Re: fully aware/not insisting

[Guest guest]

Why not? The family was suing for their injuries, not his.

> I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help but

think of

> something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him for

advice

> in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew the

answer I

> was going to give him... "

>

> So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

>

> Joan

>

> " fully aware " / " not insisting "

>

>

> > " In another case Szasz, a long time antipsychiatry voice,

was

> > sued successfully by the family of a deceased physician. He had

> > consulted Szasz for depression after having given up treatment

with a

> > previous psychiatrist who had prescribed lithium. The physician

was

> > fully aware that Szasz was well known for his antimedication

stance.

> > Several months after he had stopped seeing Szasz, the physician

killed

> > himself. The family won more than $600,000 in a malpractice

settlement

> > against Szasz for not insisting that the patient take medication. "

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Why not? The family was suing for their injuries, not his.

> I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help but

think of

> something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him for

advice

> in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew the

answer I

> was going to give him... "

>

> So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

>

> Joan

>

> " fully aware " / " not insisting "

>

>

> > " In another case Szasz, a long time antipsychiatry voice,

was

> > sued successfully by the family of a deceased physician. He had

> > consulted Szasz for depression after having given up treatment

with a

> > previous psychiatrist who had prescribed lithium. The physician

was

> > fully aware that Szasz was well known for his antimedication

stance.

> > Several months after he had stopped seeing Szasz, the physician

killed

> > himself. The family won more than $600,000 in a malpractice

settlement

> > against Szasz for not insisting that the patient take medication. "

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Why not? The family was suing for their injuries, not his.

> I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help but

think of

> something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him for

advice

> in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew the

answer I

> was going to give him... "

>

> So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

>

> Joan

>

> " fully aware " / " not insisting "

>

>

> > " In another case Szasz, a long time antipsychiatry voice,

was

> > sued successfully by the family of a deceased physician. He had

> > consulted Szasz for depression after having given up treatment

with a

> > previous psychiatrist who had prescribed lithium. The physician

was

> > fully aware that Szasz was well known for his antimedication

stance.

> > Several months after he had stopped seeing Szasz, the physician

killed

> > himself. The family won more than $600,000 in a malpractice

settlement

> > against Szasz for not insisting that the patient take medication. "

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help but think of

something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him for advice

in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew the answer I

was going to give him... "

So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

Joan

" fully aware " / " not insisting "

> " In another case Szasz, a long time antipsychiatry voice, was

> sued successfully by the family of a deceased physician. He had

> consulted Szasz for depression after having given up treatment with a

> previous psychiatrist who had prescribed lithium. The physician was

> fully aware that Szasz was well known for his antimedication stance.

> Several months after he had stopped seeing Szasz, the physician killed

> himself. The family won more than $600,000 in a malpractice settlement

> against Szasz for not insisting that the patient take medication. "

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help but think of

something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him for advice

in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew the answer I

was going to give him... "

So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

Joan

" fully aware " / " not insisting "

> " In another case Szasz, a long time antipsychiatry voice, was

> sued successfully by the family of a deceased physician. He had

> consulted Szasz for depression after having given up treatment with a

> previous psychiatrist who had prescribed lithium. The physician was

> fully aware that Szasz was well known for his antimedication stance.

> Several months after he had stopped seeing Szasz, the physician killed

> himself. The family won more than $600,000 in a malpractice settlement

> against Szasz for not insisting that the patient take medication. "

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help but think of

something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him for advice

in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew the answer I

was going to give him... "

So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

Joan

" fully aware " / " not insisting "

> " In another case Szasz, a long time antipsychiatry voice, was

> sued successfully by the family of a deceased physician. He had

> consulted Szasz for depression after having given up treatment with a

> previous psychiatrist who had prescribed lithium. The physician was

> fully aware that Szasz was well known for his antimedication stance.

> Several months after he had stopped seeing Szasz, the physician killed

> himself. The family won more than $600,000 in a malpractice settlement

> against Szasz for not insisting that the patient take medication. "

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The question is the same, though. Should Szasz have been held accountable

for a choice that was essentially made by someone else?

