Man Who Stabbed Ex-Beatle Harrison Discharged

Man Who Stabbed Ex-Beatle Harrison Discharged

Thu Jul 4, 11:41 AM PT

LONDON (Reuters) - A schizophrenic man who broke into the house of former Beatle George Harrison and attacked him with a knife three years ago was discharged from a secure British mental hospital on Thursday.

Michael Abram had been found not guilty by reason of insanity after breaking into Harrison's house in 1999 and repeatedly stabbing him and attacking his wife Olivia. He was confined to the Scott Clinic secure mental hospital outside Liverpool.

"Michael Abram, Scott Clinic patient, has been given a conditional discharge today by a mental health review tribunal," the Mersey Care National Health Service Trust, which runs the clinic, said in a statement.

"In this case, the tribunal has given a conditional discharge. The conditions, which remain confidential, are to ensure the safety of the public."

Harrison survived the stabbing but died last November of cancer.

Abram's lawyer, Peter Edwards, told Reuters Abram had responded to drug treatment for his schizophrenia and had been symptom-free for two years.

"That's the great tragedy of Michael Abram's case," he said. "He had spent many years going to hospitals and doctors seeking treatment for his mental illness, and been rebuffed.

"If they had done their jobs properly, Mr. Harrison and Mrs. Harrison would never have been attacked," the lawyer said.

A spokeswoman for the trust said it would take a few days for Abram to be released, and that he would continue to live in a "structured care environment."

 

that's terrible news.
Anyone capable of such serious crimes needs to be removed from society until a reasonable amount of doctoral 'care' is given. 3 years is a joke. The public needs to be protected from such unstable minds.
I can only feel that I'm glad George isn't hear to witness that. Too bad Dhani and Olivia have to (along with millions of more 'sensible' fans)

 

It is, indeed, horrible news. John Lennon's murder needs to stay in prison for the rest of his life, and George's attacker needs to stay locked up for good, too.

 

Very disturbing. Particularly as Keith Richards, for one, is on record stating his belief that Harrison MIGHT well have beat the cancer had it NOT been for the emotional and physical trauma of the stabbing. Just think of the toll that took on George.

I also believe, ultimately, that this lunatic is at least partially culpable for George Harrison's death (though the creature's LEGAL culpability is negated by his obvious mental illness).

 

Most likely this guy was unmedicated when he committed the assault, and most likely he is presently medicated and no longer psychotic. If his psychotic symptoms are under control, he probably is not a danger to anyone as long as he keeps taking his medications. And I presume compliance with medication is one of the "conditions" of release referred to in the story. To keep him confined now would be punitive rather than preventative. Maybe he should still be confined, as a punitive measure... I'm not sure, myself. I guess it depends on whether you believe someone should be punished for acts they committed when mentally incompetent.

 

This is the problem with the way we address the issue of insanity in the world today. We have developed "wonderful" drugs that can allow the patient to function almost normally, provided the drugs are administered on a regular basis. In a controlled setting, such as a hospital, the patient is required to take the drugs, and after a period of treatment, no longer exhibits the signs of psychosis, schitzophrenia, depression, mania, or what have you that the patient is being treated for. And after a period of "normal" behavior, the patient is released.

However, these drugs due not CURE the patient. They simply act on the brain and nervous system to compenstate for abnormal brain activity that is due to biological causes. We do not know how to treat the underlying cause. We do not know for sure which particular drug or combination of drugs will work on a particular patient. So Psychiatrists observe patient behavior, make a general diagnosis based on guidelines published in DSM-IV or a similar publication, and treat the patient with a series of drugs that have been demonstrated to work on that particular illness. When they find a drug or combination of drugs that seems to work, they begin to adjust the dosage until they find a level where the patient seems to behave normally. In a sense, it's all kind of experimental.

Eventually, many patients DO respond to treatment. Even total wackos like Abram. Since the patient is responding to treatment and seems to be acting normally, the patient is released, and expected to try to live a "normal" life. This is where the problem arises. The doctors haven't cured the patient - they have only masked the symptoms. Without proper medication, the patient is still crazy as a loon. Most of these medications have side effects that most patients do not like. Yet the doctors expect the patient to behave in a manner THEY think is rational - ie, continue to take the medication and ignore the side effects, because that is "better" than being in a hospital. Better for the doctor, anyway, because he or she has "cured" another patient. Which I guess helps justify their existance.

However, once the patient is released, they are no longer in a controlled environment. There is no one to MAKE them take the medication. And there is no gaurantee that the medication the patient was given will remain effective. The only way the patient can remain "normal" is to continue to take medication they don't like, to see a shrink on a regular basis, and periodically adjust to NEW medications. After a while, many patients either decide they don't really NEED the medication, or that it is just too much of a hassle. So they stop taking it, and stop seeing a doctor. Of course, we don't have the RESOURCES to keep track of these people. And by the time they start to exhibit signs of their "insanity" again they've already become too crazy to realize that they are starting to act crazy. And they tend not to believe anyone else. Which is why you see so many bums on the street corners talking to people who aren't there, and have so many nutty people running around.

