May I address the following:
Mr. Worthington’s second comment implies — to assume that persons called “schizophrenic” ought to have less rights (and responsibilities) than “non-schizophrenic” persons.

I was going on the assumption that schizophrenics have equal rights to people of sound mind. As such, any threats of force schizophrenics may make against others are a violation against the rights of the innocents. Hence, it seems proper for the law to punish for such violations. “Crazy” people need to be held accountable for their actions just like people of sound mind.

It seems proper for law to punish threats of force, even the threats of schizophrenics.

I know, for instance, that for the average man, it only takes an accusation of a threat to get a restraining order against him. That, in turn, can lead to the taking away of second amendment rights and other rights too.

I am indeed trying to make my argument on the basis of an objective concept of equality.

In his comment of January 1, Mr. Worthington rightly emphasizes the distinction between words and deeds. Words — utterances before witnesses, letters or other published documents — are, to be sure, a species of action and may or may not be punishable by criminal sanctions. On January 2, Mr. Worthington asks, rhetorically: “… if a schizophrenic is a threat to himself or others, would it not fit the concept of natural law justice to lock him up?” My answer, of course, is that such a “diagnosis” would not justify locking up the subject under psychiatric auspices (because no one ought to be deprived of liberty under psychiatric auspices). If people and their legislators decide to make such “threats” punishable by criminal sanctions, and if a person is convicted under such a law, then it may be said to be “justifiable” to lock him up under the auspices of the criminal justice system. In that case, we would have added one more very bad law to our criminal laws.
I leave it to the readers to ponder why we moderns are predisposed — as Mr. Worthington’s second comment implies — to assume that persons called “schizophrenic” ought to have less rights (and responsibilities) than “non-schizophrenic” persons.

–Thomas Szasz

My only quibble in this article is that he seems to say that there is an absence of coercion in the rest of medicine. When you think about the immunization program, fluoridated municipal water supplies, and court decisions mandating chemotherapy for minors who would elect otherwise, it is apparent that coercion is not confined to psychiatry.

I’d like to offer two examples of coerced psychotherapy and see if they fit the thesis proposed by Szasz in BAB.

First, if a schizophrenic is a threat to himself or others, would it not fit the concept of natural law justice to lock him up? Not for his own good mind you, but for the safety of others. Locking him up simply for his own good would fit the perverted model of coercive thereapy written about by the Professor. Locking him up to preserve his own life from himself maybe more of a grey area. However, locking him up to remove the threat to the lives of others would seem to fit the concept of justice in natural law, yes?

My second example is one experienced by someone with whom I am well acquainted. He was locked up in a mental hospital for a year for the crime of selling drugs as a minor. I think this might fit the criterion of coercive therapy that subverts the principles of natural law. To say nothing of the curious fact that the mental hospital was trying to force this person to take psychological drugs while being incarcerated for the use and selling of drugs. It seems at least an unfit punishment for the crime, especially since he had no mental illness. He certanily suffered emotional problems after his incarceration however.

[Hey, don’t I get to take a break on the New Year? Patience, people. I don’t have a web manger; it’s me who does all editing, posting, and updating (in addition to writing for assorted deadlines, and a lot of cooking, cleaning, ironing, and jogging, of course). That’s why it often takes a while for letters to appear. Rick, I believe your letters are strewn all over BAB.]

Despite their poor behavior, the equivocation of words with deeds is an error.

Interesting how modern psychology equates words with deeds yet still manages to negate individual responsibility for both.