Killers Among Us
The Mental Health Connection
Once it became clear that the shooter's politics were psychotic, and the partisan sideshows folded up and left town, the question remained: How was it that a young man who had obviously lost touch with reality was still out roaming the streets (and buying handguns and ammunition)?
This problem is of course the flip side of the problem of the "nice guy" who keeps to himself, keeps his grass mowed, and smiles at his neighbors while he maintains a dungeon in the basement and buries bodies in the back yard.
Some could see it coming
There is little or no defense against this second type of killer, who observes the social niceties. But too often, after a rampage like the one in Tucson, or the shootings in Columbine High some years ago, it turns out that those who knew the perpetrator saw it coming for a longtime before.
Why can't we do something about these obviously insane people in our midst before they kill?
Is coercion an option?
Forcing people to get therapy is a touchy subject in our culture. Few people would object to someone who's obviously on the brink of imminent violence or self-destruction being legally confined until the danger passes. If, however, the threat of violence does not seem inevitable and immediate, we usually look the other way and hope for the best.
But even when a person is upsetting to be around, and behaves in disturbing ways, the law does not allow us to confine them in a hospital unless there is good reason to think the person is plotting suicide or violence against other people.
Unstable, but beyond reach
Sadly, there is no ready solution to the often tragic problem of unstable, unpredictable people who are armed and dangerous and beyond the reach of treatment.
Take, for example, people whose violent urges are suppressed by medication. They cannot be kept locked up indefinitely as potential threats, even if they state outright that, once out of the hospital, they plan to quit the meds that have successfully quelled their violent urges.
Rights of society vs. rights of the individual
Most states do have some legal means to compel certain individuals to remain in psychiatric treatment, even as outpatients. But the decision whether a person is heading for danger, or is merely an eccentric misanthropist, is fraught with ethical dilemmas on both ends--the more you act to protect society, the more you risk depriving someone of his or her rights without cause.
Restricted access to firearms would at least make such attacks less deadly. Ultimately, greater popular understanding of the causes of mental illness would reduce the stigma associated with having one--and the discovery of better treatments with fewer side effects would certainly combat the avoidance of necessary treatment.
The website of the Treatment Advocacy Center is informative and has links to resources about federal and state laws regarding psychiatric treatment.
No comments:
Post a Comment