Some mentally ill people can be extremely irritating, but that doesn’t m
ean we have a right to lock them up or force them to take pills against their will.
Still. That’s a boring statement, taken out of context, and one I don’t think benefits anybody. Instead, there’s a good read in the New York Times about a schizophrenic in Alaska with manic tendencies named William Bigley, which illustrates my point:
BIGLEY: “He’s very inappropriate…”
Bigley refuses to take drugs for his illness, and has been committed over 80 times since his first breakdown in 1980. Upstairs from the courtroom where he evaded commitment yesterday, lawyers were arguing over the shizophrenia drug Zyprexa, which Eli Lilly marketed without warning of its impact on cholesterol and blood sugar, and which Bigley steadfastly refuses to take.
Bigley is strikingly similar in appearance to James Chasse.
Last week I wrote two stories about the commitment process here in Portland. Honestly, I think Bigley would probably have been committed had his hearing been held here. In fact I think he probably would have been committed on Monday had the judge not been keenly aware he was being scrutinized by a New York Times reporter. But that’s another story.
It’s a hard position for a judge to be in: Knowing that deciding to set someone free isn’t going to do them any good in the long run, because there’s too few services to keep them well. And often, judging from the number of civil commitments that are subsequently appealed and overturned, it seems in Portland, judges are too willing to commit people for that reason.
But they have a civil right to roam the streets, no matter what the consequences.
