Posted by Abby on April 12, 2000, at 0:31:35
This article in the NY Times really bothered me. I was struck by the fact that Utah has a law requiring certain schizophrenics to take medication, but it also has a law mandating that indigent patients be prescribed the least expensive anti-psychotics.
Apparently, if you've ever been committed to a mental hospital, you are barred from buying a gun; it may be only handguns. I think that we can all agree that it's probably not a good idea for severely depressed people to be around guns because of the suicide risk. We've all been very worried about Harry for example.
At the same time, suppose an 18 year-old has a first onset of manic-depressive illness and is committed because of a suicide attempt. She is evaluated and treated, both pharmacologically and psychotherapeutically, and does well for several years. When she's forty, she develops an interest in all things 18th century--clothing, furniture etc. and wants to buy an elegant dueling pistol for display. Why shouldn't she have the right to?
Or is this a case of, once mentally ill always unreliable?
Anyway, here's the article:http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/041100rampage-killers.html
Abby
poster:Abby
thread:29693
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000411/msgs/29693.html