[supafamous]

Originally Posted by underscore

Normally I would tend to agree, but this is the part that makes me disagree:

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?

Yeah, I can see that POV. I think the article leaves out too much information on her to make a judgement about whether her still being able to drive is fair or not. There's some disturbing information given without a lot of context (negligence? lack of support? Does she feel remorse?). We lack context on why she asked/fought to be able to drive again - was it because she has a job and family she needs to transport (maybe she has no help which is part of the problem) or was it because she doesn't give a shit about what she did?