“In light of our analyses, we judge that this man does not represent a danger to society.”
The whole drama of Vaudreuil-Dorion comes down to this sentence.
How do we judge the dangerousness of a man who suffers from mental disorders?
Could it be that we are telling ourselves stories when we say that it is possible to know what is going on in the head of an individual – especially an individual who suffers from serious psychological problems?
That we can predict how this person will behave over the next hours, the next days, the next weeks?
A REAL SCIENCE?
Several intellectuals, and not the least, have questioned over the years the reliability of psychoanalysis and psychology in general.
For the philosopher of science Karl Popper, psychoanalysis was a pseudo-science, like astrology and the horoscope.
For the philosopher Michel Onfray, who devoted an enormous volume to Freud, the father of psychoanalysis was a falsifier, not to say a charlatan.
In November 2012, the Agence Science-Presse affirmed that barely 1% of the scientific literature was made up of experiments that could have been reproduced – half of which, by the same researcher.
In August 2015, the magazine Science and Future told us that according to a collective of 270 researchers from around the world, nearly two-thirds of psychology studies could not be reproduced (thus proving that psychology is not, strictly speaking, a science).
According to John Ioannidis, a biologist at Stanford University in California, only 25% of psychology studies would stand up to serious scrutiny.
Etc., etc.
I am neither a scientist nor a psychologist, but I ask the question: could it be that psychology, which is presented to us as a “hard” science capable of explaining and even predicting the behavior of human beings, would not be in makes a “soft” science – very soft?
I know I’m going to get rocks thrown at me by psychologists, but when you look at the number of times the Mental Disorders Examination Board has been wrong in its diagnoses and analyses, you have reason to wonder.
THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
Who knows how a person who suffers from serious mental illness will behave once they leave the hospital and find themselves on the street, without supervision?
The hospital (where individuals suffering from mental illness are “analysed”) is a controlled environment. Calm reigns, the nurses ensure that the patient takes his medication… Conditions are optimal.
But who knows what will happen outside?
It might only take a small confrontation for the individual in question to explode…
And who tells us he won’t get into drugs? That he will actually take his medication?
The risk factors are numerous. Too many, in my humble opinion, for us to be able to judge the dangerousness of a patient…
Just as before, it was too easy to “place” someone in an asylum, today it is difficult. For the loved ones of a mentally ill person, it is the cross and the banner.
What does the famous precautionary principle, dear to all environmentalists, say?
“We should refrain from taking part in certain activities until we are certain that they will not cause harmful effects.”
Well, perhaps we should do the same thing with mentally ill people who, like Fabio Puglisi, have been arrested for committing violent acts.
Refrain from releasing them.
Even if they cannot legally be held criminally responsible for their actions.
If we adopt the precautionary principle to protect the environment, I don’t see why we wouldn’t adopt it to protect innocent people.
Like the two women Puglisi killed.
- Listen to the interview with Stéphane Wall, retired SPVM supervisor specializing in judicious use of force via QUB :
ARRIVECAN: AN INVESTIGATION, QUICKLY!
The ArriveCan scandal demonstrates the need to set up – both at the federal and provincial levels – a public commission of inquiry into the awarding of contracts in the technology sector.
As La Presse revealed, the company behind ArriveCan won a contract worth 2.3 million… for which it participated in drafting the call for tenders! And to celebrate, she invited the senior officials responsible for the file to a whiskey tasting!
It smacks of cronyism…
I’m sure that a Commission of Inquiry into technology would make the Charbonneau Commission look like a fool’s errand!
NO MORE GUNS!
A shooting in a Super Bowl parade: as Luc Laliberté wrote, we couldn’t be more American!
Unfortunately, we do not feel a great wave of indignation among the Americans. It’s one of many shootings…
We have the impression that our southern neighbors have given up. Even Democrats seem to have given up on the gun lobby…
The only solution proposed: arm “honest” citizens so that they can shoot down the “bad guys” when they start shooting.
In short, even more weapons!
Sad…
CASH MEDICINE
I have to take an important test but I don’t have a family doctor. So I called a private clinic. It’s $450 for a first meeting.
No wonder medical graduates go straight to the private sector at the end of their studies!
Couldn’t we force new doctors to work for x number of years in the public sector when they leave universities?
After all, we paid for a good part of their education!
“I will care for the needy and for anyone who asks me for it,” says the Hippocratic Oath.
Do you know a lot of poor people capable of paying $450 to see a doctor?