| ||||||||
|
||||||||
— In MHOCCA@egroups.com, Katherine Minsk wrote:
He is not capable of understanding the consequences of not getting medication!The same applies to adults who are not able to give informed consent, and they are in some kind of danger because of it (please note that I do not say that every person who is mentally ill and not cognizant of it should be involuntarily treated—only those who are unable to take care of themselves or if they are causing a disruption in society).Even tho’ I “know better,” I find it astonishing that the S.F. Bay Guardian would consider this letter seriously. In the 60s there was an argument by male chauvinists who claimed the role that women really want is ‘barefoot & pregnant’, but this has been recognized long since as a disgraceful attack on the humanity of women, etc. Why doesn’t the SFBG assume that this agenda of dissing mad people is equally reprehensible, what is their temptation relating to our “supposedly broken brains?” [Thanks, Agnes!] I think this relates to the perplexity Gerald has expressed as to why the Network won’t take a proactive stance on the famous violent incidents such as Nevada City or the semi which visited the Capitol. It’s evident from Sally’s reply — as if I didn’t know from working with her for many years — that a real disconnect is happening here. What is the meaning of the failure of dialogue with the progressive movement, on the part of the client leadership (not just Sally, please note)? 
The duty of the client activists is to remedy this
breakdown of communication, to represent themselves to
the progressive movement not as “People’s
Park neo-yuppies”
but as reformers who are part and parcel of the process
of social change. This is the ‘merit’ of our activism,
above and beyond some upgrades in service delivery.
Until then it is NAMI who has grasped better the progressive
conversation, who has ‘earned’ the attention of Ralph
Nader, not us.If we were — Heaven forbid — to represent ourselves as reformers interested in changing the way people relate and in educating society in the nature of madness, we could effect a major change in the ‘conversation’. This is a matter of principle. I submit it is our responsibility to rise to the occasion. Respectfully Andrew Phelps | ||||||||
 |