Depressed? No guns for you, and no travel either

[VMI77]

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/11 ... tails.html

“I was turned away, I was told, because I had a hospitalization in the summer of 2012 for clinical depression,’’ said Richardson, who is a paraplegic and set up her cruise in collaboration with a March of Dimes group of about 12 others.

[Beiruty]

Who digged up her medical file. Hint: Ask Mr. Ed. Snowden

[mojo84]

This is a slippery slope when people start getting denied things based on medical records without them having been adjudicated as being potentially dangerous to themselves or others.

You would be very surprised how many people have been diagnosed with depression, anxiety or other similar illness. Will all those people start losing their rights based upon such diagnosis or the fact they are taking prescription medication for such illnesses. You can be treated for such and not be any more of a danger to anyone than someone that has not been diagnosed or treated for such. Where do we draw the line? Simple diagnosis of mild to moderate depression or anxiety should not be a disqualifier.

[Dragonfighter]

<SNIP>
You would be very surprised how many people have been diagnosed with depression, anxiety or other similar illness. Will all those people start losing their rights based upon such diagnosis or the fact they are taking prescription medication for such illnesses.
<SNIP>

And you'd be surprised how many of those diagnoses are really misdiagnosed food allergies. Uh Oh, your a Celiac sufferer? No gun or trip for you.

[VoiceofReason]

She complains about her private medical information yet she “is also an author who published a book, Hope for the Heavy Heart, in 2008 about her struggles with depression.” http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/c ... -1.2444960" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don’t think she is the ideal one to complain about privacy of medical records.

[ELB]

1. I have yet to see how guns play into this case.

2. The woman, a foreign citizen, was denied entry into the US. I think our border policy is screwed up in all kinds of ways, but nevertheless, it is true for our nation and many others that the legal protections that apply on US soil do not apply to those entering the country, especially for foreign citizens, and there are all kinds of legal reasons that people can be turned away at the border.

3. VoiceofReason has a point. She herself has put her condition(s) out on the internet, and sought publicity for them. (see her website here: http://ellenrichardson.ca/index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; )
No doubt in a worthy cause, but one does not have to obtain her private medical records to realize she has had some mental health issues. One can make the argument this is not a good reason to prevent her entry, but it is a big stretch to say that somehow the US authorities got her private medical records.

Just from reading her website you can find out that she is a paraplegic because she tried to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge in 2001 (which has since led her to proselytize against suicide). During this time she states her state of mind was "cleverly portrayed" in the movie A Beautiful Mind. Recall that the movie (based on an excellent book of the same name) was about John Nash, a brilliant mathematician whose life was wrecked for decades by paranoid schizophrenia and delusions (and luckily had a rare remission much later in life). Depression is not a psychotic disease, i.e. there is not a detachment from reality like there was with John Nash. So I have to say it sounds like she had something more than depression.

Again, I am no big fan of our government these days, but their hands are a bit tied in discussing this case. She can say whatever she likes about, but if the border agents are playing it straight, they are no doubt restricted in what they can say publicly about her case. So for the moment we really just have her side of it.

Will withhold further judgement on this one until I hear more.

[LAYGO]

Thing is, she's now disclosed a ton more info in the article alone than probably what the TSA or BP had.

[VMI77]

In the first place, she wasn't coming to the US to visit, she was transiting the US to go on a Caribbean cruise. In the second place if you're focused on the issue of privacy I think you're looking in the wrong place. The issue is the ability to deny someone a right to travel based on nothing more than treatment for a mental disorder --and without due process. Yes, it isn't as clear cut as it would be if she was an American citizen since we can deny entry to our country for any reason. However, in the face of millions of illegals pouring through an unsecured border, many of whom are criminals, denying entry to a paraplegic woman headed for a cruise because she was treated for depression is the height of absurdity. To me, the question of how they knew about the treatment is irrelevant.

[cb1000rider]

However, in the face of millions of illegals pouring through an unsecured border, many of whom are criminals, denying entry to a paraplegic woman headed for a cruise because she was treated for depression is the height of absurdity. To me, the question of how they knew about the treatment is irrelevant.

She can illegally cross if she wants to...
I'm kinda surprised that you're not supportive of keeping the possibly mentally ill out of the USA. It cuts down on noncollectable medical costs.

What smacks me as ridiculous is the number of people who will (in their lifetimes) be diagnosed and treated for depression. Should we deny all of them privileges forever? Depression is temporary - and the bar that they set for her to prove that she's clear is ridiculously high - and will be prohibitively expensive.

I do get your point though - if you've got a documented medical condition and the government (any government) has access to those records, it could be used to deny you privileges... And our government will definitely get it wrong.

[ELB]

In the first place, she wasn't coming to the US to visit, she was transiting the US to go on a Caribbean cruise.

"Tranisiting the US" and "coming to the US" both require entering the US.

...if you're focused on the issue of privacy I think you're looking in the wrong place. ... To me, the question of how they knew about the treatment is irrelevant.

