We who have been advocating for a change in our state laws which would provide for a new standard enabling an easier path for the involuntary commitment of nonviolent, but not "gravely" disabled, persons afflicted with a Neurobiological Brain Disease (NBD) -- schizophrenia, bipolar, etc. -- have all heard some pretty "far out" rationalizations from those who prefer the status quo and value preserving "civil rights" over protecting the health of mentally ill citizens.

Recently someone said to me, "Who are you to be thinking about bringing proceedings to force your mentally ill daughter to take medications. Your daughter is an adult, and she should be free to decide how she wants to live her life -- including whether she wants to be involved in a treatment program.  If the life she has chosen doesn't meet your wishes, that's something which you need to deal with because it should be her choice.  Let her seek treatment when she is ready."  This person implied that I was a controlling father who couldn't let go and wanted to direct my daughter's life indefinitely.

Wow! This admonishment temporarily shook me and caused me to reflect as to whether she might have a point . . Then it dawned on me that she and a number of like-minded people assume that those with a severe mental illness have the "mental capacity" to make wise decisions about the state of their mental health, their need for treatment, and a whole host of other issues critical to their well being. But is that a valid assumption?

I am convinced that my daughter (call her Jane) wouldn't have "chosen" the life she is enduring if she was "free" to make wise choices. I have 3 other grown children (none afflicted with NBD) whose "life choices" have had the fortune to have the mental capacity which has lead them to choose normal, happy, productive, lives.

Those who assume that the severely mentally ill have sufficient insight into their mental condition also believe that they have often made "deliberate decisions" to live a, confused, wretched life. These same naive people who talk about preserving "free choice" for those ill don't understand that to have "free choice" a person has to possess reasonable cognitive ability. Those with NBD simply don't have it!

1. She is not capable of protecting herself from harm and was raped several years ago resulting in pregnancy.

3. Her social life is nil . . . She shuns old friends and is suspicious of everyone.

5. She lost custody of her two oldest children because after she left her mother's home and was unable to secure living accommodations for her children.

So who in their "right mind" would choose Jane's devastating life style?

Treating the mentally ill provides them with the opportunity to become functional and regain the cognitive ability that allows them to truly be "free" to choose wisely.

State laws provide that when our children have reached legal age they're permitted to make decisions for themselves. Wisely, our society does not allow our youth to make their own important decisions -- or to fend for themselves -- before they reach "majority". Why?  It takes years for the mind to develop through experience and knowledge to acquire reasonably "good judgment". . .

However, the vast majority of 12 year-olds are capable of making better choices than my 35 year old daughter.

A MOST GLARING CONTRADICTION . . . Most state laws call for protection of our mentally "immature" youth from any harmful results of their major decisions by allowing their loved ones to make those decisions (including medical decisions) for them . . But other laws in most states fail to protect Jane and other adult "mentally impaired" from decisions they make -- thus allowing Jane and over a million other severely mentally ill to be trapped in their disease -- to continue to be at great risk of unintended harm such as suicide, violence to themselves and others, homelessness, being wrongly jailed, and to degrading health and quality of life. . .

Those with NBD, because of their mental impairment, aren't really "free" to make wise choices. Thus, state laws which continue to provide the right (for those who "lack insight" as to their illness) to refuse treatment are not in the best interest of that person nor society.