In regard to the related topic above, please consider the excerpts of the conversation below :
Points made by the other Person :
"I see your point. Giving up any ground on the medication is useful issue is definitely a floodgate to abuses of people with diseases by the medical community who really have no clue what schizophrenia is or what to do about it. Before it was turning them into a zombie by cutting out part of their brain, now it is giving them drugs that do the same thing.
But schizophrenics, especially in their first episode, can be dangerous. If you think people are coming to kill you, or perhaps torture you, what would you do? Would you attack them? If so then you might harm innocent bystanders. If you adopt a policy of no collateral damage, having received no concrete proof that anyone around you is actually part of the "conspiracy", you might just off yourself to avoid being tortured. But what if you choose to do so in a spectacular manner? Drive your car off a cliff or blow yourself up? What if you ACCIDENTALLY take someone with you? Even if not, medication could have saved you to live another day.
I am just saying, schizophrenia can create some rather dire circumstances where a medication that dulls your mind for a while is definitely the lesser of the two evils."
My Replies :
I see your points. Well, just as what I have mentioned earlier on in my previous post, the related issue should be determined based on the different individually respective and specific hard facts and details under different scenarios, cases & circumstances for different individuals particularly based on their individual behaviors and most importantly, such actual facts as to whether what they have done might be considered to be physically violent & dangerous to they themselves or anyone else at all.
In short, these so-called "plausible reasoning" of yours simply shouldn't be assumed and presumed to be applied or applicable directly, straightaway, indiscriminately and peremptorily all across and against any cognitively impaired individuals without even a second thought or other rational and reasonable considerations.
Anyway, objectively speaking, whilst with all due respects and I definitely mean no offense that, these rather obviously over-exaggerated and seemingly highly prejudiced remarks that you have made above would simply give anyone reading them a very distorted and very much biased impression that it seems that all the cognitively impaired people are alike, seem to simply turn out to be as "monsters" or politely speaking, "unwanted eyesores" to you in your very own eyes maybe simply at your very first sight. Whilst judging from the related fully derogatory and yet hypothetically intimidating personal highly questionable comments of yours such as "If you think people are coming to kill you, or perhaps torture you, what would you do? Would you attack them?" etc that you have made above, well, you are in fact just simply giving anyone a fully biased and over-exaggerated impression or rather a spontaneously direct & inductive reasoning based on what you have written that "good riddance to all of the cognitively impaired people on sight" would be your personally-defined "best solutions", to settle the "related problem" in your "personal context".
Whilst generally and reasonably, of course not everyone, especially the rational and reasonable ones would share exactly the same overly exaggerated viewpoints and mindsets of yours.
So, is it actually your personal bigotry that is in play ? Whilst if that's simply the case, I would suggest you to make your posts and deliver your points in a more sensible and reasonable way next time. And I mean no offense at all by saying that.
By the way, about the issues of deliberate abuses that you have mentioned above, and well, just think about one very common example, regarding all the old, fragile, senile and cognitively impaired old folks living in the nursing homes, and well, surely such ugly and yet fully unaccounted issue is obviously all about the "law of the jungle" which is predominantly in play such as what I have explained and elaborated in my previous posts above.
Points made by the other Person :
"You are right, those thoughts are not representative of most schizophrenics (they were based on personal experience with an AIP person rather than an actual schizophrenic), and single cases like that are used as justification to drug lots of people who aren't really dangerous."
My replies :
I quite agree with you to a certain extent. Nevertheless, one should always bear in mind that such Dopamine antagonist medications at the very same time also carry such undesirable and yet almost fully unavoidable disastrous side effects of Extrapyramidal symptoms (EPS - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrapyramidal_symptoms ) that include such serious neurological and neuro-degenerative disorders like akathisia, tardive dyskinesia, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, dystonia, akinesia and in the worst case scenario, parkinsonism, which might manifest disastrously and yet irreversibly onto anyone taking them particularly when these drugs are overly relied upon to the point of sheer abuse or maybe 'getting forced to be taken unnecessarily over the long-term" such as what you have mentioned as "and single cases like that are used as justification to drug lots of people who aren't really dangerous.", and well, obviously that's simply how the "law of the jungle" really works in reality, and the related question that arises is such that such scenario and the related issues such as the ones explained and elaborated in my prior posts above can really be fully tolerated, acquiesced and condoned at all on both humanity and humanitarian grounds ? Whilst the "law of the jungle" actually prevails overwhelmingly over any moral principles, underlying basic concepts of human conscience, humanity and humanitarianism nowdays ? So, what says you ? as quoted from :
By the way, if one were to take & make a closer observation about the related post made earlier on above, one would just simply find out and simply wonder as to the actual reason why that, almost most of the times, clicking onto the particular weblink : http://scienceforums.com/topic/17385-antipsychotics-neuroleptics-for-mental-d... or most / any of the related weblinks, particularly the one named “Science Forums - Science for everyone” available on any of the internet search engines to access the specific Hypography Science Forums would nevertheless simply get one falsely and wrongly re-routed to the totally unrelated utility webpage of http://url4short.info/efab30d2 .
So, is it actually a subtly insidious tactic to hide something that is considered unfavourable, probably all the related ugly and totally unaccounted truths and incidents, from the compassionate & warm-hearted ones?