Should health records of dangerous people be protected?
 

This whole shooting thing. Everyone is yelling about guns, ok, please save that argument for a different thread. The issue I'm bringing up I've thought about numerous times in the past due to a few personal situations I got into. Long story short, I moved in with a schizophrenic and not only did he make threats to me but also those around me, and I legally there was very little I could do about it.

Is this right? A person deemed mentally ill and dangerous to others... don't those that will be at this persons mercy deserve to know? Is that persons privacy really more important than the possibility of those around him/her being in danger?

Sex offenders have to register and go through 9 yards of crap when getting a job or home. Why don't "dangerous" people?

he was only considered a danger to himself. The problem was the school he was a behavior problem for a while and they did nothing basically.

As stated, this is a separate question.

But since you responded along those lines anyway, regardless of whether or not he was a danger to others, federal guidelines would have prohibited him from purchasing any weapon had the seller known about his mental health condition. But of course, his health condition was protected, so nobody could know.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/...ooting_weapons

And you think they will punish now the doctors who made a very dangerous mistake? A whole lot of people had to pay for it. Not fair, not at all.

I I think for gun sales it should be known and the process should take llonger and be more through.Someone in a rush should be a sign of a possible problem.

I think the American medical and psychiatric assosiations are going to be looking very closely at ways they can change their current methods, rules, etc, to better address this problem.

when someone is reported as exhibiting certain signs that they may not be right in the head they need to take it much more seriously and investigate it thoroughly.

I don't.

It isn't a medical issue, its a law issue. Privacy laws protect patients from records being given to pretty much anyone. Have AIDS? You're protected.

It will take Congress to make any amendments. The medical associations can't do shit.

Well whatever, you know what I meant.

And no, it's not correct that they "can't do shit", they play a large part in the way those records are handled and kept.

Christ Sly did it appear that I was here to argue with you or something? I just happened to catch a few minutes of CNN today and yesterday when they just happened to be discussing this, and it was said that this issue (the one you're talking about in this thread) is going to be looked at more closely.

Universities and colleges too are apparently going to reevaluate the way student's school health reacords are treated, or is it your contention that "they can't do shit" either?

Fact is it will take a lot of rethinking on the part of a LOT of entities and agencies before anything positive gets done.

After 9/11 alot of people thought the government should have more freedoms to go after terrorists.

We got the Patriot Act as a result, careful what you wish for.

Haha relax dude. I wasn't attacking you, just saying I didn't quite agree. But you may be right regarding the influence medical institutions can have over the laws, though I don't know, privacy is always a HUGE issue.

There are no dangerous people

Not true. Danger to himself *and* others is what was listed on the court document.

Sly unfortunatly you don't know a person is dangerous until they snap.

Because nobody can predict with any certainty who is and who isn't "dangerous". There are plenty of loners, freaks, and misfits that don't go on shooting sprees and never hurt a fly.

Right. The first snap could be "judgment day". Or it could just lead to a second snap where they then cause damage. Or, they may never snap again. Its a very tricky situation.

You're right, much of it is determined by what the laws are. But much of it is also affected by policies. Policies on what to do when someone is exhibiting certain behavioral traits, and you bet those associations and institutions have an influence on policy.

Authorities need to start taking these warning signs a lot more seriously, but the thing I'm afraid of is that it's very easy for something like this to turn into a witch hunt. It's going to get a lot more ridiculous in the US (and very likely Canada) if anyone or any student etc can just go report someone and say they've been "acting funny", "making weird threats" etc. even though they haven't, and that innocent person gets investigated and examined up the yingyang and gets red flags all over his/her record, school record, medical record or what have you.

It's a fine line we walk.

Predict? You're right, nobody can predict. I'm not saying we should bring in psychics to find "crazies". I'm asking what should be done with people who have already been deemed a threat.

Sex offenders already got busted. They go on the list. This guy already got busted. Where was his watch list?

THATS the issue.

From what Ive read tonight, that SHOULD of been reported, and if it had he would not of been allowed to purchase a gun. The ball got dropped a bit..

this is a terrible thing that happened but I dont think its something you can stop.If someone really has their mind set on something, they are going to find away. Also when you consider most mentally ill people are not a harm to anyone but themselves.

Btw the reason it should of been on record is it was a court record. He went before a judge after a few stalking incidents.

Now I dont think it should be public record if a person has been to a mental hospital but I think that should be tied in to the database they use to figure if you can have a gun or not.

Would think the responsibility for the mentally ill rests with professionals - if the guy is a threat to anyone, he needs to be secured and should not be walking in the first instance.

Very true Tony :thumbsup