![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 7 of 7. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Irene56 on June 7, 2003, at 21:27:03
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030607/USTARM//?query=Starson
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 8, 2003, at 10:34:27
In reply to High court supports mentally-ill physicist , posted by Irene56 on June 7, 2003, at 21:27:03
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030607/USTARM//?query=Starson
>
>Peek-a-boo, eh?
Good link. Thanks.
Lar
Posted by mattdds on June 8, 2003, at 11:54:30
In reply to Re: High court supports mentally-ill physicist » Irene56, posted by Larry Hoover on June 8, 2003, at 10:34:27
>>"Although the patient did not conceive of his condition as an illness, he was quite aware that his brain did not function normally," Mr. Justice Jack Major wrote.
This is great! This is why I have a problem with the DSM-IV and psychiatric labels in general. Diagnoses sometimes help in a very broad sense to describe patterns, but when used as a decision on whether to medicate or not, I believe they can be a bit presumptuous. I mean, did they think to ask the guy if his "illness" was bothering him? Or was he harming someone else? If neither, then leave him alone!
Matt
Posted by xjs7 on June 10, 2003, at 11:59:16
In reply to Re: High court supports mentally-ill physicist, posted by mattdds on June 8, 2003, at 11:54:30
This guy is not safe to be around. He was threatening to harm others. He cannot just be left alone.
From the article: "His latest stint began after he was arrested in Toronto for threatening a neighbour in 1998. A judge ruled that he was not criminally responsible for uttering death threats."
Posted by mattdds on June 10, 2003, at 15:51:51
In reply to Re: High court supports mentally-ill physicist » mattdds, posted by xjs7 on June 10, 2003, at 11:59:16
>>This guy is not safe to be around. He was threatening to harm others. He cannot just be left alone
Yes, you are right. But he is being hospitalized, as a result of his decision to not be medicated, right?
I don't know all the details about this trial, and don't have my mind made up completely about this issue. But a big part of me says that it is wrong to force someone into a treatment that they do not want (this does not mean to let him roam free if he chooses to go unmedicated, mind you).
Matt
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 10, 2003, at 19:32:26
In reply to Re: High court supports mentally-ill physicist, posted by mattdds on June 10, 2003, at 15:51:51
> >>This guy is not safe to be around. He was threatening to harm others. He cannot just be left alone
>
> Yes, you are right. But he is being hospitalized, as a result of his decision to not be medicated, right?
>
> I don't know all the details about this trial, and don't have my mind made up completely about this issue. But a big part of me says that it is wrong to force someone into a treatment that they do not want (this does not mean to let him roam free if he chooses to go unmedicated, mind you).
>
> MattThe physicist (Starson) was put on trial for making threats against people, and was found to be incapable of appreciating the nature of his crimes. As a result, he was ordered into a secure psychiatric facility for one year (which is renewable, annually), or until such time as he was deemed to no longer be a risk to himself or others. It is the determination of his doctors that he requires medication if he has any hope of release. By choosing to remain unmedicated, Starson also precludes his being released from the secure psychiatric institution.
I hope it's not too lengthy, but I find the complete Supreme Court ruling to be a fascinating read. Both the majority (denying forced medication) and minority (pro-medication) arguments are given in their entirety at:
http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2003scc032.wpd.htmlLar
Posted by Larry Hoover on June 10, 2003, at 21:00:18
In reply to Re: text of the Supreme Court decision » mattdds, posted by Larry Hoover on June 10, 2003, at 19:32:26
> I hope it's not too lengthy, but I find the complete Supreme Court ruling to be a fascinating read. Both the majority (denying forced medication) and minority (pro-medication) arguments are given in their entirety at:
> http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2003scc032.wpd.html
>
> LarOK, after reading the whole thing, I have to agree with the majority decision. The minority opinion seemed compelling at first, but upon reading the arguments for Starson's competency, the arguments in favour of a finding of incompetency no longer held. They were too legalistic, and founded on assumptions which had no valid place in the determination. In contrast, the majority decision took pains to consider in depth Starson's own words, which clearly indicate that he was capable of deciding his own fate.
As I said, a fascinating read. It should be required reading for all psychiatrists.
Lar
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.