What do people mean by mental illness?

[Bexar]

The residents of some states refuse to buy the "cost of living in a free society" stuff. In response to mass murders by mentally deranged folks with guns, several states passed draconian gun control laws. Who would have thought CO would pass serious gun control?

Unless gunowners and state legislators get on board and report adjudicated mental cases who are a threat to themselves and/or others to NICS; we can expect more states to pass draconian gun control laws in response to future mass murders.

I don't think the mass shootings would have been stopped by a NICS background check. I'm not sure how the guy that shot Representative Giffords (D-ARIZ) aquired his gun but the others wouldn't have been disqualified. (I believe) The consequences of medical mental health records going to a government determining agency is that someone that needs simple intervention may avoid receiving help because of the concern of their losing their privileges. If a mental health professional feels their patient is a threat to themselves or others they are already required by law to report this to the legal authorities. This usually results in a court appearence and confiscation of any guns at the patients residence.

A patient seeks help because they are suffering from grief/financial/marital problems but do so with a sense of privacy. No privacy...no intervention. Problem gets worse until possibly there is a problem.

The Berkley shooter had even been visited by authorities and was Cool Hand Luke with them. One officer even commented he was a nice kid. It is a mistake to believe that mass shooters are not capable and cunning even to the point of doing recon. There have been shooters including those with previous felony firearms convictictions that circumvented the laws by doing strawmen. (sorry I was in the kitchen trying to type on my phone)

Anyway...continuing...Since you mentioned Colorado...The Columbine shooting...which happened during the AWB was also circumvented by cunning individuals. They were underage and also used 10 round magazines.

Laws that don't work and result in unintended consequences only result in more laws that offer false security and provide the potential for more unintended consequences. I'm all for any laws that work for anything anywhere. But useless laws can be not only useless but can actually be dangerous. Very dangerous because they provide a false sense of security.

We could always post "gun free zone signs" how has that worked out?

Or we could adopt Latin America's draconian laws...that's worked out well too.

 

[Cee Zee]

I too am not in favor of any more gun control measures without much deliberation and forethought.

So you want to debate the entire constitution here do you? The ONE point I made and the only one I will comment on is that the founding fathers knew that having guns available to everyone would inevitably cause some problems. They would have to be insane not to know that and that includes the fact that crazy people could get their hands on guns and kill people. Do you think it never happened then? Do you think they knew in advance who was going off their rocker and had them locked up before they could hurt anyone?

With freedoms come risks. That's just true and none of the stuff your brought up will change that. Yeah like I don't know there's more to the constitution than the 2nd. Good grief. You want to drag metaphysics into this argument too? How about advanced mathematics? Let's not stick to just one subject or anything.

BTW the thing about Regan and the debt is very much a product of the fact that the Democrats controlled congress during his term. They control spending. Regan fought hard to cut back on spending. If you want proof of what the other party does when it comes to money have a look at the budget since Dear Leader came into office.

 

[alsaqr]

I don't think the mass shootings would have been stopped by a NICS background check. I'm not sure how the guy that shot Representative Giffords (D-ARIZ) aquired his gun but the others wouldn't have been disqualified. (I believe)

The guy who killed 32 and wounded 17 others in VA was an adjudicated mental case. The state of VA did not send his name to NICS. He is the reason for the NICS Improvement Act of 2007. Thankfully, the state of VA overhauled their NICS reporting system. All adjudicated mental cases in VA are now reported to NICS ASAP.

Holmes, the CO theater shooter, had threatened his psychiatrist prior to his murderous rage. The psychiatrist told the campus police who did nothing.

Holmes had been seeing a psychiatrist at the University of Colorado, where he was a graduate student, before the shooting.

That psychiatrist, Dr. Lynne Fenton, told a campus police officer before the July 20 shootings that Holmes had threatened and intimidated her about a month before. He was not placed on a 72-hour psychiatric hold

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/theater-attack-prompts-ne_0_n_3288186.html

The consequences of medical mental health records going to a government determining agency is that someone that needs simple intervention may avoid receiving help because of the concern of their losing their privileges.

