[ExI] insanity plea
spike at rainier66.com
Mon Feb 25 06:03:07 UTC 2013
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stathis
>>... Something I have never heard of but should be available somewhere is
> the option of mental health care with complete anonymity...
>...It wouldn't work since apart from anything else, you need collateral
history to reliably make a diagnosis. A person could present as perfectly
well because they are hiding their symptoms, because their symptoms are
treated due to taking medication which they have recently stopped, or
because they have an episodic illness such as bipolar disorder...
Ja. This would require a patient who is highly motivated for a cure, which
would be evidenced by paying their own hard-earned as opposed to going for
medical insurance, who cannot be told of the treatment. The patient would
need full access to her own medical records, complete. Under the current
system, I don't know that we can get that. I am not sure how that works. I
am lucky that way: my own medical history is very simple.
>...It's offensive to people with mental illnesses to make general rules
about them working or even owning guns...
Ja, I agree, which is why I think the attempt to screen gun buyers based on
mental health is DOA. The conviction record, as opposed to the mental
health record, is unambiguous, even if imperfect. But that business of
expanding the categories of those not allowed to own guns is I think going
nowhere, because we don't know how to define mental illness or dangerous
individuals. I can imagine a shooting hobbyist who knows every intimate
detail of every weapon must appear mentally ill to people who are not into
that sport. But I can relate: I am a motorcycle hobbyist, and I remember
tiny details on plenty of bikes. If the government began talking of
restricting my bikes, I would act pretty similarly to the way the gun crowd
is acting now.
>... Every person is different... Stathis Papaioannou
Point taken Stathis. I was squirmy when the feds started talking about
restrictions based on mental health, which tends to equate mental illness
with criminality. I don't like that a bit, and it is something with which I
have been struggling mightily, since I have a family member we recently had
to move into elder care for Alzheimers. Think about it: the patients are
locked in there, no choice to leave, that represents an involuntary
confinement based on a mental illness. But sometimes an AD patient has
hours in which they seem almost normal. Yet they are confined against their
clearly stated will, everything they own is taken away, yet they never
committed any crime or broke any rules. I don't like equating mental
illness with criminality.
I can see the end of the road coming on the current US gun debate: no
change. If any change at all, it will be something that doesn't mean
anything, like restricting "30 round clips." Note: there is no such thing
as a 30-round clip. A number of US lawmakers demonstrated that they were
writing legislation on a subject in which they didn't know basic definitions
such as the difference between a clip and a magazine. One lawmaker was
questioned on what was this adjustable stock she was trying to outlaw, and
why did it make a gun more dangerous. She didn't know, and couldn't offer a
description of an adjustable stock.
More information about the extropy-chat