Mental illness and privacy

[Quantum Windbag]

I was wondering, is there anyone that can tell me why someone who sees a psychiatrist should be subjected to government scrutiny? Please note, I am not talking about someone who is bat shit crazy, like Jared Loughner, I am talking about women who seek treatment for postpartum depression. Is there any reason why their names should go on a government list just because they seek medical help?

How about kids who are diagnosed with ADHD, should they be on a government list somewhere?

What is the government going to do with a list of people who, other than being on the list, have committed no crime? Before you start talking about guns here let me point out that there is really no evidence that anyone on this list even owns a gun, or that they are trying to get their hands on one. This list exist completely independent of gun control, it exists only so the state can track people who have mental illness.

The other side of the coin, of course, is the argument that it is in the public interest for people who are mentally unstable and dangerous to be reported to the authorities and be deprived of the ability to legally purchase a weapon. I don’t disagree with that proposition, but the manner in which it was applied in the case I linked above demonstrates quite clearly why it is going to be difficult to use background checks to screen out people who may be mentally unstable. The SAFE Act in particular seems to me to be overly broad in defining what qualifies as a reportable condition. It’s one thing for a person who is delusional on the level of a Seung-Hui Choi or Jared Loughner to be caught up in the net, it is quite another for someone who was apparently merely on an anti-anxiety drug to have their Constitutional rights limited. If taking that kind of medication is enough to get you on a list, then what about the millions upon millions of Americans who are on some form of anti-depressant or who take medication that alters their mood in any manner? Are they going to get put on a government list too, and what, exactly, is the government going to do with that list? History is replete with examples of psychiatry being abused by the state, and the danger of abuse becomes even higher when the law broadens the number of conditions that are reportable to the state.
Saying that people who are dangerous, or potentially dangerous, because of their mental condition shouldn’t be allowed to buy guns is a good talking point, and in general it’s an idea that I don’t have any objection to. How you implement that idea, and what it means for the medical privacy of American citizens, is quite another and something that even people who aren’t ardent gun rights proponents ought to be concerned about. What the case of David Lewis shows us is the danger of going too far in the name of “public safety.”

Mental Illness, Gun Rights, And Medical Privacy

 

[Crackerjaxon]

It's a step below sending people to re-education camps.

 

[Agit8r]

The mental health part of the gun debate is the most concerning in my opinion. Even Loughner and Holmes hadn't done anything necessarily criminal. Should we have accepted the hearsay of concerned individuals? It could easily become even more arbitrary than the do-not-fly list.

Best to limit scrutiny to criminal court findings, restraining orders granted, etc.