Re: Can you *believe* this guy? (AGGGHHH!!!)

Liberty (
Sun, 14 Jun 1998 14:28:23 -0400

At 04:49 AM 13/06/1998 -0400, you wrote:

>Saturday, June 13, 1998  The Financial Post
>What's Right
>It is no kindness to treat mental illness as a civil rights issue
>Psychiatry is a form of treatment, not a punishment
>                                               By DAVID FRUM 
>                                               The Financial Post 
> 		And sad to say, Newman's evasiveness appears not to be 
>accidental. Since the early 1970s, mental health has become a bloody
>ideological battleground. On the one side stand most doctors and the
families >of the mentally ill. They know mental illness is a real thing.
They know it >can transform a person into a danger to society and a
constant menace to
>himself. They know mentally ill people are often not the best judges of
>their own best interests. It is no kindness to listen to someone who tells
>you he wants to sleep on a cardboard box underneath the Gardiner Expressway 
>in January. Call this side of the debate the medical approach to mental
illness. For the past quarter-century, it's been losing. 
>around them. As far as those who take the social work point of view are 
>concerned, government's most important responsibility to the mentally ill is 
>to protect their right to refuse treatment. Beyond that, it's all a matter
>money: handing out free housing, welfare and other benefits.

There is also another point of view: the responsibility point of view, a 
view that is neither endorsed by the medical model or the so-called "social
work" model.  The responsibility point of view states that if someone wants 
to have the same rights and priveleges as do other citizens in a community,
they need to accept the same responsibilities and obligations as others.  
That means, no free housing, no government hand-outs (solely on the basis 
one is "mentally ill"), and no special rights, such as the right to commit
crimes and not face any punishment for them.

I find it ideologically inconsistent to call for human rights and
non-infringements of civil liberties, while at the same time, calling for 
greater government intervention and thus, less responsibility for the
individual themselves, to better themselves.

That's my piece for the day.  I am not in the mood for being bothered,
been back from nearly two weeks of being "away" in the philosophical sense.