Hi Matt, From what you have written I gather that the journalist and the
advocates accepted the diagnosis of schizophrenia for William Bruce. Szasz
believes in personal responsibility and holds a person responsible for their
acts which have reasons. For this case, William Bruce had reasons for his
actions which were not articulated because journalists and others involved who
have accepted the diagnosis of schizophrenia disregard what the "patient" says
as "word salad". Now William Bruce may have articulated clearly why he did what
he did or he may have kept it to himself. Is it possible that the what his
parents did to him by placing him in a prison called a mental hospital may have
been reason to commit a murder? Anyway I'm agreement with you, Mr. Bruce
should not have been exculpated and is a benificiary of the insanity defense.

Martin



To: thomasszaszdiscussion@...: dio@...: Sun, 17 Aug 2008
05:38:33 +0900Subject: [ThomasSzaszDiscussion] Man kills mother -- whose at
fault?




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 FamilyAided by advocates for the mentally ill,William Bruce left the
hospital -- only to kill his motherAuthors:ELIZABETH BERNSTEIN and NATHAN
KOPPELLink:http://tinyurl.com/5f5fewSadly, 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
suicideorb) 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





_________________________________________________________________
Talk to your Yahoo! Friends via Windows Live Messenger. Find out how.
http://www.windowslive.com/explore/messenger?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_messenger_yahoo_0\
82008

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]