" fully aware " / " not insisting "

> >

> >

> > > " In another case Szasz, a long time antipsychiatry voice,

> was

> > > sued successfully by the family of a deceased physician. He had

> > > consulted Szasz for depression after having given up treatment

> with a

> > > previous psychiatrist who had prescribed lithium. The physician

> was

> > > fully aware that Szasz was well known for his antimedication

> stance.

> > > Several months after he had stopped seeing Szasz, the physician

> killed

> > > himself. The family won more than $600,000 in a malpractice

> settlement

> > > against Szasz for not insisting that the patient take medication. "

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

The question is the same, though. Should Szasz have been held accountable

for a choice that was essentially made by someone else?

" fully aware " / " not insisting "

> >

> >

> > > " In another case Szasz, a long time antipsychiatry voice,

> was

> > > sued successfully by the family of a deceased physician. He had

> > > consulted Szasz for depression after having given up treatment

> with a

> > > previous psychiatrist who had prescribed lithium. The physician

> was

> > > fully aware that Szasz was well known for his antimedication

> stance.

> > > Several months after he had stopped seeing Szasz, the physician

> killed

> > > himself. The family won more than $600,000 in a malpractice

> settlement

> > > against Szasz for not insisting that the patient take medication. "

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

The question is the same, though. Should Szasz have been held accountable

for a choice that was essentially made by someone else?

" fully aware " / " not insisting "

> >

> >

> > > " In another case Szasz, a long time antipsychiatry voice,

> was

> > > sued successfully by the family of a deceased physician. He had

> > > consulted Szasz for depression after having given up treatment

> with a

> > > previous psychiatrist who had prescribed lithium. The physician

> was

> > > fully aware that Szasz was well known for his antimedication

> stance.

> > > Several months after he had stopped seeing Szasz, the physician

> killed

> > > himself. The family won more than $600,000 in a malpractice

> settlement

> > > against Szasz for not insisting that the patient take medication. "

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

The patient's choice is not an issue under the Tarasoff rule

(physician must disclose risk of harm to self or others). If that

rule was in effect when the patient was being treated, and Szasz knew

the patient was to commit suicide and did nothing, he would be liable.

The time lapse bothers me, however. After " several months " it would

be difficult for me to conclude that Szasz' action or inaction was the

proximate cause of the death. (Sorry for the lawyer-speak.) If the

patient never said he wanted to commit suicide, it would be a stretch

for me to conclude that depressed patients are always at risk of

suicide. I don't know what the facts were, but I have trouble

agreeing with the result.

In Tarasoff, the issue was harm to others. Perhaps the " harm to

oneself " was a statutory addition, but it's pretty well-established in

the US. I'll look it up and get back to you.

This brings up 's later comment, about who decides what

" significant impairment " is. I believe that the law assumes that one

who determines to commit suicide is not in his right mind, no matter

how rational the decision may be from some standpoints (i.e., patient

suffering from late-stage cancer or Lou Gehrig's disease). Hence the

patient might make a different decision if rational. I have some

problems with this reasoning, though as I said before, if I knew

someone was planning to commit suicide, I would act to prevent it. On

the other hand, I am not a psychiatrist, who has presumably been

trained to distinguish whether or not people are rational at the time

they make the decision.

If someone were drunk, I would certainly assume they were not in a

position to make that kind of decision, however.

> > > I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help

but

> > think of

> > > something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him

for

> > advice

> > > in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew

the

> > answer I

> > > was going to give him... "

> > >

> > > So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

> > >

> > > Joan

> > >

> > > " fully aware " / " not insisting "

> > >

> > >

> > > > " In another case Szasz, a long time antipsychiatry

voice,

> > was

> > > > sued successfully by the family of a deceased physician. He

had

> > > > consulted Szasz for depression after having given up treatment

> > with a

> > > > previous psychiatrist who had prescribed lithium. The

physician

> > was

> > > > fully aware that Szasz was well known for his antimedication

> > stance.

