Hank.Walker@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU (08/15/86)
I used to agree with a lot of what Libertarians espouse, but what really turned me off to them was their position on mental illness. Their attitude, as Keith expressed on August 5, is that we shouldn't judge what is normal or abnormal behavior, and hence shouldn't restrain mentally ill people until they have or are in the process of committing a crime. This is utter nonsense. People who hold this position don't know what they are talking about. They have obviously never had the experience of a close friend or relative with a mental illness, attempt to commit suicide, etc. Otherwise they would change their tune instantly. I'm not talking about people feeling a little down, or having troubles interacting with others, I'm talking real mental illness, like psychosis or schizophrenia, the kind that can only be treated with drugs, not "talking therapy." People suffering from these illnesses lose all responsibility. The correct way to view them is as children. Would you let your children do whatever they wanted until they committed a crime? Hardly. Suppose your child was sick but didn't want to go to the doctor? Would you say "Okay Johnny, you don't have to go for those rabies shots if you don't want to." Fat chance. You'd drag the kid to the doctor no matter how much kicking and screaming. The same goes for the mentally ill. They can often be successfully treated, but only against their will. The fact that they are physically an adult is irrelevant. Mentally they are a child, and should be treated as such. With successful treatment, they can lead a life with some semblence of normalcy, but only if you force them to go for the initial treatments. Once they start feeling better, they have a powerful urge to say "Oh, I'm all better. I don't need this medicine anymore." This is true for all chronic diseases, not just mental illnesses. Therefore you have to keep watching them even after they are out of the hospital. Lest you doubt this, consider how many schizophrenic adults are still living with their parents. Anyone who wants to know how living with the mentally ill really feels should read the My Turn column that appeared in Newsweek some months ago by a woman describing her mother's illness, the breakup of her parent's marriage, and finally her mother's suicide. -------
kfl%mx.lcs.mit.edu@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU.UUCP (08/18/86)
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
I used to agree with a lot of what Libertarians espouse, but what
really turned me off to them was their position on mental illness.
So? Can't you agree with us on some things and disgree on one or
two? Not all libertarians agree with my position on competency.
[The position is] we shouldn't judge what is normal or abnormal
behavior,
Government shouldn't. Individuals are free to judge, but not to
restrain people who seem nutty.
and hence shouldn't restrain mentally ill people until they have
or are in the process of committing a crime.
That's right. Who gets to decide what is normal or abnormal? Are
some political beliefs abnormal? Some religions? None, you say?
Well, what about people who practice human sacrifice, surely they
should be restrained. Yes, but only because human sacrifice is a
CRIME, not because it is crazy or abnormal.
I'm not talking about people feeling a little down, or having
troubles interacting with others, I'm talking real mental illness,
like psychosis or schizophrenia, ...
Or paranoia?
the kind that can only be treated with drugs, not "talking
therapy."
You won't find three psychiatrists who will agree on who, if anyone,
can be cured by talking therapy, and who requires drugs, and what
drugs, and in what amount.
Many psychiatrists even doubt the very existance of mental illness.
Read Thomas Szasz's _The Myth of Mental Illness_. Heck of a science
where some of its practitioners doubt the existance of the subject
matter!
There is hardly a trial in which a credentialed psychiatrist
testifies that someone is sane or insane in which another equally
credentialed psychiatrist doesn't testify the opposite.
Yet you think that people should be imprisoned and drugged against
their will, possibly for life, based on one such psychiatrist's
opinion? Even if they have hurt nobody and comitted no crime?
The correct way to view them is as children.
Would you let your children do whatever they wanted until they
committed a crime? Hardly.
Our discussions on this list are about the correct political system
for ADULTS. Which adults should be treated like children? Those for
which a psychiatrist can be found to testify they are deranged? You
want to make any bets what percent of the population that would be?
Anyone who wants to know how living with the mentally ill really
feels should read the My Turn column that appeared in Newsweek
some months ago by a woman describing her mother's illness, the
breakup of her parent's marriage, and finally her mother's
suicide.
What about those whose parents drink or smoke? Those habits also
destroy lives. Far more lives than mental illness destroys. Should
they too be locked away? Many psychiatrists have said that drinking
is a mental illness. Some say the same about smoking. Some say the
same about computer usage.
It is pretty widely believed that Abraham Lincoln and Winston
Churchill suffered from clinical depression. Should they have been
put away?
...Keith
-------earle@gorbag.UUCP (08/25/86)
>From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu >I used to agree with a lot of what Libertarians espouse, but what >really turned me off to them was their position on mental illness. >[The position is] we shouldn't judge what is normal or abnormal >behavior, and hence shouldn't restrain mentally ill people until they >have or are in the process of committing a crime. I can personally attest to Hank's in-depth knowledge of mental illness. After all, he went to Caltech. -------