reply to post by thisguyrighthere
Oh, you're serious. I'll bite.
Let's start with the practical implications of your idea, disregarding every other problem with it, what could go wrong if we implemented your
systematic isolation project today.
As a previous poster said "we are all mentally ill" - I think he or she was very sloppy with his or her delivery, but the point stands, normalcy is
defined on a scale compared to the overwhelming social average, mental illness can be categorised in several ways, one of the most common being the
Deviation from Social Norms criteria.
The primary concern raised by your idea is "who decides how crazy you have to be to be crazy?"
The DSM changes regularly, schizophrenia (now defunct, known as schizoeffective disorder which encompasses schizoid personality, manic episodes and
other abnormalities) used to be regularly assigned as a misnomer to patients with multiple personality disorder (see someone else's link above) due
to similar behavioural traits exhibited by sufferers even though they're completely different disorders requiring different treatment and
If we lock up all the schizophrenics, what happens when we change our definitions in a few years, and half of the people in the complex are no longer
schizophrenic, by definition, and half of the people living productive and happy lives on meds are now schizophrenic? If we allow case by case leeway
for exceptional cases, what kind of guidelines would you suggest for exemption from the house for a schizophrenic?
Who diagnoses the schizophrenics? Doctors? How many doctors? 1? 2? 6? Does this mean that these schizophrenics have no right to peer jury? Would these
mental trials be closed to the press and public due to data protection acts? What then, is stopping corrupt officials using these trials to lock up
political or personal opponents forever?
Do these schizophrenics have a right of appeal? If they do, what happens if they're released? If one doctor says they're nuts, and another says
they're not, who's right? Can the state appeal the appeal? When does it end?
How much would your idea cost? Who would pay for it? How would you balance the excessive costs of this scheme against the massive loss of revenue
caused by taking schizophrenics out of work/stopping them paying for their own medication?
I can't be bothered doing the ethical implications of your hair brained scheme. I'm going to have a cup of tea.
I'd like to congratulate you OP, I've never been actually angered by something I've read online before. I've seen a lot of stupid ideas, but this
is the worst. As a scientist, I strive to remain emotionally detached and dispassionate at all times in order to preserve my impartiality, as a person
I try to be polite no matter what the situation. I cannot do either of those things because of your post.
Your backward and bigoted thinking is like a caricature of the entire 1950s views on mental health. You do not understand the subject matter and you
have no right to talk about it.
As an aside, I don't know where you're from, but maybe you have a few old timey mental wards near you (read: shutter island type, that film was not
far off the truth of the wards in the 90s) and I'd advise you to visit them before you think about broaching this subject with anyone again.