> > > > Several months after he had stopped seeing Szasz, the

physician

> > killed

> > > > himself. The family won more than $600,000 in a malpractice

> > settlement

> > > > against Szasz for not insisting that the patient take

medication. "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

The patient's choice is not an issue under the Tarasoff rule

(physician must disclose risk of harm to self or others). If that

rule was in effect when the patient was being treated, and Szasz knew

the patient was to commit suicide and did nothing, he would be liable.

The time lapse bothers me, however. After " several months " it would

be difficult for me to conclude that Szasz' action or inaction was the

proximate cause of the death. (Sorry for the lawyer-speak.) If the

patient never said he wanted to commit suicide, it would be a stretch

for me to conclude that depressed patients are always at risk of

suicide. I don't know what the facts were, but I have trouble

agreeing with the result.

In Tarasoff, the issue was harm to others. Perhaps the " harm to

oneself " was a statutory addition, but it's pretty well-established in

the US. I'll look it up and get back to you.

This brings up 's later comment, about who decides what

" significant impairment " is. I believe that the law assumes that one

who determines to commit suicide is not in his right mind, no matter

how rational the decision may be from some standpoints (i.e., patient

suffering from late-stage cancer or Lou Gehrig's disease). Hence the

patient might make a different decision if rational. I have some

problems with this reasoning, though as I said before, if I knew

someone was planning to commit suicide, I would act to prevent it. On

the other hand, I am not a psychiatrist, who has presumably been

trained to distinguish whether or not people are rational at the time

they make the decision.

If someone were drunk, I would certainly assume they were not in a

position to make that kind of decision, however.

> > > I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help

but

> > think of

> > > something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him

for

> > advice

> > > in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew

the

> > answer I

> > > was going to give him... "

> > >

> > > So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

> > >

> > > Joan

> > >

> > > " fully aware " / " not insisting "

> > >

> > >

> > > > " In another case Szasz, a long time antipsychiatry

voice,

> > was

> > > > sued successfully by the family of a deceased physician. He

had

> > > > consulted Szasz for depression after having given up treatment

> > with a

> > > > previous psychiatrist who had prescribed lithium. The

physician

> > was

> > > > fully aware that Szasz was well known for his antimedication

> > stance.

> > > > Several months after he had stopped seeing Szasz, the

physician

> > killed

> > > > himself. The family won more than $600,000 in a malpractice

> > settlement

> > > > against Szasz for not insisting that the patient take

medication. "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

The patient's choice is not an issue under the Tarasoff rule

(physician must disclose risk of harm to self or others). If that

rule was in effect when the patient was being treated, and Szasz knew

the patient was to commit suicide and did nothing, he would be liable.

The time lapse bothers me, however. After " several months " it would

be difficult for me to conclude that Szasz' action or inaction was the

proximate cause of the death. (Sorry for the lawyer-speak.) If the

patient never said he wanted to commit suicide, it would be a stretch

for me to conclude that depressed patients are always at risk of

suicide. I don't know what the facts were, but I have trouble

agreeing with the result.

In Tarasoff, the issue was harm to others. Perhaps the " harm to

oneself " was a statutory addition, but it's pretty well-established in

the US. I'll look it up and get back to you.

This brings up 's later comment, about who decides what

" significant impairment " is. I believe that the law assumes that one

who determines to commit suicide is not in his right mind, no matter

how rational the decision may be from some standpoints (i.e., patient

suffering from late-stage cancer or Lou Gehrig's disease). Hence the

patient might make a different decision if rational. I have some

problems with this reasoning, though as I said before, if I knew

someone was planning to commit suicide, I would act to prevent it. On

the other hand, I am not a psychiatrist, who has presumably been

trained to distinguish whether or not people are rational at the time

they make the decision.

If someone were drunk, I would certainly assume they were not in a

position to make that kind of decision, however.

