Hi Matt, Getting hit in the head is a literal lesion. And like epilepsy, once
a person knows they have this literal condition, assuming they can function
normally in most circumstances - one instance they may not (an epileptic not on
dilantin) they really shouldn't drive a car. But as in Szasz's book Instanity,
The Idea and its Consequences, a literal brain disease is an uninteresting
case. What Szasz was interested in was people who had reasons for doing what
they did (legitimate - sane or illegitimate - insane) - I killed my children
because they were possesed as opposed to doing so to collect insurance. There
is no reason to consider when a person has a car accident when they have an
epileptic seizure or a heart attack assuming they hadn't planned on having one.

Martin



To: thomasszaszdiscussion@...: titaniummdk@...:
cubyanks@...: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:38:35 -0700Subject: RE:
[ThomasSzaszDiscussion] Man kills mother -- whose at fault?




Martin, What if person gets hit in head and can no longer make appropriate
decisions? As a result, they killpeople, etc? What should we do? D--- On Sun,
8/17/08, Martin Kessler <titaniummdk@...> wrote:From: Martin Kessler
<titaniummdk@...>Subject: RE: [ThomasSzaszDiscussion] Man kills mother
-- whose at fault?To: thomasszaszdiscussion@...: Sunday, August
17, 2008, 6:42 PMHi 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.MartinTo:
thomasszaszdiscussi on@yahoogroups. comFrom: dio@...: Sun, 17 Aug 2008
05:38:33 +0900Subject: [ThomasSzaszDiscuss ion] 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 Brucetried 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 apsychiatric
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 tomandate 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 hewas 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.windowsl ive.com/explore/ messenger?
ocid=TXT_ TAGLM_WL_ messenger_ yahoo_082008[Non-text portions of this message
have been removed][Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





_________________________________________________________________
Get thousands of games on your PC, your mobile phone, and the web with Windows®.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108588800/direct/01/

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