No mental health records go to any "government determining agency". After the judge declares the person to be a threat to himself and/or others the state simply forwards the name to FBI NICS.

Read the NICS Improvement Act of 2007.

 

[Bexar]

The guy who killed 32 and wounded 17 others in VA was an adjudicated mental case. The state of VA did not send his name to NICS. He is the reason for the NICS Improvement Act of 2007. Thankfully, the state of VA overhauled their NICS reporting system. All adjudicated mental cases in VA are now reported to NICS ASAP.

Check your facts about Cho.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho

Ibid. Virginia Special Justice Paul Barnett certified in an order that Cho "presented an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness," but instead recommended treatment for Cho as an outpatient. On December 14, 2005, Cho was released from the mental health facility after Judge Barnett ordered Cho to undergo mental health treatment on an outpatient basis,[66] with a directive for the "court-ordered [outpatient] to follow all recommended treatments." Since Cho underwent only a minimal psychiatric assessment,[65] the true diagnosis for Cho's mental health status remains unknown.

“ Virginia state law on mental health disqualifications to firearms purchases, however, is worded slightly differently from the federal statute. So the form that Virginia courts use to notify state police about a mental health disqualification addresses only the state criteria, which list two potential categories that would warrant notification to the state police: someone who was "involuntarily committed" or ruled mentally "incapacitated".[67] ”

Because Cho was not involuntarily committed to a mental health facility as an inpatient, he was still legally eligible to buy guns under Virginia law.[67] However, according to Virginia law, "A magistrate has the authority to issue a detention order upon a finding that a person is mentally ill and in need of hospitalization or treatment." The magistrate also must find that the person is an imminent danger to himself or others.[66][68] Virginia officials and other law experts have argued that, under United States federal law, Barnett's order meant that Cho had been "adjudicated as a mental defective" and was thus ineligible to purchase firearms under federal law; and that the state of Virginia erred in not enforcing the requirements of the federal law.[


Holmes, the CO theater shooter, had threatened his psychiatrist prior to his murderous rage. The psychiatrist told the campus police who did nothing.

Hence...laws already exist.

The authorities did not report it.

Did the law work?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/theater-attack-prompts-ne_0_n_3288186.html


No mental health records go to any "government determining agency". After the judge declares the person to be a threat to himself and/or others the state simply forwards the name to FBI NICS.

Read the NICS Improvement Act of 2007.

I did read it... most of it.

Again...how many will avoid treatment?

How many will be lulled into a false sense of security?

How many will circumvent the law?

Again...your assuming any of these laws will stop a mass shooter.

None of the other laws they violated did. Murder for one. 70-80% of the shooters go into these shootings with the belief they are going to die.

Did the AWB or the age requirements stop the Columbine shooters. No...their committing suicide did. They were found with loaded 10 round magazines.

The Jewish Community Center shooter had served Federal time for firearms violations and acquired firearms through a strawman...another felony...for both. When they searched his trailer he had several hand grenades and improvised explosive devices.

Watch the documentary I posted. It is enlightening.

Was the VA shooter in a Gun free zone?

 

[buck460XVR]

So you want to debate the entire constitution here do you? The ONE point I made and the only one I will comment on is that the founding fathers knew that having guns available to everyone would inevitably cause some problems. They would have to be insane not to know that and that includes the fact that crazy people could get their hands on guns and kill people. Do you think it never happened then? Do you think they knew in advance who was going off their rocker and had them locked up before they could hurt anyone?

With freedoms come risks. That's just true and none of the stuff your brought up will change that. Yeah like I don't know there's more to the constitution than the 2nd. Good grief.