> > > I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help

but

> > think of

> > > something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him

for

> > advice

> > > in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew

the

> > answer I

> > > was going to give him... "

> > >

> > > So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

> > >

> > > Joan

> > >

> > > " fully aware " / " not insisting "

> > >

> > >

> > > > " In another case Szasz, a long time antipsychiatry

voice,

> > was

> > > > sued successfully by the family of a deceased physician. He

had

> > > > consulted Szasz for depression after having given up treatment

> > with a

> > > > previous psychiatrist who had prescribed lithium. The

physician

> > was

> > > > fully aware that Szasz was well known for his antimedication

> > stance.

> > > > Several months after he had stopped seeing Szasz, the

physician

> > killed

> > > > himself. The family won more than $600,000 in a malpractice

> > settlement

> > > > against Szasz for not insisting that the patient take

medication. "

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

> I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help but

think of

> something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him for

advice

> in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew the

answer I

> was going to give him... "

>

> So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

Yep! At last, someone sued for not precribing meds, and Szasz too,

so much the better. I reckon if I had gone on the best antidepressant

I have ever had 20 years ago I could have had 20 years of happy

successful functioning instead of 20 years of heartache, frustration,

and failure.

P.

[Guest guest]

> I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help but

think of

> something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him for

advice

> in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew the

answer I

> was going to give him... "

>

> So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

Yep! At last, someone sued for not precribing meds, and Szasz too,

so much the better. I reckon if I had gone on the best antidepressant

I have ever had 20 years ago I could have had 20 years of happy

successful functioning instead of 20 years of heartache, frustration,

and failure.

P.

[Guest guest]

> I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help but

think of

> something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him for

advice

> in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew the

answer I

> was going to give him... "

>

> So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

Yep! At last, someone sued for not precribing meds, and Szasz too,

so much the better. I reckon if I had gone on the best antidepressant

I have ever had 20 years ago I could have had 20 years of happy

successful functioning instead of 20 years of heartache, frustration,

and failure.

P.

[Guest guest]

> > I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help but

> think of

> > something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him

for

> advice

> > in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew

the

> answer I

> > was going to give him... "

> >

> > So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

>

> Yep! At last, someone sued for not precribing meds, and Szasz too,

> so much the better. I reckon if I had gone on the best

antidepressant

> I have ever had 20 years ago I could have had 20 years of happy

> successful functioning instead of 20 years of heartache,

frustration,

> and failure.

>

> P.

That doesn't surprize me from someone who has not worked " in years "

yet expects his hard working fellow countrymen to pay for his

electroshock for depression. What if a person comes into a doctor's

office and tells the doctor that he has been on cocaine for a while.

The doctor does not insist that the patient continue to use cocaine

and then the patient commits suicide. I suppose that the doctor

should pay that person's family 600K. Oh, but no, cocaine is not on

the papal infalibility FDA's list of holy substances, it is surely

from the devil. Ah, but the divine lithium. It's no wonder you

worship the Therapeutic State, Pete. After all surely you will one

day find the elusive pill or shock of happiness. To hell with going

out and earning it yourself. And if anyone should dare not " insist "

that you take it, and then you do something unorthodox, surely that

person should pay dearly. The blame game of those who refuse to take

responsibility for their own actions--always someone " else's " fault or

some " thing's " fault. Determinism--how utterly disgusting.

Tommy

[Guest guest]

> > I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help but

> think of

> > something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him

for

> advice

> > in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew

the

> answer I

> > was going to give him... "

> >

> > So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

>

> Yep! At last, someone sued for not precribing meds, and Szasz too,

> so much the better. I reckon if I had gone on the best

antidepressant

> I have ever had 20 years ago I could have had 20 years of happy

> successful functioning instead of 20 years of heartache,

frustration,

> and failure.

>

> P.

That doesn't surprize me from someone who has not worked " in years "

yet expects his hard working fellow countrymen to pay for his

electroshock for depression. What if a person comes into a doctor's

office and tells the doctor that he has been on cocaine for a while.

