ARTICLE RAISES QUESTIONS
Your article "Scientology perspective on tragedy rarely seen"
(Nation/World, April 2) causes me to pose three questions:
1. For the state attorney and Morton Plant Hospital: As an
advocate for the mentally ill, I have reviewed more than 4,000
Baker Act cases and have seen that every person who was
psychotic and disrobed in public was correctly "Baker Acted."
Shortly thereafter a petition for involuntary placement was
filed to assure that the person was stabilized before release.
Never was a person permitted to sign himself out of the
hospital within minutes of admission. Who failed to do their
duty to protect Lisa McPherson and why?
2. For the Scientologists: It is my understanding that you
accept that a chemical imbalance causes diabetes and thus
permit your members to take insulin. Why would you deny the
irrefutable PET scan evidence that a chemical imbalance causes
schizophrenia and thus deny your members the stabilization that
the new antipsychotics afford so many?
3. For state courts and the U.S. Supreme Court: In 1828 Noah
Webster recorded as part of the definition of "religion" a
clause that was accepted and upheld for more than 100 years:
"The practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine law
giver and without reference to his will or commands is not
religion." Why would you have the audacity to change a
long-held definition made by those who established this country
and made it great?
-- Richard C. Durstein