The one and only point I was making is, those same founding fathers, knowing there were going to be problems as the country grew, technology evolved and the sentiment of the overall population changed, gave the people a way to address those problems with elected officials and those that are appointed by elected officials. Those same founding fathers that gave us the 2nd amendment, gave us, thru our own elected officials, a means to take it away. IOWS, you can't have a 2nd Amendment without having the entire constitution.....good grief yourself.

You want to drag metaphysics into this argument too? How about advanced mathematics? Let's not stick to just one subject or anything.

BTW the thing about Regan and the debt is very much a product of the fact that the Democrats controlled congress during his term. They control spending. Regan fought hard to cut back on spending. If you want proof of what the other party does when it comes to money have a look at the budget since Dear Leader came into office.

Who's straying from that one subject now?

 

[Bexar]

Are there NICS records about background checks for felons...domestic abusers...drug addicts...do people still acquire firearms by other means and kill others?

Everyday.

The problem is that the more you prevent a person from buying a firearm from a licensed dealer the less likely there will be a traceable record.

The mass shootings are going to happen and are happening a boring statistical frequency from year to year.

I can't imagine anyone sick enough to plan random murder is going to be stopped by background laws. Yes...some have been prevented from purchasing over-the-counter but those bent on murder would find another source.

What the 4473 does provide is proof that person possessed that firearm allowing for prosecution.

Again for every anecdotal example of what may have been prevented by enhanced background checks many more can be shown that those same enhancements would not have prevented.

With the firearms purchase record...the gun could be traced to Cho...the store that sold it...date...time and even the type of payment and a testifying clerk.

Eliminate that and even a crime scene gun has no traceable record. Shooter: "That's not my gun...I've never seen it before." Police: "Oh Really, not according to the 4473 you filled out two years ago.". You eliminate that by making it harder for someone to purchase a gun through an FFL.

Unintended consequences...

 

[oneounceload]

If we prevent everybody who ever felt depressed, OCD, anxiety and whatnot from owning firearms... not many people would have a gun. trust me.

And that is the goal of the antis - a wide pincer movement around the Constitution under the guise of "safety".

 

[Bexar]

And that is the goal of the antis - a wide pincer movement around the Constitution under the guise of "safety".

Thing is...eliminating guns would decrease security.

The DOJ own figures show tens of thousands of legitimate defensive gun uses (DGU) every year. That's the DOJ...How many of those almost two hundred and fifty thousand over five years were not only preventing felonious assault but murder and serious injury?

 

[oneounceload]

YOU are assuming the DOJ cares about that. I will NOT go into the various aspects and characteristics of that, but it is plain to see.

 

[Bexar]

YOU are assuming the DOJ cares about that. I will NOT go into the various aspects and characteristics of that, but it is plain to see.

They can care or not care...I don't care However, I used them as the most valid point of reference I could. There are stats quoting millions of DGU's a year and stats reporting very few. However, even a Harvard educator who is an admitted and published anti-gunner using his methodology for data gathering has determined the DGU events to be about 300,000 a year. ( I believe...I'll have to check) He just has a different way to go about the 2nd Amendment discussion.

This is all academic exercise and giving a bored old man something to bark up a tree about even though he knows that old coon ain't going to come down. It's still fun to bark and hopefully change that old coon's mind.

 

[Nom de Forum]

This is all academic exercise and giving a bored old man something to bark up a tree about even though he knows that old coon ain't going to come down. It's still fun to bark and hopefully change that old coon's mind.

I feel much the same way.

 

[Cee Zee]

Who's straying from that one subject now?

I was responding to another post. I thought it was way off topic too. But I wasn't going to let some off the wall statement go unchallenged.

 

[Mzee]

As clinical psychologist this is the most effective definition for not allowing firearms. The clinical definitions are so diverse and conflicting that they arefittle use.

 

[X-Rap]

Parents, family, friends are resistant to reporting defective loved ones and often shelter and protect them while everyone would be better served by them raising their concerns to mental health professionals. While not in all cases, many mental cases gone violent have been noticed by those close to the actor but nothing was said.
I'm not condoning some kind of government system in which we rat out our neighbors but if we intend to be able to derail violent mental cases before they have a chance to act out I believe it must happen at the family level first.
I frankly don't want the schools, employers, or the government doing what the family should be doing.

