Posted on 08/17/2008 4:19:54 PM PDT by Jonah Johansen
On June 20, 2006, William Bruce approached his mother as she worked at her desk at home and struck killing blows to her head with a hatchet.
Two months earlier, William, a 24-year-old schizophrenic, had been released from Riverview Psychiatric Center in Augusta, Maine, against the recommendations of his doctors. "Very dangerous indeed for release to the community," wrote one in William's record. But the doctor's notes also show that William's release was backed by government-funded patient advocates. According to medical records, the advocates -- none of them physicians -- appear to have fought for his right to refuse treatment, to have coached him on how to answer doctors' questions and to have resisted the medical staff's efforts to contact his parents.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Any “advocate” should be in a position of having to put up these dangerous people in their own home for a year.
Ah, one of the advocates is a lawyer. Since her advice and advocacy has resulted in (according to the experts if the reporting is accurate) a murder and a highly likely conviction, is she not guilty of malpractice? The evidence seems clear that she did not act in the best interests of her client, removing him from the medical care he so desperately appeared to need. Just askin!
Sick, twisted “advocates.”
Negligence.
Typical for the liberal mentality. No matter what a person is capable of doing or has actually done, their rights are more important than the people around them.
Years ago, when mental patients were being “released” from California mental hospitals (I hate to say it, but it was at the instance of Ronald Reagan, who felt that taxpayers shouldn’t pay for their care), one of them begged the doctors not to release him. He said he felt like a “puppy on the freeway,” and he was going to kill again.
He did - he killed a young woman who was a stranger to him, and then he killed his own grandmother, barbecued parts of her on the backyard grill and ate them.
The release of the mentally ill was the result of a bizarre conjunction between loony leftist interpretation of mental illness as harmless self-expression, and short-sighted conservative thrift (but how much more was spent in health care, police services, and lost wages of dead or injured victims of the mentally ill?).
I think conservatives now realize that society is much better off with the mentally ill in institutions, but the liberals are still out there regarding mental illness as a social phenomenon caused by the evil Dick Cheney.
I remember reading a book once, some murder mystery and the author noted “Years ago, when mental institutions closed, many were released into a madness they couldn’t control. Between Republicans who weren’t willing to pay for their upkeep and touchy feeley liberals who thought it more cruel to keep the ill locked up than allow them to murder freely...”
Or something in that line. It seemed to me to be exactly on the mark.
These organizations are not really "nonprofits." The people who work for them take home a salary, just like the phone company or department store employee. Rent gets paid, per diem, mileage, etc, just like with the phone company or department store. Typically they have only one, or at most, two "customers" who must be satisfied. Government agencies.
To call them "nonprofits" imparts a sense of being above reproach.
I agree.
“Am I wrong in saying these advocates could and should be considered accomplices in this poor woman’s murder?”
It seems reasonable that there should be some liability charged to them but I don’t think there was in this case. (I could be wrong.)
I watched the video. The lisping liberals take absolutely no responsibilty for the endless evil they commit.
We are far worse off,instead of having real high standards for institutions,and severe punishment for the nurse rachet types,we just tossed the baby out with the bath water
There comes a point that parents have to look out for their best interests and realize they have done all they can. They needed to simply refuse to allow him back into their home. It is an extremelly difficult decision to make but sometimes it has to be made.
I happen to agree with you. If they want they want these people released than they need to be responsible for them.
The story was previously discussed at
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2062906/posts .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.