29
   

Should human rights be taken away from someone if they are diagnosed with schizophrenia?

 
 
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 10:46 am
I feel that people in this categorie (like my self) never did have much of a voice. With the exception of a few notable persons of course. Please tell me your opinions Smile
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 29 • Views: 42,636 • Replies: 526

 
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 10:47 am
Only if they are a danger to themselves or society.
aidan
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 10:49 am
No, I don't think human rights should be taken away from anyone - and most especially not from a person who is made vulnerable by illness.
cicerone imposter
 
  3  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 10:53 am
@aidan,
I think some clarity is in order here; when I say "human rights should be taken away," I don't mean that they shouldn't be treated for their illness or treated badly. If they are diagnosed to be a danger to themselves or others, I believe some of their freedoms should be removed to make sure they don't harm themselves or others.
dyslexia
 
  3  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 11:00 am
@peter jeffrey cobb,
yes, of course, potential voters should have psychological screening, I Q testing, reading comprehension, MMPI evaluation as well as skin colour rating before being allowed to vote, they should also be land-owners.
Krumple
 
  6  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 07:43 pm
@peter jeffrey cobb,
If something like this were to be put into place, then millions of people will conveniently be diagnosed as schizophrenic. Any loop hole in gaining power over another through the ability to remove their rights, is and probably always will be misused and abused. It's better to give someone rights they don't deserve than to take rights away from a deserving.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Reply Mon 3 Jan, 2011 07:44 pm
@Krumple,
AGREED !
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2011 12:13 am
Quote:
It's better to give someone rights they don't deserve than to take rights away from a deserving.

Okay, I'm having trouble understanding what makes someone with an illness undeserving of human rights, and someone who doesn't have that illness automatically more deserving.

Jeffrey - maybe it would help me understand peoples' responses if you'd elaborate and/or specify as to what you consider 'human rights' to be.

I don't consider the right to vote to be the most important or even technically or particularly accurately - a human right.
Children don't have the right to vote - and they are humans.

Quote:
Human Rights
These are the rights that every human being automatically qualifies for at birth. They cannot be denied because of the colour of one’s skin, religion, age or other personal factors. Central to the concept of human rights is the protection of human dignity.


A key component of Human Rights is that they are applied non-discriminatorily. That means that even if you have a disease or illness of one sort or another - you will not be denied basic human rights.


OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2011 12:25 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Only if they are a danger to themselves or society.
I dissent from that as to "themselves"; everyone has a right
to be a danger to himself
.
THAT is none of government's business,
nor jurisdiction.





David
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2011 05:20 am
It would occur to me to ask the OP what he/she means by 'human rights', which are a nebulous thing often abused. I seem to remember a group of people stating that 'the right to bear arms' is a human right, in which case (if human rights shouldn't be removed from schizophrenics) we should give our most paranoid schizophrenics access to firearms.
HexHammer
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2011 07:18 am
@peter jeffrey cobb,
peter jeffrey cobb wrote:

I feel that people in this categorie (like my self) never did have much of a voice. With the exception of a few notable persons of course. Please tell me your opinions Smile
I find it an absurd question, there are many lvls of skitzophrenia, some has a harmless lvl, only those who pose a danger to themselves or society should have some limted freedom, which doesn't mean anyone can treat them with less respect than any other human, the core point is to act civil, also against those we dislike, abhore and want dead.
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2011 07:46 am
@aidan,
"Okay, I'm having trouble understanding what makes someone with an illness undeserving of human rights, and someone who doesn't have that illness automatically more deserving."

You obviously did not read what I wrote. The last sentence does not even pertain to people with an illness. It is addressing the concept of someone considering someone worthy or not worthy simply because they have an illness.

peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2011 09:03 am
@vikorr,
Well im glad a few people showed interest in the conversation. Well I guess my question comes after looking at how schizophrenians were treated in not the too distant past and in the distant past. Hehe haate to be a schizophrenic during the salem witch trials lol. And then we think but wait we came a long way since then. but then again just 60 years ago schizophranians were warehoused in institutions with some actualy having part of their brains disected as treatment. And from I read in public oppinion even today 70% of the population belives a schizophranic person should not have the right to control its own monetary afairs or have medical decisions over its own treatment for the disease. So the question about human rights I dont belive is too far fetched to ask Smile ty for response please keep posting your opinions Smile
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2011 09:34 am
@peter jeffrey cobb,
The problem arises when analysing the extent of the damaged caused by poor decision making that goes well beyond the individual...that´s where it gets tricky to give a straight answer to that...nevertheless I sustain one should be minimalist and extremely careful in taking out rights...
0 Replies
 
aidan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2011 10:04 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
It's better to give someone rights they don't deserve than to take rights away from a deserving.


I did read what you wrote. Maybe I didn't understand what you meant - that might be true.
But I don't understand how the use of the word 'deserve' can be used in any way, shape or form to explain why a person either does or doesn't receive 'human' rights.
If someone is a human - they are deserving of human rights. If they are human, there is NO WAY they don't deserve human rights, at least in my opinion.
Maybe that's where my confusion came in as to what you wrote - when you said, 'It's better to give someone rights they don't deserve...'
How can a human not deserve human rights?
kuvasz
 
  4  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2011 10:26 am
@peter jeffrey cobb,
Actually, you do have a voice, and since you are schizophrenic, likely you have more than one.
peter jeffrey cobb
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2011 10:34 am
@kuvasz,
ROLF Smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2011 10:47 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Tell that to the government; that's their rule, not mine.
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2011 10:49 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

Only if they are a danger to themselves or society.


Then it becomes a legal matter.
Miller
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Jan, 2011 10:50 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

If they are diagnosed to be a danger to themselves or others, I believe some of their freedoms should be removed to make sure they don't harm themselves or others.

This is the situation, when restraints are required for a hospitalized patient.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Should human rights be taken away from someone if they are diagnosed with schizophrenia?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/17/2019 at 01:51:40