Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
To me, that's getting akin to the argument made everytime we lose our freedoms. "If you have nothing to hide, you won't mind being searched. If you don't want to be searched, clearly you have something to hide" The onus should be the opposite "if you want to search me, you should be able to reasonably prove you have cause to do so."
If Li requires constant monitoring forever, there should be an onus on the Manitoba Criminal Review Board to provide reason that he does indeed require it. If he wants his independence back that should in no way reflect on whether he is remorseful.
|
But we can't dealing with everyone here. We are dealing with an individual that has had a prior episode(s), one of which has had terrible results.
My concern is also, whether or not the medical system will work properly if Li shows up complaining of a new bout of problems. I am concerned that the staff at the hospital/walk-in clinic won't have any knowledge of his prior issues.
I recently had a friend and co-worker murdered. There is talk that the person accused of the murder had sought medical/mental help less than 12 hrs prior. That person was turned away, and my co-worker is now dead. Is my friend still alive if this person isn't turned away from the facility they went to, I don't know. I don't even know if this person even went to a facility as facts/information is cloudy and scant.
I do know I don't want Mr Li to have to make the decision of whether or not he needs medication is this brain isn't functioning properly enough to make that decision.
This #### isn't easy and these aren't simple decisions. I believe that they need to be made while looking at the history of the person.