Taken at face value, the OP required help. And Yale just happened to be the place she was when it came to the fore. I would like to posit that many organizati

Taken at face value, the OP required help. And Yale just happened to be the place she was when it came to the fore. I would like to posit that many organizations can react the same, and my personal experience is that it is incredibly helpful to "stay out of the system" if at all possible, again with the caveat that said person is not suffering from a serious health issue like depression/self-mutilation, discrimination to the point of lethal action, etc. that would greatly benefit from being discovered and treated, or at least isolated as the cases may merit. My difficulty was taking my addictive personality and my "gaming the system" mentality and using it on my escapes of choice, mostly alcohol, at the time. Being on the system's radar (Driving Under the Influence conviction) taught me the lesson of the value of freedom. I completely abstain at this point, easier for me just to not drink any intoxicant than to try to monitor my intake/arrange for cabs/limos, etc. My freedom is a rejoice-able thing, especially when I see the tendency for bureaucracies to treat people with problems with generalistic patterns/antipatterns. Labels like "alcoholic" or "suffering from depression" are easy targets/goals for the people who are saddled with the responsibility of deciding how to deal with a person with problems in a life where the deciding individuals feel overwhelmed with the amount of cases they are expected to get through. And I see a reason for concern as the current US government (my location, I do not know if other countries are similar) looks for methods of simplifying the task of dealing with gun control, whistle blowers, and other events/people that may be perceived as threats to the current system. It would be conceivable, based on current legislation attempts/actions, that my government would decide that it is easier to limit the possession of firearms to individuals who have never had "issues" with addictions or mental deviations from what is considered "normal." Or that the potential for disruption of society and markets make self-publication on mediums (Internet blog posts? Self-made videos?) something that should be heavily regulated, for society's own good... And that same governing body is necessarily the arbitrator of what is "normal." Wouldn't bucking the British rule of colonial America be possibly considered "abnormal" by the British government of the time? One may argue that we do not want mentally-challenged individuals in possession of firearms, I may agree frequently on a case by case basis, but that also then extends to possession of vehicles (more death due to automobile accidents than many other causes), and eventually anything else that can be considered a threat. Box Cutters on planes? Aren't there individuals out there who have the ability to use their own bodies to carry out extensive damage without the aid of any other physical weapon? How would we limit them? More thought and dialog seems merited, and I appreciate this article for that, as well...