Arizona Congresswoman Shot in the Head at Public Event

[gimpy117]

I don't think freedoms are going to be limited, But i think we need to first take a look at the violence in this nation, and second our support systems for the mentally ill, like this kid. He shouldn't have slipped through the cracks. If somebody would have noticed and helped this kid, this would never have happened.

[tater]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

I don't think freedoms are going to be limited, But i think we need to first take a look at the violence in this nation, and second our support systems for the mentally ill, like this kid. He shouldn't have slipped through the cracks. If somebody would have noticed and helped this kid, this would never have happened.

Helping the mentally ill is very difficult. You can lock them up, or not. If you favor removing their liberty, then the problem is soluble. If they are to not be institutionalized, it becomes pretty much impossible. People with serious, organic mental illness can only sometimes be treated effectively with meds (and nothing else works at all on issues like schizophrenia). Those that are effectively treated very often take themselves off the drugs as soon as they feel better (since the drugs have terrible side-effects), and without the drugs, it's a nonstop ride back to crazytown.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by tater

Helping the mentally ill is very difficult. You can lock them up, or not. If you favor removing their liberty, then the problem is soluble. If they are to not be institutionalized, it becomes pretty much impossible. People with serious, organic mental illness can only sometimes be treated effectively with meds (and nothing else works at all on issues like schizophrenia). Those that are effectively treated very often take themselves off the drugs as soon as they feel better (since the drugs have terrible side-effects), and without the drugs, it's a nonstop ride back to crazytown.

yes, it is a problem...but it's evident he had some serious issues...even schizophrenia. In an odd way, I do not condone the horrendous things he did, but i feel bad that a young man, only 21, was driven by madness to do such unspeakable acts. His life is effectively over.

Yes, he may not have responded to meds for some types of mental illness (i could look it up... negative schizophrenia?) I think his case was obviously bad enough to warrant the side effects of the drugs. but there should have been some type of system to help this poor kid who needed help.

[Kongo Otto]

Originally Posted by tater

Helping the mentally ill is very difficult. You can lock them up, or not. If you favor removing their liberty, then the problem is soluble. If they are to not be institutionalized, it becomes pretty much impossible. People with serious, organic mental illness can only sometimes be treated effectively with meds (and nothing else works at all on issues like schizophrenia). Those that are effectively treated very often take themselves off the drugs as soon as they feel better (since the drugs have terrible side-effects), and without the drugs, it's a nonstop ride back to crazytown.

Well depends on what kind os schizophrenia someone has, for some subkind of schizophrenia there are meds for like Risperdal or Clozapine and Seroquel.
Its a combination between meds and treatment in a medical institution, here in Germay we have that in form of open Mental hospitals or for "locked up" medical Care centers specialized on schizophrenia.
It allways depends on what subkind of schizophrenia you have.

And to generalize the mentally ill and lock them up, in many case would be taking the sledgehammer to crack a nut.
99% of the mentally ill are no danger for the people around them.
Since two years i'm battling a gainst Huntingtons i take a great amount of meds on a daily base including antidepressants, neuroleptics and benzodiazepine.
So in German medical standards i'm mentally ill but i'm not a danger to society.
Nevertheless i had to hand over my firearms to the authorities because of my disease.
So i count your statement:"Helping the mentally ill is very difficult. You can lock them up, or not"
as a search for a simple solution or just beeing not very well informed about mental diseases.
Mental diseases are to complex for simple solutions.

That brings me to my next Point:
Americans and their love for simple solutions.
Simple solutions may work on a local scale, but they are not working in a nationwide or international scale.
The shooting, which is a real tragedy is not just a local problem its a nationwide.
In the last two years the common parlance used by R and D has aggravated in an amount, someone may think its a political arms race.
Media and political Propagandists from R and D have heatend up the political climate in an unjustifiable manner.
There is no political discussion anymore its just pointing fingers to each other and blaming the others seeding hate and prejudice.
Central Political issues have been changed against political stereotypes and insubstantial gossipry.
Carpetbaggers and political dabblers showed up with simple 18th century solutions but the problem is 21st centuries world is to complex and solutions from the past wont work.

In the past the USA where an inspiring example for democraty and a free society now you're just a daunting example of how political hatred and political prejudice can make a whole nation intolerant and filled with hate and resentiment.
Thats the picture the US have shown the rest of the world the last two years.

[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).

[Skybird]

There is no sense to generalise all mentally ill people.

