The WSJ today has a page one article discussing the case of a man,
William Bruce, who murdered his wife. Clearly in the mind of the
authors who write the article, the responsibility for the murder falls
not on William Bruce, but an advocacy group that pushed to have him
released from commitment:

Title:
A Death in the Family
Aided by advocates for the mentally ill,
William Bruce left the hospital -- only to kill his mother

Authors:
ELIZABETH BERNSTEIN and NATHAN KOPPEL

Link:
http://tinyurl.com/5f5few

Sadly, that is tragically, the article reads like a comedy of errors.
Some scattered thoughts.

1. William Bruce is labeled "schizophrenic" but its never clear why. I
state this because when I read things like this, I want to immediately
know if the person has either:
a) attempted suicide
or
b) broken laws such that he should be in jail and not an institution
for the mentally ill.

In this case, we're given little information. The article does suggest
that William Bruce tried to commit suicide when he was 14, after which
he was medicated. He performed violent acts at home, putting his
mother in a head lock, punching his father in the face. He was finally
forced into an institution after he threatened two men with a loaded
AK-47 rifle. He was clearly saying violent things, probably issuing
threats, prior to the murder of his mother.

2. The advocates who helped William Bruce get released were funded by
the government and encouraged the man to lie. None of them were
physicians. According to an accompanying video, some of them did not
believe mental illness existed.

3. The point of the article, which is heavily biased, is best
articulated here:
-------------
Some doctors, hospital administrators and mental-health veterans argue
that advocates are endangering the mentally ill and the public by too
often fighting for patients' right to refuse treatment. Many advocates
"have a strong bias," says Robert Liberman, a director of a
psychiatric rehabilitation program at the University of California,
Los Angeles."
-------------

Okay, for example, we could *simplistically* say people like that
Szasz are the real danger here, because they motivate these advocates,
and dangerous but needy people go free. However, clearly this would be
false for anyone paying close attention. The advocates were funded by
the government, they encouraged lying, they interfered in an intrusive
manner, they probably don't want the legal system to act against
people like William Bruce when it will go against them ... I mean, I
can't put my finger on it precisely, but these advocates don't seem
anything even remotely similar to Szasz or those who hold similar
views to Szasz. The article makes clear some of the advocates actually
*did* believe in mental illness.

4. The article notes:
-----------
In recent years, there has been a wave of legislative efforts, many
inspired by violent crimes, to make it easier to mandate treatment for
the mentally ill. Advocates have blunted those efforts in California,
New Mexico and Michigan.
----------

This is interesting. The problem is with the very concept of mental
illness. Not unexpectedly this is never addressed in the article.

5. Just prior to William Bruce's murder of his mother, after the
advocates had helped secure his release, the article notes:
-----------
William was soon back home. He hid steak and butcher knives in his
bedroom and spent hours pacing in the driveway, giggling and babbling
unintelligibly to himself. Joe began calling to check on his wife
several times a day. "It was the worst we'd ever seen him," he [his
father] says.
------------

This is sad and tragic. The lack of response to this obviously odious
and scary behavior on the family's part is probably due to two things:
a. They genuinely loved their son and wanted to help him. Perhaps they
couldn't believe he could actually harm them.
b. They felt he was mentally ill and could be healed.

Although it would have been unimaginably hard for the family, they
could have thrown him out of their home and even got a restraining
order if he continued to bother them. I don't know, but the family
clearly tolerated his behavior, when they shouldn't have. I guess they
felt the only *out* they had was labeling him mentally ill, and when
this didn't pan out, they felt there was nothing else they could do.
How tragic.

I do think that William Bruce should be in jail for what he did.
Instead, he's wearing a suit and sipping coffee while he grants an
interview to the WSJ and blames his actions (murdering his mother) on
an advocacy group.

-- Matt Dioguardi