Society seems to think it is unfair to keep these people hospitalized after they respond to treatment, because they no longer act "insane." I think it is criminal to release them. Until we find drugs with no side effects that correct the biological cause and begin treating these people before they flip out so badly they try to kill George Harrison (or you or me or themselves), society needs to wake up to the fact that our present "non-cure" doesn't really work, except when the illness is not very severe, and stop sending these people out in the world to end up strung out and begging on corners. It's no solution for THEM, or for you and me, either.

 

I assume we're only talking about violent mentally ill people here. Confining people against their will indefinitely, simply because they act crazy when off medication, is a whole other ethical can of worms, and I assume you don't advocate that.

A lot of people released from the psych hospital choose to go off medication, but some do not. If the purpose of incarceration is preventative, is it right to confine indefinitely a person who is not psychotic on meds, simply on the possibility he may quit taking medication in the future and become psychotic again? If the purpose of incarceration is punitive, is it right to punish someone for actions they committed when they were psychotic and delusional, and thus mentally incompetent?

Some people would answer yes to the above questions, some would not. The justice system in the US (and apparently Britain also) generally answers "no" to these questions.

I don't think any psychiatrist labors under the misapprehension schizophrenia can be cured. But in many cases it can be effectively managed by medications. It's not really accurate to say psychotropic meds mask the symptoms of mental illness. In many cases they cause the symptoms to remit, as long as they are taken consistently. That is no more "masking" than to say insulin masks the symptoms of diabetes.

I don't know if it's so much that society thinks it's unfair to keep people hospitalized, or if it's that taxpayers don't want to foot the bill for it. Here in Washington hundreds of people are going to be booted out of the state mental hospital over the next couple years, ready or not, due solely to budget cuts. I'm sure it's the same everywhere in the US.

 

I know a lot of psychiatrists might argue with me, but having had close contact with hundreds of people who were mentally ill, I believe that the chance that a patient will continue to take medication or seek treatment after release is inversely proportional to the degree of illness. Those who need medication the most are the least likely to continue taking it.

I think the question should be "Is it right to release a person who is not psychotic on meds, based on the probability he will quit taking medication in the future and become psychotic again." In the case of violent or self-destructive behavior, I believe the answer is NO. For example, my ex-girlfriend had a brother who is confined to the state mental hospital in San Antonio Texes who has been there over ten years. He is a quiet, shy person on meds. Without them he is extremely violent - dangerous to himself and everyone he comes in contact with. Should he be released based on the possibility that he MIGHT continue his medication if released? I think not. I visited him a number of times - he is well treated and is allowed to go on day trips with a family member. He is not treated like a criminal, and I never thought of him as being "incarcerated, although I suppose that legally he IS incarcerated. In my mind he is just hospitalized. He is NOT being punished, and does not think of his hospitalization as a punishment. Although he knows he will probably never be released.

Unfortunately, it IS accurate to say that psychotropic meds perform a masking function. It is NOT like taking insulin, no matter what many psychiatrists claim. Insulin restores the chemical balance of the body. Psychotropic meds do NOT. In the case of mental illness, we don't yet know HOW to restore the chemical balance of the body, although it is possible we may learn in the not too distant future. In the meantime, psychotropic meds simply act on the brain and central nervous system in a way that supresses the symptoms of the illness. We aren't supplying the CORRECT chemicals, we're just supressing the symptoms. And the symptoms return when the medication is discontinued. So yes, you are masking the illness. The ILLNESS itself does not remit, the SYMPTOMS of the illness remit, as long as meds are present. And we will be just masking the illness until we discover what chemicals really TREAT the illness instead of just masking the symptoms.

This is especially true of anti-psychotic drugs, which tend to shut the central nervous system down. In the case of severe psychosis it requires so much medication to restore a semblance of normalcy that the patient is incapable of feeling either happy or sad. In the long term, this becomes very frustrating for the individual and everything seems pointless. The newest anti-psychotics do not have the same severity of this side effect as the older drugs, but they are VERY expensive. So most state-supported outpatient programs supply the older drugs like Thorazine, Lithium and Navane. And these are not drugs that even an extremely crazy person will want to take on a long-term basis. These are not fun drugs. What good does it do to function normally if the drug that makes it possible for you to function normally makes it impossible for you to derive any pleasure from doing so? Not much.

 

AGREE 100%

 

What if this guy STOPS taking his medication? Is Paul or Ringo next? Jesus!

 

Hi,

Nobody is accountable for his actions,
Nobody is responsible for his behavior,
Nobody can control his emotional reactions,
Nobody can control his physical behavior,

I ask: Wouldn't it be nice if everybody was a nobody??

-Jeffrey

 

Jeffrey,

My answer: If you actually enjoy chaos.