There needs to be made a weighing of the individual'S freedom, and the right of the community to be protected. None of the two may automatically dominate over the other, no matter what.

Schizophrenia is not like schizophrenia. While not all schizophrenic people are dangerous, schizophrenia of certain types and grades can make you a dangerous person - to yourself, and to others as well.

Other psychiatric syndroms, manic people for example or anancastic ones, need assistance, sometimes even protection from themselves, in order to not let them ruining themselves, financially for example. This would not only effect themselves, maybe, but also their families, and children, if there are any. It also effects the community because it would need to pay for the damage or later needed social wellfare, possibly.

So, again: the rights and freedom of the - sane or insane - individual do not automatically rule over the interest of the community, nor shall the interests of the community automatically rule over the interests of the individual. A reasonable balance needs to be found. Total freedom there is for none of both, and nercessarily never can be (as long as you have no anarchy, than your relative level of freedom gets decided by your relative strength compared to that of others). Chance for abuse is there - regarding both possible parties. A legal framework is needed to mark the basic structure of the balancing act - a closer assessement of the individual case and its typical characteristics is inevitable as well.

Generalisations on psychiatric drugs, also makes little sense. They have gone a long way since the 50s, some are not good, others are extremely good, and it always depends on in what context they are being used. It is amazing that by swallowing a well-chosen medicine, you possibly still can get a very differentiated, psychologic/neurologic reaction that the patient under best circumstances does not even obviously notices, assuming he suffers by something that can be treated. There are good drugs. There are bad drugs. And often, the good ones cost more money as long as their patents are still valid.

King Otto,
sorry to hear that. Don't lose your courage. I wish you a good delay! Be careful with those Benzos.

[Kongo Otto]

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).

First i want to say that my post wasnt ment as a offense.

Well and if you didnt want to take away the freedom of an mentally ill person, there still would be the possibility for day care centers like we have it in Germany, they work with very good results.
Here in germany you can be put in medical facilities against your will, but this has to be ordered by a judge. Its not so easy either.
But if a mentally ill one is a danger for public safety, it was and will be done.

This is my personal point of view also its not ment as an offense:
The public safety in my eyes is also a basic freedom and has always to be put in a higher level than the freedom of a human beeing which maybe isn't anymore capable to decide for himself.
And if a ill person becomes a danger to public safety, yes his personal freedom should be taken, maybe for a limited amount of time or for ever.
But for such a decission there should be a very high juridically and medical standard.


As you said "my brother was" i hope he is well.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Kongo Otto

First i want to say that my post wasnt ment as a offense.

Well and if you didnt want to take away the freedom of an mentally ill person, there still would be the possibility for day care centers like we have it in Germany, they work with very good results.
Here in germany you can be put in medical facilities against your will, but this has to be ordered by a judge. Its not so easy either.
But if a mentally ill one is a danger for public safety, it was and will be done.

This is my personal point of view also its not ment as an offense:
The public safety in my eyes is also a basic freedom and has always to be put in a higher level than the freedom of a human beeing which maybe isn't anymore capable to decide for himself.
And if a ill person becomes a danger to public safety, yes his personal freedom should be taken, maybe for a limited amount of time or for ever.
But for such a decission there should be a very high juridically and medical standard.


As you said "my brother was" i hope he is well.

Here's a story in the LA Times that sheds some light on these issues - apparently it's very hard judging who is going to "snap" and do something like this. Apparently budget issues have strained the system as well - funding cuts.

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-...,2679941.story

[tater]

There are day centers, and assisted living as well here in the US. My brother was in a "group home" with other patients, and a care giver living as housemates. Still, they can easily forget or decide not to take their meds. This is a common occurrence.

My point is that even with a patient like this guy (clearly the very rare dangerous variety) getting mental health care, he is still an adult, citizen (unless institutionalized against his will), and would be at risk.

BTW, where is the guy's family? My brother got the care he got because my family was proactive and took a role in his care. His family must have known there was something seriously wrong with him. They have a responsibility, too. Again, the usual suspects will complain about budget cuts, etc, but the reality is that for care to work when it is not mandatory (which would require a court-order in the US), the patient has to decide to seek care. The trouble with mental illness is that the worst off patients are the least likely to seek care. Those with more minor disease are going to be the ones well enough to recognize that they actually need care. It's a catch-22 (literally).

[gimpy117]

yeah...where was his family?

I can understand why his friends bailed on him...but they should have mentioned his behavior to somebody.

[Takeda Shingen]

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.