 

[Nom de Forum]

Parents, family, friends are resistant to reporting defective loved ones and often shelter and protect them while everyone would be better served by them raising their concerns to mental health professionals. While not in all cases, many mental cases gone violent have been noticed by those close to the actor but nothing was said.
I'm not condoning some kind of government system in which we rat out our neighbors but if we intend to be able to derail violent mental cases before they have a chance to act out I believe it must happen at the family level first.
I frankly don't want the schools, employers, or the government doing what the family should be doing.

Until the stigma of mental illness is eliminated in this country I doubt we can expect much more from families. Earlier in the thread a link was posted concerning the CDC estimate that 25% of the population suffers from mental illness. Unfortunately it did not mentions that metal illness is a simplistic term to describe a myriad of illnesses that have greatly varying deleterious effects on sufferers. The vast majority of the 25% the CDC cites are successfully functioning in society with minimal or no need of medication. Yet these people still fear ridicule. Unfortunately even people suffering the least serious of effects from metal illness because of fear of ridicule are often ashamed and frightened to seek help in our society.

CeeZee - I was responding to another post. I thought it was way off topic too. But I wasn't going to let some off the wall statement go unchallenged.

Challenged, but certainly not refuted with your reply that anyone with more than a minimal understanding of the federal budgeting process could not laugh at for being so silly in its childlike simplicity. I too was replying to an "off the wall statement". This is supposed to be a firearms forum, not a forum for Conservatives to engage in back-patting, Reagan worshiping, and bashing of anyone that does not meet someone's criteria for being a proper gun loving Conservative. When any those activities pop-up in a post it should be expected that disagreement will be posted.

 

[Cee Zee]

not a forum for Conservatives to

Maybe you didn't notice but it was about 12 posts in a row espousing progressive ideas that I responded to. I'm not going to debate politics here with you especially.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Again for every anecdotal example of what may have been prevented by enhanced background checks many more can be shown that those same enhancements would not have prevented.

And I will add that if there were armed citizens present whenever and wherever those enhancements did not or would not prevent someone from starting a killing spree, with very few accounts that spree was or would have been stopped by someone who was armed.

Woody

 

[Bexar]

And I will add that if there were armed citizens present whenever and wherever those enhancements did not or would not prevent someone from starting a killing spree, with very few accounts that spree was or would have been stopped by someone who was armed.

Woody

Yep...it has happened on several occasions. One school shooter was stopped when a vice-principal ran to his car and retrieved his .45. The Vaughn Foods beheader was stopped by the owner.

In the Killeen, Texas Luby's Cafeteria mass shooting a woman who had watched her parents get killed because everyone was unarmed and the killer walked calmly from table to table and killed people ran for the Texas legislature and was instrumental in getting our concealed handgun laws passed.

A documentary recently presented on the Outdoor Channel said that all but two of the mass shootings since 1950 have been in gun free zones. In the Fed-Ex shooting in Georgia the reporter was standing at the entrance of the bldq. and over her shoulder was that gun free zone sign on the door with a pistol and a red line drawn through it.

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainmen...el-first-documentary-looks-at-gun-free-zones/

Ibid. It takes a critical look at gun free-zones in America. We all know what gun-free zones are. We see them in our schools and our businesses and cities across the country, and what we do in this film is really take a look at if gun-free zones have provided safe havens for people who operate inside of them.

So called "mentally ill" doesn't mean stupid. They can be very cunning and not have any disqualifying factors. The only way to stop them during a mass shooting is to stop them.

