Society decides its own policies. Sometimes that through a representive democracy and sometimes that's through an autocratic regime like Saddam Hussein's regime. Ultimately, though, society as a whole must give the green light for those decisions. Even Saddam was restricted by the Islamic culture to a certain degree. Had he gone too far for even that society, they would have overthrown him.

In the case of freedom and democracy, there are certain limits that we are willing to respect individual rights. Criminal behavior is just one exception where individual 'rights' are violated in the better interest of society (e.g., the Patriot act). In the case of health issues, there are laws on suicide, laws on raising one's children, etc, all of which seem to violate individual rights. Treating a certain scope of mental health in society is well within the grasp of a society that is committed to solving homelessness and still committed to individual rights. After all, if someone is obviously ill and conforms to the symptoms of a severe mental illness, then society as a whole deems fit to address those issues. It may not be pleasing to Alan, but nothing Alan says here will affect how society responds to those who need psychological help. By him voicing opposition he's only showing a sense of cruelity to those who suffer from their mental illness.

• What safeguards does Anonymous Harv propose against tyranny? - quiet - December 27, 2003 - 00:06 UTC
• pschiatric totalitarianism no answer to homeless! - dolphin - December 31, 2003 - 09:22 UTC
  • Mental illness in the State of Connecticut - secretary - December 31, 2003 - 14:23 UTC