4 ms·
But I'm not ok with preemptively locking mental hill people as well. I see the discussion more about taking into account that a mental hill person is more likel
by GTP 4y ago
But I'm not ok with preemptively locking mental hill people as well. I see the discussion more about taking into account that a mental hill person is more likely to have a violent behavior, and thus evaluating on a case-by-case basis if such a person needs to stay in a specialized health care facility (for their own good first, so they can receive the help they need) vs negating this fact and saying that mental illness doesn't impact on a person's behavior.
The whole point of the article was that, to avoid creating stigma, it seems that in the USA they ended up with a situation where people with mental hillness are unlikely to receive the healthcare that they need.
- bjornsing 4y ago> taking into account that a mental hill person is more likely to have a violent behavior, and thus evaluating on a case-by-case basis if such a person needs to stay in a specialized health care facility (for their own good first, so they can receive the help they need) vs negating this fact and saying that mental illness doesn't impact on a person's behavior. So what’s the difference? Having foreign born parents does “impact” a persons likelihood to be violent in a statistical sense. Having schizophrenia has a similar “impact” on a statistical level. You may find it easier to see a causal relationship in the latter case, but there are plenty of people who see that causal relationship in the former case too. Of course it’s wrong to deny people care for a serious illness. That unfortunately happens regularly in Sweden too.