The whole point of the article was that, to avoid creating stigma, it seems that in the USA they ended up with a situation where people with mental hillness are unlikely to receive the healthcare that they need.
So what’s the difference? Having foreign born parents does “impact” a persons likelihood to be violent in a statistical sense. Having schizophrenia has a similar “impact” on a statistical level. You may find it easier to see a causal relationship in the latter case, but there are plenty of people who see that causal relationship in the former case too.
Of course it’s wrong to deny people care for a serious illness. That unfortunately happens regularly in Sweden too.
Mental illness denial is the lefts version of climate change denial.
seems to me the balance, while being difficult to achieve, is not the problem, but the healthcare system in the US rears its ugly head again.
I suppose one could call it a tragedy, but I think a balancing act is a much more accurate way to describe it.
It's a bit like the rules around convicting people of crimes. It's been pretty widely acknowledged that there are many people who escape punishment - particularly of intimate crimes - because a prosecutor probably couldn't meet the standard to convict them.
But on the other hand, there are many innocent people who are currently being punished for crimes they didn't commit.
The more we try to suppress type 1 errors, the more type 2 errors we get. And vice versa.
In the case of mental health, sure - there are probably lots of people who desperately need care and can't get it because they can't be committed. But there's also a long history of people preying on others by getting them committed.
I'm not going to pretend that I know if we have struck the correct balance; just that it is a balance. And moving the dial 100% in one direction or the other is the wrong answer.