Man who beheaded fellow bus passenger wants to live on his own

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by jayswin

What? That can't be true can it? He has been granted an absolute discharge, which to my understanding is absolute freedom. Isn't the whole reason this is controversial because he could go off his meds now and as a society we now owe him the freedom to make that decision?

Well presumably any health professional who had a client who was known to police for violent behaviour when unmedicated would contact the authorities if his patient or the general public were in danger. In fact it isn't uncommon for health professionals to work with the police to brief them on patients and how to handle them if encountered in a situation where the authorities might use force to detain the subject to help prevent situations that could be diffused from getting out of hand.

I wouldn't think of it as his doctor having the power to arbitrarily have the guy arrested.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Dion

He has to see his psychiatrist on a regular basis to get refills on his meds. Should he decide to go off his meds, his shrink would notice and have him detained.

Li and his lawyer have also said they would continue the monitoring of his meds.

Originally Posted by jayswin

What? That can't be true can it? He has been granted an absolute discharge, which to my understanding is absolute freedom. Isn't the whole reason this is controversial because he could go off his meds now and as a society we now owe him the freedom to make that decision?

Originally Posted by Dion

How else do you think he would get refills on his medication? Or the proper dosage if his meds go out of whack?

You stated that if his shrink noticed that he stopped taking his meds he would be detained. I think you're misunderstanding what an absolute discharge is and why it's so controversial and hard to accept for some people.

I personally support it because of the process and people involved and a desire to live in a just society that still values people's freedoms even to the detriment of people's fears and safety in some cases. But the whole point of him being free is that no, the shrink couldn't have him detained fro anything.

The only thing he can be detained for now is by breaking any Canadian laws that the rest of us would be detained for. The government now has no extra controls or checks on his life beyond what they have over an ordinary citizen.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Which has zero to do with him being forced (which i beleive is the issue here) to take them.

The guy quit taking them once before and the results were a catastrophe.

People are concerned he may repeat this behaviour once again and then getting labelled as being irrational in their fears, which is not only unfair, it doesn't address the perceived problem.

This decision is IMO a really poor one without the absolute assurance the guy wont stop medicating...something he has shown to do already.

I recognise the concerns and would hope that Li and his lawyer lives up to his word when he said he would allow for continued monitoring of his meds. Unfortunately we don't get to see all the details of the descion.

I have also stated earlier that he should have his meds monitored for the rest of his life.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Which has zero to do with him being forced (which i beleive is the issue here) to take them.

The guy quit taking them once before and the results were a catastrophe.

Do you have the links to back this up? I believe this was incorrectly reported and has been repeated as fact but is a deformed interpretation of the truth.

Instead, I believe his wife pleaded for him to get on medication when his hallucinations started to manifest themselves, but he (while still suffering and being untreated) refused to.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Dion

I have also stated earlier that he should have his meds monitored for the rest of his life.

From what I can tell, the issue here is that isn't exactly happening. "It might be noticed if/when" is a far cry from "is".

[Dion]

Originally Posted by jayswin

You stated that if his shrink noticed that he stopped taking his meds he would be detained. I think you're misunderstanding what an absolute discharge is and why it's so controversial and hard to accept for some people.

I personally support it because of the process and people involved and a desire to live in a just society that still values people's freedoms even to the detriment of people's fears and safety in some cases. But the whole point of him being free is that no, the shrink couldn't have him detained fro anything.

The only thing he can be detained for now is by breaking any Canadian laws that the rest of us would be detained for. The government now has no extra controls or checks on his life beyond what they have over an ordinary citizen.

If a person poses a threat to himself or others a GP or psychiatrist can have him or her detained on a 24 hour admission ticket until it has been determined if the threat is real.

He might have the discharge but that doesn't mean he can't be detained if he poses a threat.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Well presumably any health professional who had a client who was known to police for violent behaviour when unmedicated would contact the authorities if his patient or the general public were in danger. In fact it isn't uncommon for health professionals to work with the police to brief them on patients and how to handle them if encountered in a situation where the authorities might use force to detain the subject to help prevent situations that could be diffused from getting out of hand.

I wouldn't think of it as his doctor having the power to arbitrarily have the guy arrested.

They have the ability to bring police in for very specific circumstances, like if someone is an immediate threat to themselves or the public. They can't just call the police for any concerning thing they hear, even if it's someone being violent in general.

But you raise an interesting question. Would Will Baker going off his meds be considered an immediate threat to himself or others and therefor the police could be called in? And if that's the case he's for all intense and purposes still being monitored.

Although, I guess he could stop seeing his psychiatrist legally, so that's very interesting.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Dion

If a person poses a threat to himself or others a GP or psychiatrist can have him or her detained on a 24 hour admission ticket until it has been determined if the threat is real.

He might have the discharge but that doesn't mean he can't be detained if he poses a threat.

You can't be serious...

You do realize that the issue here is that - unchecked - there is every opportunity for him to go off the meds and have an episode before it's determined / noticed, right?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Dion

If a person poses a threat to himself or others a GP or psychiatrist can have him or her detained on a 24 hour admission ticket until it has been determined if the threat is real.