 

[Bexar]

I guess the thing that bothers me so much with this subject is I can remember that when the Brady bill was presented the Brady billers were saying..."Just give us this...then we'll quit," There was a pause then they started up again. People that are advocating the "mental health" agenda are going to realize eventually it didn't work. Then they are going to want universal background checks which is nothing more than a registration and another tax waste. Then that won't work and it will morph into semi-auto ban similar to what has already been proposed and the Assault Weapons Ban. Then they will won't home inspections and whatever else they can think of. Ammo bans...sound familiar?

It's not paranoia generated dialogue. There are bills and Congressman and Senators already presenting bills to do all of the above, All which will serve no purpose but to restrict legitimate gun ownership.

I don't fear my government...what I do fear is the thing that because of having been in the retail business the twice home invaders that have tried to get into our house...once while we were here. What changed their minds and the pitti-patter of their feet across our back porch after they tried to trip the main circuit breaker to the house was my racking my 1911.

I've had one friend a former boss that got into a gunfight in his house when three lovers kicked in his door to kidnap him and take him back to the store for the jewelry. Another co-worker held a guy at gunpoint at the foot of his stairs until the guy after waiting a minute split. The guy ran next door and tried to break in there and was met with gunfire right as the police arrived.

These are not war stories...these actually happened.

The guys that broke into my bosses house were illegals from the Caribbean and could not have legally bought a gun. All three of them had guns. In the gun control advocates minds that translates into more restrictions. However, they had already broken several big time laws and bypassed all other restrictions.

I'm all for laws that work but for the most part...locks and laws are to keep honest people honest. They are useless in preventing criminals from committing crimes. But again...in the gun control advocates mind if something doesn't work...just add more. Unfortunately in states like New Jersey and cities like Chicago...the law abiding citizens are disarmed and living in a gun free zone.

Anyway...useless laws are not useful; they can be however, dangerous.

I'm trying to post a picture of our front door "they" tried to kick in but I'm not having any success. The door held because I had put steel reinforcing in it, after the circuit box incident, even though the frame had started to fail and they broke the lock. We weren't here at the time. Plus that big male Labrador raising the dickens...growling and barking we had recently acquired probably convinced them to go somewhere else.

 

[lysanderxiii]

The problem with the mentally ill disqualifier is - what is "mentally ill"

If I go to the doctor, it is because I am "ill".

If I go to a psychiatrist, does that mean I am "mentally ill"? Most people that go to psychiatrists , psychologists and therapists are perfectly stable and mentally healthy, but due to the way some health insurance works they won't pay for you to go to a doctor unless there is a reason, ie, you are ill. Therefore the mental health profession invents "Illnesses" to charge to.

The other thing is, "mental illness" is not the same for every person. I would guess that many people exposed to combat have PTSD to some degree. Does that mean every one of them is a ticking time bomb? No, a vast majority are able to cope with life.

To blanket disqualify people for have been diagnosed with "mental illness" is like disqualifying people for having been diagnosed with the sniffles. And to require mental health professional who are in a position to know the dangerous ones from the perfectly harmless ones cannot tell anyone for the medical privacy laws.

Only two things can come from this (1) a break down of the medical privacy rules, and (2) if any one has ever said to you "you're crazy!" you cannot own a firearm.

 

[jrdolall]

I have a degree in Psychology. Never used it because I think, as has been mentioned previously, that a large percentage of people are bat crap crazy. Just go for a drive around any mid size city and you will probably agree. Better yet, go to Walmart on Friday night.

Our system works. There are people who take the 2A totally literally on both sides. Supporters say "shall not be infringed" means exactly that while people on the other side interpret "well regulated militia..." to mean a National Guard type of deal. I think both are wrong. I believe the Founders thought it was a good idea for the populace to be armed in order to prevent a hostile government from taking over (take that George) but I also believe they understood that there would be necessary limitations on this right.

The problem is that the anti crowd wants to exercise near total control over the populace. The insignificant (unless you are personally involved) number of mass shootings is, IMO, testimony to exactly how well our system works.