The doctor does not insist that the patient continue to use cocaine

and then the patient commits suicide. I suppose that the doctor

should pay that person's family 600K. Oh, but no, cocaine is not on

the papal infalibility FDA's list of holy substances, it is surely

from the devil. Ah, but the divine lithium. It's no wonder you

worship the Therapeutic State, Pete. After all surely you will one

day find the elusive pill or shock of happiness. To hell with going

out and earning it yourself. And if anyone should dare not " insist "

that you take it, and then you do something unorthodox, surely that

person should pay dearly. The blame game of those who refuse to take

responsibility for their own actions--always someone " else's " fault or

some " thing's " fault. Determinism--how utterly disgusting.

Tommy

[Guest guest]

> > I know this isn't a dead-philosopher post, but I couldn't help but

> think of

> > something else Sartre said regarding a young man who came to him

for

> advice

> > in making a difficult life choice. " In coming to see me he knew

the

> answer I

> > was going to give him... "

> >

> > So, should the family have been awarded the settlement?

>

> Yep! At last, someone sued for not precribing meds, and Szasz too,

> so much the better. I reckon if I had gone on the best

antidepressant

> I have ever had 20 years ago I could have had 20 years of happy

> successful functioning instead of 20 years of heartache,

frustration,

> and failure.

>

> P.

That doesn't surprize me from someone who has not worked " in years "

yet expects his hard working fellow countrymen to pay for his

electroshock for depression. What if a person comes into a doctor's

office and tells the doctor that he has been on cocaine for a while.

The doctor does not insist that the patient continue to use cocaine

and then the patient commits suicide. I suppose that the doctor

should pay that person's family 600K. Oh, but no, cocaine is not on

the papal infalibility FDA's list of holy substances, it is surely

from the devil. Ah, but the divine lithium. It's no wonder you

worship the Therapeutic State, Pete. After all surely you will one

day find the elusive pill or shock of happiness. To hell with going

out and earning it yourself. And if anyone should dare not " insist "

that you take it, and then you do something unorthodox, surely that

person should pay dearly. The blame game of those who refuse to take

responsibility for their own actions--always someone " else's " fault or

some " thing's " fault. Determinism--how utterly disgusting.

Tommy

[Guest guest]

Just to cover my ass, I insist that all of you take all of these

drugs. http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/frame_docs/drugs_idx.html

[Guest guest]

Just to cover my ass, I insist that all of you take all of these

drugs. http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/frame_docs/drugs_idx.html

[Guest guest]

Just to cover my ass, I insist that all of you take all of these

drugs. http://www.cjnetworks.com/%7Ecgrandy/frame_docs/drugs_idx.html

[Guest guest]

I think you're being exceptionally hard on Pete for simply taking

advantage of the system as it exists in his country and relying on

what he considers the best information possible about his situation.

I am sure that is what all of us do when we are in difficult

situations.

> That doesn't surprize me from someone who has not worked " in years "

> yet expects his hard working fellow countrymen to pay for his

> electroshock for depression. What if a person comes into a doctor's

> office and tells the doctor that he has been on cocaine for a while.

> The doctor does not insist that the patient continue to use cocaine

> and then the patient commits suicide. I suppose that the doctor

> should pay that person's family 600K. Oh, but no, cocaine is not on

> the papal infalibility FDA's list of holy substances, it is surely

> from the devil. Ah, but the divine lithium. It's no wonder you

> worship the Therapeutic State, Pete. After all surely you will one

> day find the elusive pill or shock of happiness. To hell with going

> out and earning it yourself. And if anyone should dare not " insist "

> that you take it, and then you do something unorthodox, surely that

> person should pay dearly. The blame game of those who refuse to

take

> responsibility for their own actions--always someone " else's " fault

or

> some " thing's " fault. Determinism--how utterly disgusting.

>

> Tommy

[Guest guest]

I think you're being exceptionally hard on Pete for simply taking

advantage of the system as it exists in his country and relying on

what he considers the best information possible about his situation.

I am sure that is what all of us do when we are in difficult

situations.

