Persecuting the Mentally Ill Based on Anecdotes

Persecuting the Mentally Ill Based on Anecdotes
Profile photo of Logan Albright

ourpaddedcellIn the last several weeks we have seen another mass shooting by a disturbed teenager, as well as a horrific murder committed by two clearly troubled 12-year-old girls at the behest of internet fiction Slender Man. Predictably, tragedies like this always lead to the furious debates about what public policies can be adopted  to prevent future killings.

Preventing future killings is certainly an admirable goal, but using anecdotal tragedy to set policy is dangerous, and too often leads to the trampling of individual rights. For example, one bill being advanced in the U.S. legislature would allow parents access to their adult children’s medical records, and potentially allow them to make decisions for them, provided that some doctor can be found to declare them mentally unfit. Not exactly a difficult standard to meet.

Adults have fundamental rights, and the signature of a doctor should not be sufficient to strip them of those rights. Such a policy allows the state to put the freedom of one individual, who has committed no crime, in the hands of another merely because that person has a certificate from the government. Is not this the very definition of tyranny?

The argument that mental derangement justifies coercion is a spurious one, because the definition of what is mentally “normal” is purely subjective. Humans are a wonderfully diverse species, and within our natural variation is a wide variety of opinions that may be considered by some to be aberrant, deviant, or flat out wrong, but ultimately it comes down to a point of view. What may seem crazy to one person , may seem perfectly sane to someone else, and while obvious the desire to cause harm in others is not something that we should accept, we can never truly know if that desire is sincere as long as speech is all we have to go on. Ranting about the injustice of the world and the various harm you would like to see your perceived tormentors undergo is very different from actually inflicting that harm.

Mental health is a slippery slope of the worst kind, because mental illness is defined by its symptoms, not its causes. How do you know if a person has depression? If that person reports feeling depressed a lot of the time and is able to convince a psychiatrist of this. There is no objective test. The implications of this are that any behavior could be defined as a mental illness if a sufficient number of powerful people deem it to be so. Lest the reader think this is a mere hypothetical, the pattern of history has seen many such abuses.

Homosexuality was once classified as a mental disorder. In the Soviet Union, speaking out against the government was considered by the government as a sign of insanity. In the antebellum American south, “drapetomania” was the mental illness that caused slaves to run away from their owners. Today, anything from not being able to sit still in school, to feeling sad, to paranoia (that may or may not be justified) is classified as mental illness, thereby delegitimizing the choices and opinions of individuals. Too often, mental illness is merely a label used to rob people of their rights.

The media points to shooters like this, points to the warning signs (which were admittedly obvious) and argues that something must be done. What, exactly? It’s easy to say after the fact that this guy should have been stopped, but what exactly is the proposed solution? Are we supposed to lock up every teenager who writes crazy, angry manifestos in their school notebooks? Is there no right to free speech anymore? If we were to carry out such a policy, I fear we wouldn’t have very many free teenagers left.

And what about the Slender Man killing? Some commentators have argued that our culture is to blame, that “dark magic is celebrated” and the result is killings like this one. Even if such allegations are true, which is highly debatable, the fact that many millions of children happily enjoy Harry Potter and Twilight without going on killing sprees seems to indicate that individuals, not culture, should bear the brunt of the blame.

In the aftermath of tragedy, it’s easy to forget that the vast majority of people who have violent fantasies never act on them. It is wrong to punish someone for something they haven’t, and indeed might never, do. Individual responsibility is crucial, but we can only hold people responsible for things they have actually done.

  • 1st Family Virginia

    Apparently I fumbled my attempt at posting so if the same general comments turn up twice, my apologies.

    First, we need to recognize the every modern totalitarian state has used mental illness as a way to eliminate undesirables, stifle dissent, and create scapegoats.

    Second, many (perhaps all) of the mental health practitioners that I have encountered in my life started studying in this field because they knew they were screwed up and were trying to understand why (and maybe even get better). So holding our society hostage to these people is like putting the inmates in charge of the asylum and with really good drugs to boot.

    Just my opinion, but we are in deep trouble when we, as a society, start to take these people seriously.

  • 1st Family Virginia

    To amplify the concern, we merely need to note that virtually every modern totalitarian state has used mental illness as a way to target undesirable groups or to create scapegoats.

    Frankly, I think they become mental health professionals because the realize that they have a screw loose and are trying to understand it. If you agree with me, then you see our current system of mental health is putting the inmates in charge of the asylum and with really good drugs to boot.

  • Frank Zeleniuk

    The latest is that posting selfies is a form of mental illness. Instead of broadly proclaiming this and making everyone a patient perhaps they should just recognize that, a la Anthony Weiner, it is simply just another means for some to express their odd behavior – if there weren't selfies they would be devising some other means to express their particular non-conformist behavior.

    The mental health industry is defining most human behavior as an illness but as you correctly point out have never defined any ideal to be attained. What are they striving for? It seems they are just looking for the subjective statement, "I feel really good, Doc! Thanks. You've helped immensely." As the patient surreptitiously contemplates how he can inflict the most evil upon a hapless, unassuming populace. It is pertinent to note that almost every one of these bizarre seemingly random, motiveless incidents of evil ending in suicide have been committed by individuals who have already been seen as unstable by the medical profession and are or have been on some sort of "feel good" prescription.

    The mental health authorities will tell you they can't predict human behavior and I believe that, they seem to be terribly ineffectual and without feel good prescription drugs would have nothing. Mises manages to explain more about human behavior with the simple statement that people act to improve their condition. The understanding of human behavior then lies in the understanding of what an individual subjectively considers the term "improve" means. Hitler thought a world without Jews would be an improvement and there was enough of a consensus to consider it rational, which is perhaps why the holocaust occurred at all – sanity often gets confused as being whatever the majority think it is. The world used to be flat at one time after all.

    Most people can rationally determine what an improvement is by calculating and balancing the constructive and destructive aspects of their decisions when choosing a course of action, and can be reasonably understood as an "improvement" by others by its obviousness or, as sometimes may be necessary, through explanation.

    Thanks for bringing up the topic it really needs to be discussed. We can't have everyone looking sideways at each other because of the broad brush of the mental health industry in labeling and in the uncertainty of behavior that their .
    "feel good" prescriptions may induce.

Profile photo of Logan Albright

Logan Albright is a writer and economist in Washington, DC.

More in Blog


Bank of Canada Raises Interest Rates… Again

Caleb McMillanSeptember 6, 2017

Free the Arctic!

Patrick BarronAugust 29, 2017

Preposterous Bubble Predictions and the Madness of Crowds

Doug FrenchAugust 21, 2017

The Bond Bubble

Caleb McMillanAugust 16, 2017

The Reason for Statist Immigration

Caleb McMillanAugust 15, 2017

Is Bitcoin a Bubble?

Caleb McMillanAugust 14, 2017

Why Obamacare Repeal Failed

Taylor LewisAugust 2, 2017
Screen Shot 2017-07-25 at 12.27.53 PM

GDP, GPS, & Growth Without Well-Being

Caleb McMillanJuly 25, 2017

The Real EU Aim in Brexit Talks and Why It Will Fail

Patrick BarronJuly 19, 2017