Experts don't actually 'know' very much, their theories are just a lot less dumb than previous generations were. This applies to all fields to varying degrees, but I'd argue it is especially true in the intangible world of the psyche.
At various times, the leading medical experts have scoffed at the concept of hand-washing, prescribed smoking to treat sore throats, provided interesting diagnoses and treatments for 'female hysteria', and used [what we now consider to be] primitive electro shock therapy as a blanket treatment for most mental issues. Of course, ECT is far more refined now and very helpful in the right conditions.
The 'God Complex' is a very real thing in medicine...IMO it is actually often well earned - doctors perform 'miracles' every single day. Rehabilitating a human being who was once a homicidal maniac back to a relatively 'normal' person is miraculous.
All that said, I think this may be one of the situations where professional hubris may miss the forest for the trees. We are talking about tiny, tiny sample sizes here. What are the odds of having a murderous schizophrenic episode? 1 in 10M? 100M? Considering the relatively short history of effective treatment, I can't imagine we have a sufficient sample size to really know the odds of relapse. I'm also guessing that the leading experts aren't yet certain why some schizophrenics are so violent compared to others.
I think it is an admirable goal to return these people as close to a reasonably 'normal' life as possible, but IMO unconditional release is not reasonable (I know we aren't at that point yet in this case). I'm not exactly sure what the final set of incrementally less intrusive conditions should be set, but I think it's somewhere around a blood/piss test every 7-14 days to verify continuity of meds, with results monitored by a small group of doctors and centralized law enforcement. Taking a new name in a new community is totally fine, nobody local needs to know anything as long as this final safety net is in place. I don't care much about logistics and costs - ideally the patient/their family pays for it in the long run, but I don't think it is an insurmountable challenge (especially compared to the cost of lifetime institutionalization).
Putting myself in MdG's shoes, knowing that the voices were strong enough to prevent me from seeking care before with disastrous results, I would want some semblance of a safety net in place. Being 'forced to remember' every now and then when you pop a vial in the mail seems to me a better price to pay than worrying about whether you might one day forget. There are tons of completely innocent victims in this world carrying heavy burdens with them that impair their lives, I don't think it's unreasonable for MdG to follow a condition or two in perpetuity. It's impossible to put myself in the victims' families' shoes, and I think it's fair to say that there is simply no such thing as 'justice' in this case, but I imagine one could come closer to acceptance of reintegration with permanent conditions.
|