> That doesn't surprize me from someone who has not worked " in years "

> yet expects his hard working fellow countrymen to pay for his

> electroshock for depression. What if a person comes into a doctor's

> office and tells the doctor that he has been on cocaine for a while.

> The doctor does not insist that the patient continue to use cocaine

> and then the patient commits suicide. I suppose that the doctor

> should pay that person's family 600K. Oh, but no, cocaine is not on

> the papal infalibility FDA's list of holy substances, it is surely

> from the devil. Ah, but the divine lithium. It's no wonder you

> worship the Therapeutic State, Pete. After all surely you will one

> day find the elusive pill or shock of happiness. To hell with going

> out and earning it yourself. And if anyone should dare not " insist "

> that you take it, and then you do something unorthodox, surely that

> person should pay dearly. The blame game of those who refuse to

take

> responsibility for their own actions--always someone " else's " fault

or

> some " thing's " fault. Determinism--how utterly disgusting.

>

> Tommy

[Guest guest]

I think you're being exceptionally hard on Pete for simply taking

advantage of the system as it exists in his country and relying on

what he considers the best information possible about his situation.

I am sure that is what all of us do when we are in difficult

situations.

> That doesn't surprize me from someone who has not worked " in years "

> yet expects his hard working fellow countrymen to pay for his

> electroshock for depression. What if a person comes into a doctor's

> office and tells the doctor that he has been on cocaine for a while.

> The doctor does not insist that the patient continue to use cocaine

> and then the patient commits suicide. I suppose that the doctor

> should pay that person's family 600K. Oh, but no, cocaine is not on

> the papal infalibility FDA's list of holy substances, it is surely

> from the devil. Ah, but the divine lithium. It's no wonder you

> worship the Therapeutic State, Pete. After all surely you will one

> day find the elusive pill or shock of happiness. To hell with going

> out and earning it yourself. And if anyone should dare not " insist "

> that you take it, and then you do something unorthodox, surely that

> person should pay dearly. The blame game of those who refuse to

take

> responsibility for their own actions--always someone " else's " fault

or

> some " thing's " fault. Determinism--how utterly disgusting.

>

> Tommy

[Guest guest]

> I think you're being exceptionally hard on Pete for simply taking

> advantage of the system as it exists in his country and relying on

> what he considers the best information possible about his situation.

> I am sure that is what all of us do when we are in difficult

> situations.

You are probably right, and I think a lot of it stemmed from Pete's

comment infering that it was especially sweet to him that it was Szasz

who lost 600k, not just any other doctor in a similar situation.

Szasz is a giant in the history of the articulation of the meaning of

liberty. It's no wonder Pete would cheer on such an injustice. Szasz

has enemies all over. Seems people want freedom for themselves but

not for others. Pete wrote tonight on the " bio " characteristics of

depression, infering it is a mental illness. Pete has said that those

who suffer from mental illness should have certain rights taken away.

I'd bet my ass to a doughnut that if anyone tried to take any right

away from Pete because of his " mental illness " (Pete has written of

his severe depression on this forum), the feathers would fly. But

Pete also said in an earlier post that HE did not fall into such a

category, as HIS condition fell into the " disorder " category. It is

OTHER that should loose rights, not Pete. Such doublespeak does not

sit easy with me. Nor does his advocacy of many other restrictions on

human liberty. But I should drop the whole thing with Pete. Pete is

a liberal, and thinks in terms of entitlements instead of liberties.

Entitlements infringe on the liberties of others, because they create

obligations for others. Money does not grow on trees. I once was a

liberal. In college I read the liberal radicals of the day. As

Eldridge Cleaver changed, as Sowell changed and as others

changed, so I changed. I'm not a hard core libertarian, and a few

years back when I went round and round with the state party leaders on

certain issues of privatation, I drifted from them. They were pissed

that I was the first and only LP candidate (county commissioner) from

a northeastern coastal county and did NOT advocate privatization of

the beaches. But I won't get into that. I will just try hard to not

be a creature of any heard. And I will speak my mind here about my

strong stance on the separation of state and psychiatry.

Tommy