|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Mentally ill students at universities
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Of course, even with more restrictive laws, these things still happen - the Dunblane Massacre happened at a time when our gun laws were more restrictive than the USA and when exactly the same mental health act was in place.
In the end our government responded by tightening the gun laws. I don't think it has ever been possible to establish whether Hamilton could be considered to have a mental health problem. He certainly wasn't behaving "normally".
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Doubleposting, to add:
Prior to Dunblane, probably the most well known recent massacre was in Hungerford, basically Michael Ryan went round the local area shooting. And I guess this was what I was thinking of earlier when I asked what difference it would have made to get Cho off campus. Would he simply have killed a different group of people ?
In this instance, which was earlier than Dunblane, the government also responded with restrictions on gun ownership. Again it is unclear what Michael Ryan's mental health status was.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
And tripleposting to add:
For the what it is worth, the gun control response seems like a good idea to me and this is why. You still have a disturbed individual trying to kill people with a lethal weapon - but far fewer people die.
The assailant in this case definitely did have recognisable mental illness. But that doesn't seem to be the norm for the perpetrators of these kind of acts.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink
For the what it is worth, the gun control response seems like a good idea to me and this is why. You still have a disturbed individual trying to kill people with a lethal weapon - but far fewer people die.
On the other hand, if Timothy McVeigh had been using a gun, he would have killed fewer people.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Yes and if the U. S. Airmen had dropped homemade bombs over Hiroshima more of those people would have survivied.
On the other hand, Tim McVeigh wasn't mentally ill and would be quite welcome in your university.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duck
Shipmate
# 10181
|
Posted
Reading between the lines - was 'Cho' actually legally committed to outpatient treatment, or was it quasi-voluntary - in a 'I agreee to consent to this so I won't be treated as an inpatient without my consent' sense? ISTM that the lack of follow-up, inappropriate referral, etc would make more sense if Cho had consented under pressure rather than actually been formally sectioned / equivalent.
IME it's quite common for this sort of quasi-compulsory treatment without legal section to take place - more so than formal sectioning. Would explain a lot, & posibly why the university didn't do more in the way of follow-up too, if Cho was [involuntarily / pretending] co-operation with psych treatment.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by welsh dragon:
I do wonder
a) why the order was being made by a judge (as I said before)
Who else could give such an order?
[...]
In the UK, psychiatrists, although nurses and other professionals can give very short sections (basically long enough for a psychiatrist to turn up). Sometimes two are needed, and for long-term treatment there may well be formal legal involvement, social workers, and other professionals, but it's dealt with mostly as a health rather than a legal matter.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Which is also to say that I'm sympathetic to people who think that painting with too broad a brush ("mentally ill students at universities") is dangerous. But I also think that Moo's core topic (which is more along the lines of "students who have been judged to be a danger to themselves or others at universities") is worth discussing. Particularly since the reality is that universities have been sued for failing to prevent a student from committing suicide and for suspending a suicidal student.
'Students who are a danger to themselves' on some level is a huge topic, possibly even deserving of a Heaven thread to detail all the creative and entertaining ways my fellow-students create truly innovative new levels of risk where none previously existed. Fellow-students have been a danger to themselves through enthusiastic but woefully ignorant attempts to cook a meal for the first time, scurvy on account of refusing fruit and vegetables, smoking, hobbies involving fiddling about with electricity, risking deadly diseases by swimming in a polluted lake, and others to numerous to mention, all whilst having nothing a psychiatrist could diagnose.
'Students with mental health problems' is another topic that's worth discussing, but not dominated by one unrepresentative individual who may or may not have had a diagnosable mental health problem - it's exactly analogous to discussing 'Asian students' and then devoting most of the thread to Cho, and about as nasty.
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Question: Even if someone were suicidal (and comments one could make do not seem to make that a certainty), wouldn't he be most likely to be a danger to himself? Would wanting to harm others be a part of this?
As well, wouldn't there be more behind Cho's actions than suicidal tendencies or mental illness? Most people who are mentally ill, even severely so, are not about to slaughter people around them.
Thank you. The overwhelming majority of suicidal people do not want to hurt others. Of the minority who do, it's usually people close to them in an 'extended suicide', for example a depressed mother who kills her child along with herself to 'save' it from the world she can't live with. A tiny minority of a tiny minority might be a danger to strangers. Mentally ill people are more likely to be the victims of murder than the perpetrator.
I share a student house with at least one Shipmate - I'm quite sure I've not shown any signs of wanting to kill them, though judging by some of the things said on this thread maybe they'd better keep being conscientious about the washing-up ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
'Truth is my authority, not authority my truth' - Mary Dyer, Quaker martyr.
Posts: 1014 | From: Lots of planets have a north | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
...It's not a matter of blame. It's a determination that this absolutely must never happen again. In order to prevent that, you need to figure out how it happened this time.
Moo
With the best will in the world, Moo, I think we can't be certain that it will never ever happen again. Like the First World War: "The War to End Wars".
There are always, as Welsh Dragon and others pointed out, so many variables.
Whether a mentally ill person suicides, kills others with a readily available weapon (Good Ole USA gun laws!) or combines both, they're all tragedies.
Unless you have:
(1) 100% surveillance of anyone remotely dangerous (to themselves or others).
(2) The ability to lock such people away in a safe padded cell with nothing dangerous in it and 24/7 surveillance.
(3) Vastly improved medical facilities for the mentally ill.
(4) A sensitive, aware university administration with the facilities, time and interest to care for all troubled students
it will keep happening.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Even with all Sir P's excellent points we wouldn't be able to predict who belongs to the "danger" group.
Two students were randomly shot and killed at Ohio University by a fellow student who happened to be out in the woods with his gun. He had no mental illness, just very poor impulse control.
I'm sure after McVeigh bombed the Murrah building, there were victims and family members who wanted to outlaw militia groups, like the one he and Terry Nichols belonged to. They probably said, "so this will never happen again."
If we make new laws and restrictions on the rest of the population, based on isolated incidents then haven't we allowed the perpetrators to do even more damage?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
You're quite correct, Twilight.
We live in a society where there is a great deal of emphasis on isolated incidences of violence like the Cho one.
We have enough problems with the, quite justified, fear of Islamicist terrorists striking anywhere, anytime.
If Cho had not killed others would he have caused such a ruckus? I doubt it.
What the Cho incident does is to point out gross failures in our systems of university student care, appropriate mental health provision for all who need it and extremely lax US gun laws.
My post was partly ironic because I think the only "ultimate" solution to this happening is a total 100% surveillance state ruled by impossibly wise "guardians". A totalitarian one with which I don't agree.
Ultimately, as so many wise posters, like Max, said, is that it's other students caring for students experiencing depression or other mental problems that works. Of course, we do need much better appropriate mental health facilities. But it's people, compassion, community that matter as well. Foreign students, or students from nonmainstream backgrounds, who are adrift and alienated are often the ones who most need appropriate help. And universities are big businesses, making big bucks from overseas students in this country for one. Do they care properly for them? It's a mixture. Usually it's the overseas student groups that provide support. Cho was, I believe, a very betwixt and between person, somewhat isolated from his own Korean background but not fully integrated into American society. Add mental illness, let him slip through the treatment gap, provide gun...
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
