As I said, I would support a strong rebuttable presumption in favor of a finding of sanity, and also require the demonstration of severe mental impairment, before enforcing custodial care. Thus, I think most eccentrics would pass.
As far as the principle goes, it is one of mutual aid. I would expect a neighbor to care for me, in lieu of anyone else, if I had a broken limb. In civilized societies, we generally institutionalize such aid. Suppose I entered a clinic with a high fever, ranting about the Saracens, and periodically running out the door and into the street. I would expect to be restrained and cared for until my fever broke and I became lucid, at least. In general, then, anyone who is not rational and who presents a grave enough threat to himself should be cared for, with the hope of restoration of his faculties, however tenuous.
The tests of being in one's right mind are fairly simple: is one capable of handling a normal range of tasks without undue confusion, excessive stress, or inordinate mistake? Does one have the elementary social skills necessary to accomplish routine tasks, and to maintain a peaceable relationship with one's neighbors? Is one subject to delusions or compulsions, for example, do you mistake the teller at your bank for your deceased wife, or feel unable to control impulses to disrobe in public? In general, are you able to function autonomously, with a reasonable degree of discretion and self- control? |
