It's as though I have a crystal ball
Yesterday, in my psychiatrist's office, I whined to him about my most recent post on AOT. I said, "Tomorrow I predict there will be two opposing groups sending me salty emails. I feel like I'm caught in the middle." And lo, the emails came. (To be fair, neither group was salty, but I just like using that adjective that way.)
So let's clarify matters. There are two camps I'm in contact with: those who support Senate Bill 226, and those who oppose it. Both make good points. And there's clearly caring on both sides. But the bottom line is that I'm not prepared to either condone or condemn SB 226. I simply don't have enough knowledge and information to do so.
So let's play Court TV. The next post will be from one side or the other -- whoever I get a "yes, you can publish my comments" email from first. It's a random way to decide which group is the plaintiff and which group has the rebuttal. After those two groups chime in, we'll open up the floor to further discussion -- assuming there is one.
If not, I predict a Cute Fix in your future.
Comments
If an email is peppered with emotional appeals, does that make it salty?
Posted by: Kent | September 28, 2007 11:13 PM
It isn't prison or hospital. TAC keeps saying that but it doesn't make it true. It would take over 300 people being force treated or euphemistically "AOT"'d to prevent one arrest for a non-violent crime according to a very reputable study by the Cochran research group, hardly a radical group. So are we prepared to have more than 300 people force drugged to prevent one arrest for a non-violent offense?
TAC's other argument is that people are sick, they need help. Well, yeah, all kinds of people are sick and need help and a lot of them don't get help because it isn't available, they aren't insured, or they have been so abused in the past that they are afraid of asking for help again.
What about all the people with medical illnesses out there who are non-compliant? I don't buy into the theory that someone who risks amputation or death by not taking care of his or her diabetes is making a rational, competent decision while someone who decides not to take neuroleptics is clearly making an irrational, incompetent decision.
I have kidney failure. I'm lucky enough to be off dialysis for now, but in the future it will be my choice whether to be on it or not. If I decide to die like Art Buchwald (I won't but hypothetically), the state can't do a thing about it nor can my doctor. But if someone says I'm psychotic and deteriorating and not going to die, the state and a doctor can force me to take drugs? How does this make any sense at all. I am the same person in both instances.
Posted by: Alison Hymes | September 30, 2007 07:06 PM