Public policies have consequences. Lets set aside for a moment the specific item being prohibited for those that are mentally disturbed. We could, for instance, substitute home ownership (new law in California seeks only to prevent real estate purchase contracts from reaching the hands of the mentally disturbed). Would we ever consider any such discrimination against a sick person in any other context? I think a discussion is sorely needed on the unintended consequences of this new law in California. Heres what I expect will happen: because evidence of mental illness would result in restricted gun rights, this very real illness will be further stigmatized; those that need diagnosis and treatment will be less likely to seek it; and those closest to them will be less likely to commit the seriously ill for treatment. I understand and support adding further stigma to domestic violence, to which those with mental illness are compared in this article, but do we really want to walk down a path that will further stigmatize mental illness, leading to even more denial and evasion of treatment for real illness than we already have in our society?
Posted on: Fri, 03 Oct 2014 20:03:18 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015