Posted by Sean on April 12, 2000, at 12:03:17
In reply to Guns and the mentally ill: disturbing article, posted by Abby on April 12, 2000, at 0:31:35
Hmmm.
Well, what if she wanted to buy an assault weapon?
I think couching her desire to own an antique gun kinda
borders on sophistry. It is an unlikely scenario
desined to probe the penumbral underbelly of a
serious moral issue. Having said that, I'll take
it at face value and argue against her having the
right to own an operational gun of any kind.First, I'm not convinced that gun ownership benefits
society in general. I'd probably rather see hunting done
with bows and arrows! And most of the "constitutional"
arguments are based on the archaic notion that the
people should be able to protect themselves from
the government if needed. Well, that is impossible
at this point. And statistically, the deaths from
firearms in all countries which ban them are beyond
contestation. Fewer guns means fewer deaths by guns.
But I'm ok with gun ownership at this point (even
though I was shot in the leg at age 8!)Second, unlike an isolated case of uncomplicated
dysthymia, perhaps treated with psychotherapy in early
adulthood, your example uses a more serious diagnosis.
Bipolar illness is among the more deadly diseases.
And while I agree that our treatment and understanding
of this disorder is getting better all the time,
I do not believe we've got it nailed down yet. To
assume that our current medical technology is
sufficient to prevent a person from attempting suicide
again is perhaps getting ahead of our understanding of
the illness.How about this analog: would you want to be in a
plane with a pilot who has epilepsy? Even if this
person is medicated, there isn't a neurologist in
the world who would say "Mr. X will never have
another siezure if he takes Depakote for the rest
of his life." It may in fact be the case that
Mr. X will NOT have another siezure. Then again, the
odds are overwhelmingly higher for him than a
person with a siezure-free history that he will.
Similarly, I also don't know of a bipolar person who has
recovered 100% even with medication. You have to
fight this thing like cancer - it takes enormous
willpower and guts.So I argue that serious mental illness has a strong
genetic/biological component which is both imperfectly
controlled by medication and has an unpredictable
course over one's lifetime. We're making progress
in diagnosis and treatment - yes - but we are a
long way from the kind of certainty which might
make a good argument for gun ownership in the hands
of persons with a history of suicide attempts...Peace,
Sean.
> This article in the NY Times really bothered me. I was struck by the fact that Utah has a law requiring certain schizophrenics to take medication, but it also has a law mandating that indigent patients be prescribed the least expensive anti-psychotics.
>
> Apparently, if you've ever been committed to a mental hospital, you are barred from buying a gun; it may be only handguns. I think that we can all agree that it's probably not a good idea for severely depressed people to be around guns because of the suicide risk. We've all been very worried about Harry for example.
>
> At the same time, suppose an 18 year-old has a first onset of manic-depressive illness and is committed because of a suicide attempt. She is evaluated and treated, both pharmacologically and psychotherapeutically, and does well for several years. When she's forty, she develops an interest in all things 18th century--clothing, furniture etc. and wants to buy an elegant dueling pistol for display. Why shouldn't she have the right to?
> Or is this a case of, once mentally ill always unreliable?
>
>
> Anyway, here's the article:
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/041100rampage-killers.html
>
> Abby
poster:Sean
thread:29693
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000411/msgs/29731.html