[Vision2020] Mental health

[Ted Moffett]

If everyone that expresses symptoms of possible potential violent
behavior connected to a alledged personality disorder were subjected
to "involuntary hospitalization" it would be impossible to not
infringe on personal liberty.

My understanding is that psychiatry's ability to forsee who will or
will not go off the deep end, as did the person who committed the mass
shooting in Tucson, is not very accurate.  The "safety net" could end
up confining many people who would never commit extreme acts of
violence.

And the definition of "mental illness" as it relates to violent
behavior can be seriously debated.  Was Oklahoma City Federal Building
bomber McVeigh mentally ill?

I have long thought that anyone who commits extreme acts of violence
against innocents is somehow mentally ill, given this implies a
serious lack of empathy for fellow human beings and/or impulse control
in violent behavior, though if I understand correctly psychiatry in
some cases does not define such behavior as an expression of mental
illness.  Were the military personel who knowingly dropped nuclear
weapons on tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Japan mentally
ill?  A pacifist might claim so, but of course many would say this is
ridiculous.

Consider this Scientific American article "What 'Psychopath' Means?"
that contains the following statement:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-psychopath-means&page=2

"Nevertheless, most psychopaths are not violent, and most violent
people are not psychopaths."

This suggests that perhaps many violent people do not express symptoms
of "mental illness" that might justify confining them based on
psychiatric grounds.

The 9/11 aircraft hijackers were apparently rather rational and
"normal" appearing in their behavior prior to carrying out the 9/11
attacks, which is partly why their plans were not discovered.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

On 1/14/11, Carl Westberg <idahovandal1 at live.com> wrote:
>
> Along with the civility issue, another major theme of the President's speech
> was the issue of mental health.  I was discussing this with a couple of
> friends this morning.  The path that led the shooter to the events in Tucson
> was, by all accounts, littered with red flags.  A classmate spoke of sitting
> by the door during class for fear of this man, a math professor expressed
> similar concerns.  There were about a dozen incidents involving the police
> with this guy.  Apparently all the warning signs, if not warning sirens,
> pointed to the possibility or even probability of something like this
> happening.  I saw an interview with one of his friends who said that upon
> hearing of he shootings, he had an immediate sense of who may have done it.
> How should society in this country deal with such situations?  When does
> intervention such as involuntary hospitalization due to such ominous signals
> become appropriate without infringing upon personal liberty?  How do we
> determine when a line has been crossed and interventionary action is called
> for?  The country is obsessed with pointing rhetorical blame, but what of
> the subject of the mentally ill, the vast majority of whom pose no threat of
> harm, except possibly to themselves?  Can the "safety net" be improved?
>