It doesn't take long for us older members of the human race to get terminally bored with Facebook. Facebook is a storehouse for the relentlessly and shamelessly trivial. The level of intellectual content could hardly be lower. Hours on end (literally) sending pictures of uninteresting activities by people who can only be thought interesting by close friends and families... and talking about recipes and where you ate lunch and what you had to eat and the funny thing your son said and a really nice picture of your cat or of yourself and where you might meet to find a mate (temporary or permanent) and ... and... So why do the younger primates (and you know who you are) find it so endlessly fascinating?
Back when our ancestors lived in trees (and I'm old enough to almost remember that) I imagine the level of chatter between treetops in the evening covered much of the same subject matter. A lot of it was about the same things talked about on Facebook now. We told each other about food and good water and interesting potential sexual partners. An important element of every message was simply "Here I am! Don't forget about me! I'm in the pack!" It was probably an expression of our need to keep our tribal bonds intact and strong. We talked because we needed to feel contact and to know we belonged. Facebook is just another expression of the endless urge to "connect" constantly with our tribe.
So now I'm in the same tribal position as the "silverback". Too old to win mating battles and bored with the endless mindless chatter of "Here I am! Look at me!", no longer interested in dominating our tribe or expanding our boundaries, I wander off into the jungle looking for more interesting things to do. All that talk was once interesting, but now I'd rather go look for an unusual rock or maybe even a mountain. And I'll just sit there and enjoy the silence.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Saturday, February 02, 2013
"Mental Illness" and Gun Ownership Laws
After a local man who had been identified as being "mentally ill" (through various previous contacts with the police) had obtained several guns and used them to kill his mother, the newspapers and legislature began discussing the importance of prohibiting "mentally ill" people from getting guns.
The first problem is that all people with "mental illness" are lumped together as unfit for gun ownership. Does this mean that people who are being treated for an anxiety disorder can't buy guns to protect themselves? If you've ever had a depression and gotten treatment, are you prohibited from gun ownership? Exactly what do we mean by "mental illness" and which illnesses render us unfit?
The second issue is that the Federal database used to screen people for suitability to own a gun has to have that data available for all gun sellers. Where do they get their data? Are psychiatrists and psychologists going to be required to report any patient to the state or Feds in case they might want a gun? How much is going to be reported? Who will have access to these mental health records?
We have always treated medical records as private, and mental health records as especially private and privileged. We did not want to discourage people from seeking mental health treatment by threatening to make their private problems public. Where we have not taken such precautions we have created a disaster. Consider the military situation as regards depression and other mental illnesses. When a pilot sees a military psychiatrist, he effectively ends his career. He will not advance in rank; he will not fly military aircraft; he will not likely be promoted. So he elects to go untreated. And often this scenario ends with suicide.
In past years I saw military officers in my private practice, which they chose rather than see a paid-for military psychiatrist or psychologist. Still, they were very concerned about the risk they ran of being "outed" as a "mentally ill person", and in addition they felt it necessary to lie about their treatment status on annual medical evaluation forms.
I think we can consider limiting weapons to people whose judgment is seriously impaired enough to require the state to act as parental supervisor. Clearly some forms of mental illness are not consistent with gun ownership or flying military airplanes. But the vast majority of such disorders are consistent with gun ownership. We can't and shouldn't put all mental illnesses in the same stereotypical bag.
Since our Constitution guarantees all citizens to have the right to keep and bear arms, are we going to decide that people with a "mental illness" do not have the same rights as other citizens? Are we going to change the Constitution? How are we going to protect privacy and encourage people to seek needed help, and at the same time protect ourselves against gun owners whose judgment is critically impaired? The appropriate criterion might be an appraisal of the prospective purchaser's judgment, not of their psychiatric diagnosis. Perhaps some form of formal mental status procedure evaluating basic judgement, carried out by a mental health professional, resulting in a pass/fail finding, would protect people's right to medical privacy while at the same time not lumping all mental health issues into the single category "mental illness".
The first problem is that all people with "mental illness" are lumped together as unfit for gun ownership. Does this mean that people who are being treated for an anxiety disorder can't buy guns to protect themselves? If you've ever had a depression and gotten treatment, are you prohibited from gun ownership? Exactly what do we mean by "mental illness" and which illnesses render us unfit?
The second issue is that the Federal database used to screen people for suitability to own a gun has to have that data available for all gun sellers. Where do they get their data? Are psychiatrists and psychologists going to be required to report any patient to the state or Feds in case they might want a gun? How much is going to be reported? Who will have access to these mental health records?
We have always treated medical records as private, and mental health records as especially private and privileged. We did not want to discourage people from seeking mental health treatment by threatening to make their private problems public. Where we have not taken such precautions we have created a disaster. Consider the military situation as regards depression and other mental illnesses. When a pilot sees a military psychiatrist, he effectively ends his career. He will not advance in rank; he will not fly military aircraft; he will not likely be promoted. So he elects to go untreated. And often this scenario ends with suicide.
In past years I saw military officers in my private practice, which they chose rather than see a paid-for military psychiatrist or psychologist. Still, they were very concerned about the risk they ran of being "outed" as a "mentally ill person", and in addition they felt it necessary to lie about their treatment status on annual medical evaluation forms.
I think we can consider limiting weapons to people whose judgment is seriously impaired enough to require the state to act as parental supervisor. Clearly some forms of mental illness are not consistent with gun ownership or flying military airplanes. But the vast majority of such disorders are consistent with gun ownership. We can't and shouldn't put all mental illnesses in the same stereotypical bag.
Since our Constitution guarantees all citizens to have the right to keep and bear arms, are we going to decide that people with a "mental illness" do not have the same rights as other citizens? Are we going to change the Constitution? How are we going to protect privacy and encourage people to seek needed help, and at the same time protect ourselves against gun owners whose judgment is critically impaired? The appropriate criterion might be an appraisal of the prospective purchaser's judgment, not of their psychiatric diagnosis. Perhaps some form of formal mental status procedure evaluating basic judgement, carried out by a mental health professional, resulting in a pass/fail finding, would protect people's right to medical privacy while at the same time not lumping all mental health issues into the single category "mental illness".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
