Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
What do you think about this woman in the Columbine area?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ethan N" data-source="post: 3226816" data-attributes="member: 29267"><p>I have a ton of respect for your profession and what you deal with not only to try to help people like that, but to help keep the public safe from them. It sounds like it should be a simple issue. If someone’s mental health condition causes them to be a danger to themselves or others, they should be supervised to whatever degree necessary to prevent them from causing harm.</p><p></p><p>But I think [USER=41708]@okierider[/USER] ’s point still stands, even if his example isn’t relevant to clear cut cases like the one you referenced. How do we decide when someone has a mental health condition severe enough that limiting their rights to bodily autonomy, arms, etc. is necessary and justified? We have to make sure that process is as bulletproof as possible because the consequences of getting it wrong are disastrous if the accused is not actually dangerous.</p><p></p><p>I don’t work in healthcare and I don’t know what the right process is. But I’d be wary of a process that relies on evaluations and recommendations by healthcare professionals if there’s ever a chance all of those professionals could be selected by or paid by the state. We have to accept the inevitability that if there’s a process for stripping someone’s rights, even temporarily, it will end up being used as a political weapon (especially when we’re talking about 2A rights), so excellent safeguards must be in place. Most physicians can be trusted to be honest and not politically and/or financially motivated, but we’d be kidding ourselves to think they all can be. America already has a past haunted by mental health “treatment” being used as a political and social weapon. Let’s not repeat that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ethan N, post: 3226816, member: 29267"] I have a ton of respect for your profession and what you deal with not only to try to help people like that, but to help keep the public safe from them. It sounds like it should be a simple issue. If someone’s mental health condition causes them to be a danger to themselves or others, they should be supervised to whatever degree necessary to prevent them from causing harm. But I think [USER=41708]@okierider[/USER] ’s point still stands, even if his example isn’t relevant to clear cut cases like the one you referenced. How do we decide when someone has a mental health condition severe enough that limiting their rights to bodily autonomy, arms, etc. is necessary and justified? We have to make sure that process is as bulletproof as possible because the consequences of getting it wrong are disastrous if the accused is not actually dangerous. I don’t work in healthcare and I don’t know what the right process is. But I’d be wary of a process that relies on evaluations and recommendations by healthcare professionals if there’s ever a chance all of those professionals could be selected by or paid by the state. We have to accept the inevitability that if there’s a process for stripping someone’s rights, even temporarily, it will end up being used as a political weapon (especially when we’re talking about 2A rights), so excellent safeguards must be in place. Most physicians can be trusted to be honest and not politically and/or financially motivated, but we’d be kidding ourselves to think they all can be. America already has a past haunted by mental health “treatment” being used as a political and social weapon. Let’s not repeat that. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
What do you think about this woman in the Columbine area?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom