Quote:
Originally Posted by tater
There is a system to help, but as a citizen he has to avail himself of it. If he doesn't because he has a frank mental illness, then his liberty to decide about his own health needs to be taken away. The US used to do this, but complaints about institutionalizing people lead to that stopping. Removing this basic human right from people (their very freedom) is something Americans are loathe to do (sorry if that is a "simple" solution, but taking away someone's freedom is a last resort, not a first one).
I've seen the cycle personally, as my brother was schizophrenic. Being schizophrenic doesn't make you dangerous, but there is overlap between those that ARE dangerous and those that are not (even if the dangerous are a tiny minority). Requiring treatment means taking away their personal freedom. Requiring people to take meds pretty much requires incarceration (since unless you watch them swallow the meds, you have no way of knowing if they take them).
|
This post got buried during the theatre, and I think that it is the one thing that could possibly be a good outcome here. We have a long way to go in improving the quality of mental health care. However, as the road to this tragedy was underway, the shooter's family and loved ones stood by and did nothing. A major lesson to take away is that it is critical to step in and be involved in the lives of troubled loved ones. You may step on some toes, but you will save a life.