hank.walker@UNH.CS.CMU.EDU (08/18/86)
To: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu> When I say "mental illness" I am talking about behavior that is obviously insane to all those around the person, not what some psychiatrists say. One thing I've learned is that psychiatry and psychoanalysis have not yet become sciences. Essentially all progress has been through the discovery of a few drugs. How these drugs work is not yet understood, and a patient's reactions to the drugs is unpredictable at that. Smoking and drinking may be stupid, and may be addictions, but they are not insanity. The real issue here is one of authoritarianism, and whether it should exist in society at all. Whenever I hear people saying "don't judge or try to restrict their behavior, it's not hurting anyone besides themselves" I am reminded of the type of parenting that can best be defined as "let them find their own space." The result of that kind of parenting is an ill-mannered savage. Similarly if we allow people to do things that the VAST majority thinks is insanely foolish, or just plain insane, the result is a large number of people leading miserable lives who don't have the ability to improve their lot. The life expectancy of a mentally ill person on the street is a few years at most. Visit a laundromat late on a winter night. My reference to suicide in my last message was no accident. The mentally ill have a very high suicide rate. Even if they are not on the street, they are undergoing constant mental torture. They often know that something is terribly wrong, but can't do anything about it. Those who lack the constant support of friends and family live in a solitary hell. Libertarians would say "Oh leave them be, so what if they die." I'm with Ed Koch who says "Fuck that, I'm dragging them in off the street before they freeze to death." When something is obviously right (obvious to nearly everybody), you don't let some abstract political philosophy stand in your way. -------
KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU (08/21/86)
From: Hank.Walker@unh.cs.cmu.edu
When I say "mental illness" I am talking about behavior that is
obviously insane to all those around the person, not what some
psychiatrists say.
Does support for LaRouche fall into this category?
Whenever I hear people saying "don't judge or try to restrict
their behavior, it's not hurting anyone besides themselves" I am
reminded of the type of parenting that can best be defined as "let
them find their own space."
We are talking about adults.
Similarly if we allow people to do things that the VAST majority
thinks is insanely foolish, or just plain insane, the result is a
large number of people leading miserable lives ...
How vast a majority?
Don't the things that the vast majority think are insanely foolish
change considerably with time? And don't they vary with place? By
your standards, the USSR is justified in locking up dissidents for
the insanity of opposing the Soviet system. The vast majority of
Soviet citizens would agree that opposing the Soviet system is insane.
I firmly believe that people have the right to live their own lives.
That includes the right to be miserable. Would you advocate that
people who flunk a happiness test can be denied their civil rights and
imprisoned in horrible conditions for life? If the 'insane' are
trying to avoid such a fate, it is likely that they would lie on such
a test? Perhaps the government should spy on them and attempt to
judge their degree of happiness? Someone who is borderline on this
test might go over the line because of their dismay at the present
administration. This would essentially mean that they are being
imprisoned for being unhappy with the authorities. Even if they don't
speak of it. Even if they try to keep it secret. The Thought Police
will find them out and haul them away.
I know it doesn't have to be like this. But giving government the
unlimited power to deny someone his rights based on his non-criminal
behavior or even his private thoughts is so dangerous that I would do
anything in my power to prevent it.
who don't have the ability to improve their lot.
Everyone has this ability. It is you who would have government take
it away.
[The mentally ill] are undergoing constant mental torture. They
often know that something is terribly wrong, but can't do anything
about it.
Why can't they voluntarily submit to treatment?
When something is obviously right (obvious to nearly everybody),
you don't let some abstract political philosophy stand in your
way.
It is not obviously right to me, or to a lot of people. My
political philosophy is not just abstract, it is very concrete.
How about this for a compromise. Have a document, similar to those
organ donor cards, on which a person can sign his assent to
involuntary psychiatric treatment if he is ever judged to be insane by
three impartial psychiatrists and by three relatives, coworkers, or
neighbors. Presumably you would agree to sign it. If "nearly
everybody" agrees with you, then so would they. This would take care
of most of the problem if most people agree with you. Those who
refuse to sign the card deserve what they get if they end up
undergoing constant mental torture and refusing treatment.
Personally, I'd as soon call up the Godfather and have a contract
taken out on myself as sign such a card.
...Keith
-------