Quote:
Originally Posted by supafamous
Well, at the time she was mentally unfit. As it states in the article she's in full remission and is getting regular treatment for her condition including medication and regular counselling. If she's in a "normal" state now (and presumably has been for some time) and is getting monitored regularly why should she be restricted from operating a vehicle or caring for her children?
|
Normally I would tend to agree, but this is the part that makes me disagree:
Quote:
Originally Posted by supafamous
I'm actually more interested in what led to her having the psychotic episode as she was committed to a hospital for a third time as a result of this incident. She was 36 at the time of the incident so 3 commitments is no small thing. What type of mental health support was she getting prior to this? Was it insufficient? Was she negligent? Did it take something like this kind of incident to get her the car she needed or was it always available and not being used?
|
3 times she was committed, plus who knows how many other incidents she wasn't committed for. If it was the care she was given, then it was screwed up 3 times so I sure as heck wouldn't be confident it's going to be correct now. If she was negligent, then she was negligent at least 3 times before which makes me extremely doubtful she won't be negligent again.
The fact that she was pushing to be able to drive again less than a year later seems concerning to me as well. What kind of person would even want to drive again after nearly killing 2 people?