Should We Limit The Freedom of the Mentally Ill?

If, in general, we should seek to not limit the freedom of adults who are responsible for their actions, then the question is, should we limit the freedom of the mentally ill, who may not be responsible for their actions? Are there times to limit freedom or or not?

People who are mentally ill are adults and they have (often) full knowledge of consequences of their actions. In their freedom, they seek to do actions that could be self-harming or just socially unacceptable. Yet they make these choices because they see the world in a different way than society around them. Perhaps they see harms that others do not, or perhaps they see certain people or acts as being more harmful than others do. Should these people be treated as children, or as adults?

In the ancient world, they were considered adults that made strange choices. Modern societies, for the most part have chosen to treat the mentally ill as children, unable to make choices for themselves. In that case, the mentally ill are committed, or placed under the authority of a government agency.

Certainly, if a person is going to harm others, their freedom should be limited-- whether mentally ill or not. No one should be given the freedom to harm another. But what about if a person chooses to harm themselves when in an "attack" or depressed? The current government has chosen to commit those who are in the process of harming themselves. But does that restrict freedom too much?

Certainly making a calculated risk that potentially could harm oneself should be given freedom. This could mean climbing a mountain or not wearing a seat belt. But should a person who doesn't have all of their reasoning faculties be allowed to make such choices? Certainly children shouldn't be allowed to make such choices. And if someone doesn't understand all the choices they make, perhaps they shouldn't be allowed to make such choices.

But well-reasoned adults make decisions like that every day. We don't always know all the facts when we cross the street, but we still get to make that choice. We don't read the "terms and liabilities" for the software we download because we wrongly think it doesn't matter. But we are still allowed to do that.

I have a friend who is somewhat developmentally disabled who makes annual trips to Idaho so he can be in the snow. He was warned many times by his friends that he shouldn't make these trips, at least not alone, because he might be harmed. He loves the snow so much, though, that he wants to do it. Then, a couple years ago, one one of his trips, he did get beat up by people who didn't appreciate his differences. His friends told him, "I told you so." But he STILL makes the trip when he can. He understands what the consequences might be, but he won't stop his trips.

Even so, we should grant freedom whenever possible, even if the consequences could be severe. Personal choice is God-given, and even when harm could come, we shouldn't limit people unless they are going to harm others.