He might have the discharge but that doesn't mean he can't be detained if he poses a threat.

But he doesn't have to legally attend anything though, so how does that work? If they can monitor his medication use and call the police if he doesn't get them than how is that any different than what was originally proposed; Which was having the restriction on his freedom of having to check in for medication updates?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Dion

If a person poses a threat to himself or others a GP or psychiatrist can have him or her detained on a 24 hour admission ticket until it has been determined if the threat is real.

He might have the discharge but that doesn't mean he can't be detained if he poses a threat.

So step one he decides to quit seeing is psychiatrist because he doesn't want to anymore. That likely is insufficient for a 24hr hold.

You have false hope that the system could catch him if he chose to go off his meds.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GGG

So step one he decides to quit seeing is psychiatrist because he doesn't want to anymore. That likely is insufficient for a 24hr hold.

You have false hope that the system could catch him if he chose to go off his meds.

It can be seen as someone who doesn't want to take his meds anymore.

How else is going to get refills on his meds?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by jayswin

But he doesn't have to legally attend anything though, so how does that work? If they can monitor his medication use and call the police if he doesn't get them than how is that any different than what was originally proposed; Which was having the restriction on his freedom of having to check in for medication updates?

Baker is monitored nightly by pharmacy staff who stop by his apartment to watch him take his medication, a practice Waldman said Baker has agreed to continue if his request is granted.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2017/02/06...freedom-monday

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Dion

How else is going to get refills on his meds?

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

You are insinuating that he can't possibly stop taking his meds and have an episode before a pharmacy notices he isn't picking up refills in a timely fashion?

What if he picks up his meds and stops taking them that day. That leaves plenty of time to have an episode before anyone takes notice.

Originally Posted by Dion

Baker is monitored nightly by pharmacy staff who stop by his apartment to watch him take his medication, a practice Waldman said Baker has agreed to continue if his request is granted.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2017/02/06...freedom-monday

But is that actually happening? Is that a condition?

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Dion

It can be seen as someone who doesn't want to take his meds anymore.

How else is going to get refills on his meds?

I think you're confused as to what he's legally entitled to here. Despite what everyone knows about him, an absolute discharge is saying that none of that matters and he's free to do as he chooses.

Like GGG said, he can quit seeing anyone tomorrow and no one has a right to do anything. He's free and part of that choice to give him his freedom was professionals trusting that he would continue to medicate.

They can't make him take them, they can't call the police if he stops.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Dion

Baker is monitored nightly by pharmacy staff who stop by his apartment to watch him take his medication, a practice Waldman said Baker has agreed to continue if his request is granted.

http://www.calgarysun.com/2017/02/06...freedom-monday

That's your misunderstanding, I think. He's agreed to continue and of course he will if he's as remorseful as we're led to believe, but he is not legally obligated to do anything any other citizen doesn't have to do.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by GoJetsGo

You can't be serious...

You do realize that the issue here is that - unchecked - there is every opportunity for him to go off the meds and have an episode before it's determined / noticed, right?

I don't joke around.

I realise there is an issue of unchecked but at the same time none has told me how he would get his meds without seeing his shrink. His shrink would notice any subtle changes before he returned to his former self.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Dion

It can be seen as someone who doesn't want to take his meds anymore.

How else is going to get refills on his meds?

He decided he didn't need them anymore about the same time as he quit seeing his shrink and disappeared.

The mental health system routinely fails at stopping these types of incidences. And now that he is a normal person he does not have any other requirements. It's very naive to believe that somehow some failsafe will be triggered. The absolute discharge removed those failsafes.

For better or worse we are relying on Li to be mentally stable enough to maintain employment to afford his medication and continue to take it and have it adjusted. I hope he is successful. But you position that the system will save him is naive.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by jayswin

That's your misunderstanding, I think. He's agreed to continue and of course he will if he's as remorseful as we're led to believe, but he is not legally obligated to do anything any other citizen doesn't have to do.

Yes that's my understanding and I would think if Li and his lawyer told the review board that they agree to further monitoring it would be in the details of his discharge.

[GoJetsGo]

Originally Posted by Dion

I don't joke around.

I realise there is an issue of unchecked but at the same time none has told me how he would get his meds without seeing his shrink. His shrink would notice any subtle changes before he returned to his former self.

If you're not joking then you are being grossly misguided.

I'm not even sure what you mean by that.

People are telling you he's now free to do as he pleases and you seem to be insinuating he's going to be monitored daily with no room to stop taking his medication before anyone notices immediately.

I think you're reading press and seeing what you want to see, which isn't close to what's actually happening here.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Dion

I don't joke around.

I realise there is an issue of unchecked but at the same time none has told me how he would get his meds without seeing his shrink. His shrink would notice any subtle changes before he returned to his former self.

What was his old self and at what point could his shrink call police? Paranoid Schizophrenic episodes happen suddenly, often with no warning signs. His old self was participating in society as a relatively normal guy until he chopped someone's head off and ate it.