Date: 24 Feb 97 02:52:37 EST From: Chris Burford <100423.2040-AT-compuserve.com> Subject: Re: M-PSY: Laws don't stop lunatics Brenda wrote: >>There was a shooting in New Zealand recently. A young man shot and killed six people and wounded others in a small rural village. However, as his lawyer said, when commenting on the newspaper articles which cited his client as being mentally ill; there is no evidence on which to base these comments of 'mental illness'. The man had no (known) history of mental illness and was being assesed at the time. I believe he is right, just because there is an act out of 'normal' societial norms, why should the person immediately be assumed to be psychiatrically unwell?? This is I guess, another discussion of Mad or Bad.. Brenda MacCulloch ajmac-AT-iconz.co.nz <<< I am wondering whether the distinction is between psychiatrically ill and emotionally disturbed. Previously people who were emotionally disturbed were diagnosed as being ill and lost their liberty. Including people like Janet Frame, (whose story is portrayed in "An Angel at my Table"). Were there not indications in the reports of this recent tragedy that there was an emotional problem involving his immediate family? Perhaps he should not have been diagnosed as psychiatrically ill, but should he and millions of others have access to counselling? Chris Burford --- from list marxism-psych-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005