But it IS issue and she and her lawyer brought it up, I surmise to pump up outrage about her case, which is bit rich considering her writing a book about it:

From the article in the OP:

At the time, Richardson said, she was so shocked and devastated by what was going on, she wasn’t thinking about how U.S. authorities could access her supposedly private medical information.

Richardson has also spoken to her lawyer, David McGhee, about what she believes to be a “breach of privacy’’

McGhee has sent a letter to Ontario Health Minister Deb Matthews asking how this breach could have occurred...“I’ve asked Deb Matthews to tell me if she’s aware of any provincial or federal authority to allow U.S. authorities to have access to our medical records.

MP Mike Sullivan said what has happened to his constituent is “enormously troubling. . . . How did U.S. agents get her personal medical information?’’

Now I agree that someone who has suffered depression, or is being successfully treated for depression, shouldn't carry a ball and chain around for the rest of her life, but that is not the only issue she raised, and as I pointed out in an earlier post, she points to someone who had significant mental problems for years, way beyond depression and basically said "I was like that." So there may be more going on here than just a simple bureaucratic bit of jackbooting.

As far as letting not letting her in while illegals pour over the southern border -- the answer is the seal that border and stop subsidizing and "attractivizing" (izzat a word?) illegal immigration to buy votes.

[SQLGeek]

Things like this are going to keep people from getting the help they need. If the goal is to lift the stigma on mental illness, punitive actions for seeking help are not the answer.

[VMI77]

I'm kinda surprised that you're not supportive of keeping the possibly mentally ill out of the USA. It cuts down on noncollectable medical costs.

I'm for keeping everyone who isn't a US citizen out of the US if entering means they're never leaving. OTOH, I don't support the notion that someone who has been treated for mental illness has inferior rights because a government employee says so. My concern is not so much about this case in particular as it is the apparently growing trend that such treatment is the basis for denying rights by bureaucratic fiat, and in particular, the right to keep and bear arms.

[mojo84]

I'm kinda surprised that you're not supportive of keeping the possibly mentally ill out of the USA. It cuts down on noncollectable medical costs.

I'm for keeping everyone who isn't a US citizen out of the US if entering means they're never leaving. OTOH, I don't support the notion that someone who has been treated for mental illness has inferior rights because a government employee says so. My concern is not so much about this case in particular as it is the apparently growing trend that such treatment is the basis for denying rights by bureaucratic fiat, and in particular, the right to keep and bear arms.

People with mental illness need to get the treatment they need without the government taking away their rights on a whim. If they are severe enough they must be committed or adjudicated as not fit, that's another thing. Not everything needs to be dictated, administered and managed by big government.

[cb1000rider]

People with mental illness need to get the treatment they need without the government taking away their rights on a whim. If they are severe enough they must be committed or adjudicated as not fit, that's another thing. Not everything needs to be dictated, administered and managed by big government.

Technically, she's not a US citizen and she doesn't have the right to travel to the US. Travel to the IS is a privilege.
It'd be different if she was an American citizen and she was denied re-entry. Or denied the right to leave freely.

It's certainly a concerning precedent.
The way we have it today, the mentally ill can buy guys, but in order to do so they need to lie to an FFL or buy through an individual. Although I support the concept of keeping firearms from the mentally ill - and perhaps taking them away in extreme cases, I can't fathom a way that our government could possibly do that correctly without a bunch of other implications that are restrictive and non-intended.

Once labelled mentally ill, even for something temporary like depression, what doctor is going to sign on the dotted line that you're cured? The liability is massive for that type of statement in the USA.

In terms of keeping people from "getting help" - I believe it happens with pilots. Each visit to the doctor has to be reported. Each pill reported. It's a real pain. One way to deal with it is to simply not go.

[mojo84]

People with mental illness need to get the treatment they need without the government taking away their rights on a whim. If they are severe enough they must be committed or adjudicated as not fit, that's another thing. Not everything needs to be dictated, administered and managed by big government.

Technically, she's not a US citizen and she doesn't have the right to travel to the US. Travel to the IS is a privilege.
It'd be different if she was an American citizen and she was denied re-entry. Or denied the right to leave freely.

It's certainly a concerning precedent.
The way we have it today, the mentally ill can buy guys, but in order to do so they need to lie to an FFL or buy through an individual. Although I support the concept of keeping firearms from the mentally ill - and perhaps taking them away in extreme cases, I can't fathom a way that our government could possibly do that correctly without a bunch of other implications that are restrictive and non-intended.

Once labelled mentally ill, even for something temporary like depression, what doctor is going to sign on the dotted line that you're cured? The liability is massive for that type of statement in the USA.

In terms of keeping people from "getting help" - I believe it happens with pilots. Each visit to the doctor has to be reported. Each pill reported. It's a real pain. One way to deal with it is to simply not go.

Technically, my comment was directed more generally than to this particular case. I still think if the lady had documentation she was only passing through and her departure was imminent, what would it hurt to let her pass on through? At some point, common sense has to play a part.