to be dangerous, and then refuses to take that medication, I think they forfeit their rights in favor of the rights of society as a whole.

As to who would do the diagnosing, the same members of the medical profession who do it now. There's no need for that to change.

[J. Clarke]

The problem there is that "the same members of the medical community who do it now" have a terrible track record. They can't tell when somebody's faking or not faking and when presented a consistent set of symptoms they can't present a consistent diagnosis. This is why the courts won't let a doctor lock somebody up.