I went through some trying times a few years back when my life basically fell apart due to two sudden deaths in my immediate family. My doctor of many years practically begged me to take some anti depressants! I refused because, IMO, I was SUPPOSED to be depressed and taking medication for a few months was not going to help me cope. It took me a year or so to "recover" but I can just imagine what might have happened since I own what many on the Left consider to be an arsenal (many times over).

 

[Cee Zee]

IMO, I was SUPPOSED to be depressed and taking medication for a few months was not going to help me cope

That's my view on a lot of the stuff that causes people to be depressed. You just can't be happy if you're laying in a hospital for weeks at a time for example. It isn't natural not to feel something. It might be OK to go ahead and take the anti-depressant stuff if it wasn't so addictive but it is.

BTW I don't see where your criticism is of people who take the 2nd as written. You say "both" are wrong but you don't say how. I understand how grammar works and I understand how it worked when the founding fathers were around. And a qualifier like, "It might rain today," followed by, "so taking an umbrella with you," is a sentence that stands without the first part. It's still a good idea to take the umbrella with you. I keep one in the truck all the time. Same goes for the clause in the second that is separated from the rest of the sentence by a comma i.e. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" COMMA doesn't limit the structure of the sentence "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It merely gives a reason why it's a good idea to have guns. It doesn't limit guns any more than looking like rain limits taking an umbrella. That comma separates the clauses and the second part stands without the first just as it was intended. If you read the state constitutions of the time written by the same people who worked on the national constitution it's quickly clear that they intended people to not be limited in owning arms. You might have something if want to talk about the definition of "arms" but that clause has nothing to do with main structure of the sentence. For example I would accept that "arms" doesn't cover a cannon.

 

[Nom de Forum]

It might be OK to go ahead and take the anti-depressant stuff if it wasn't so addictive but it is.

Please stop repeatedly posting this misinformation. You may be contributing to someone deciding to refuse medication they need. I hope you are just misusing the word “addition” to describe Antidepressant Discontinuation Syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidepressant_discontinuation_syndrome

BTW I don't see where your criticism is of people who take the 2nd as written. You say "both" are wrong but you don't say how. I understand how grammar works and I understand how it worked when the founding fathers were around. And a qualifier like, "It might rain today," followed by, "so taking an umbrella with you," is a sentence that stands without the first part. It's still a good idea to take the umbrella with you. I keep one in the truck all the time. Same goes for the clause in the second that is separated from the rest of the sentence by a comma i.e. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" COMMA doesn't limit the structure of the sentence "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It merely gives a reason why it's a good idea to have guns. It doesn't limit guns any more than looking like rain limits taking an umbrella. That comma separates the clauses and the second part stands without the first just as it was intended. If you read the state constitutions of the time written by the same people who worked on the national constitution it's quickly clear that they intended people to not be limited in owning arms. You might have something if want to talk about the definition of "arms" but that clause has nothing to do with main structure of the sentence. For example I would accept that "arms" doesn't cover a cannon.

How unfortunate that James Madison did not use a semi colon instead of a comma in the Second Ammendment; it would clarify the language that provides the individual right to arms. Unfortunately he may have had the same opinion of semi colons as Kurt Vonnegut: “They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college."

 

[barnbwt]

Antidepressant Discontinuation Syndrome.

That's more Orwellian than "Gun Sense" --the term you're looking for is "withdrawal," a phenomenon long associated with addicting substances. The difference is the effects are not due to the person slipping back to 'normal' from an artificial high, but to a defective/unacceptable state from something closer to a medically-identified 'healthy condition' (well, assuming the drug selection actually works for the given patient). While as artificial/chemically-induced as a "high," said healthy state does not typically cause the kind of escalation/craving for dosage increase as commonly accepted "addicting" substances. A family member took one of these substances and was helped by it so long as it was needed, but when he stopped cold-turkey (unwise, I know) he was basically couch-ridden for three days (and loopy for another few). "You may contributing..." to a patient's informed consent? Hyperbole/imprecise language aside, addiction-withdrawal is a real side-effect with these drugs when it comes time to discontinue them (assuming your quack isn't trying to string you out on them for the rest of your life)

