Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (251015)	5/26/2014 5:17:48 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 541674

No. It would not "help"- it would make the stigma of mental illness worse, and people who were related to the mentally ill would disown them. Try to think about the ramifications of this- who would have a mentally ill person live with them? So you'd boost the population of the homeless. Not such a great solution. Maybe instead of looking for places to lay blame, we should look for solutions that don't do that- those are usually better long term solutions, at least for adults. I keep thinking of the Newtown situation, where,apparently, the mother almost "aided and abetted" the act by encouraging her son to shoot and buy weapons. I think possibly the threat of civil liability would have avoided that--although we'll never know for sure. As long as relatives acted "reasonably" for the circumstances they were in--contacted, or attempted to contact, mental heath professionals and or law enforcement they would be safeguarded from any liability. I think a lot of these incidents happen because relatives don't act or "coddle" the eventual perpetrator. There is larger obligation to society here then just the "stigma" side of the equation.