Mental Health and hte Arizona Shooting

Discussion in 'Health and Lifestyle' started by goldcatt, Jan 10, 2011.

  1. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    In at least one other thread on the Arizona shooting several posters have brought up mental health issues as a related topic, including how we diagnose and treat mental illnesses, issues regarding coverage, prevailing attitudes toward mental illness, the proper balance between respecting a mentally ill person's rights and protecting them or others from violence associated with their condition, or whether the alleged shooter in fact appears to be mentally ill at all.

    That's a whole lot of different issues, but I'm interested in a real discussion on its own. Should this incident be a wake up call regarding how we as a nation tend to handle mental illness, and if so, what do you see as the problem? What if anything would you like to see changed?

    ETA: And YES, I see the typo in the thread title...about 3 seconds too late :lol:
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2011
  2. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,837
    Thanks Received:
    12,787
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,866
    The attitude that We As A Nation are responsible for each mentally unstable person is a problem in and of itself.

    The sad fact is, that those who daily and locally interacted with Jared Loughner knew he was troubled. He engaged in multiple disturbances which involved campus police being called in. And yet, he continued his twisted journey resulting in the shootings. Perhaps better parenting could have made a difference earlier on. Who knows?

    It's easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to assert that somebody should have done something to institutionalize, drug, or counsel him into being a peaceful and nonviolent citizen - but it's highly unrealistic.

    There have always been (and will always be), however, borderline and worse personalities. Do we err on the side of caution and target the eccentric? Do we force "troublesome" personalities into institutions against their will?

    Or, do we accept the reality that the government cannot ensure our security against the random acts of disturbed people and each take responsibility for our own well being and that of our personal sphere?
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2011
  3. Truthmatters
    Offline

    Truthmatters BANNED

    Joined:
    May 10, 2007
    Messages:
    80,182
    Thanks Received:
    2,223
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +2,233
  4. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
    I think you raise some interesting points here. I guess my biggest question would be, when a person is potentially at the point where he is harmful to himself and/or others and is unable or unwilling to control his own actions does it become necessary for somebody to take over that control in order to protect life and property? And if so, who would you see taking that role if not government?

    You mention parents, but if it's already gotten to that point the parents are probably either unwilling or unable to make much difference in the outcome.
     
  5. goldcatt
    Offline

    goldcatt Catch me if you can! Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2009
    Messages:
    10,330
    Thanks Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    CentralPA
    Ratings:
    +2,331
  6. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Innocent until proven guilty may need to be revisted. The criminally insane are locked up but why always AFTER they ahve committed the act ?

    Does the good of the many outweigh the good of the individual?
     

Share This Page