How unfortunate that James Madison did not use a semi colon instead of a comma in the Second Ammendment; it would clarify the language that provides the individual right to arms

We also don't use "f's" instead of "S's" anymore. It's really not that complex to realize the amendment is structured with a purpose:solution phrasing, because unlike most of the other 'self-evident' amendments, this one was known to be one of the more historically vulnerable (hence some justification was baked into the amendment itself, in advance of a challenge). As far as semi-colons, you could argue the 1st uses them improperly, since it "could" appear to break up the litany of social-practices that congress was forbidden from legislating; as though church, free assembly, or governmental redress deserve different levels of protection (or some similarly melon-headed reasoning)

Supporters say "shall not be infringed" means exactly that while people on the other side interpret "well regulated militia..." to mean a National Guard type of deal. I think both are wrong

Well, the Supreme court has ruled the latter are for sure wrong, meanwhile they've been tiptoeing carefully around questions pertaining to the former. Suspiciously carefully of late, in fact. The closest thing to a bold delineation we've gotten was Miller ("coincidentally" on the heels of the most brazen infringement on firearms freedom to date) and the defense wasn't even there to argue a case.

If I go to a psychiatrist, does that mean I am "mentally ill"?

It means you might be, otherwise why would you bother? And that's just as bad as actually being mentally ill in the eyes of the paranoid worry-warts, which is just as bad as actually being violently mentally ill, which is the same as having committed a crime and deserving punishment/banishment/confinement today.

TCB

 

[Nom de Forum]

That's more Orwellian than "Gun Sense" --the term you're looking for is "withdrawal," a phenomenon long associated with addicting substances. The difference is the effects are not due to the person slipping back to 'normal' from an artificial high, but to a defective/unacceptable state from something closer to a medically-identified 'healthy condition' (well, assuming the drug selection actually works for the given patient). While as artificial/chemically-induced as a "high," said healthy state does not typically cause the kind of escalation/craving for dosage increase as commonly accepted "addicting" substances. A family member took one of these substances and was helped by it so long as it was needed, but when he stopped cold-turkey (unwise, I know) he was basically couch-ridden for three days (and loopy for another few). "You may contributing..." to a patient's informed consent? Hyperbole/imprecise language aside, addiction-withdrawal is a real side-effect with these drugs when it comes time to discontinue them (assuming your quack isn't trying to string you out on them for the rest of your life)

“Orwellian” is you using hyperbole. How about it is more descriptive not “more Orwellian”? Withdrawal is far to broad a term to equate the effects of cessation of antidepressant medication to truly addictive drugs. Regardless of any semantic differences we may have, CeeZee’s comment is misinformation that serves no useful purpose. Neither you, CeeZee, or I are qualified for someone to be considered to have received information that provides “informed consent”.

barnbwt - We also don't use "f's" instead of "S's" anymore. It's really not that complex to realize the amendment is structured with a purpose:solution phrasing, because unlike most of the other 'self-evident' amendments, this one was known to be one of the more historically vulnerable (hence some justification was baked into the amendment itself, in advance of a challenge). As far as semi-colons, you could argue the 1st uses them improperly, since it "could" appear to break up the litany of social-practices that congress was forbidden from legislating; as though church, free assembly, or governmental redress deserve different levels of protection (or some similarly melon-headed reasoning)

You are correct about the sometime use of “f’s” no longer being used the way we today only use “s’s”; but the use of semi colons had been well understood by educated men for more than a century. I don’t think anyone could credibly claim the semi colons were used incorrectly in the 1A. A better argument could be made that the little dot above a comma that creates a semi colon was overlooked in the 2A and thought too trivial to correct. Another good argument is the comma is there to communicate that the people need arms to “regulate” the militia, as in having the ability to use arms to keep the militia from becoming unregulated in a way that could result in an attempt to seize civilian government power from the people.