This forum post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore mbillingsley. Show Details
This forum post is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details
Here's are a few excerpts from the two sides of the debate in the BMJ:
"Madness and fanaticism are lay terms and have no currency in psychiatry. Does this mean therefore that fanatical killers have to be characterised as “normal”? Taylor identified fanaticism as a focused, highly personalised interpretation of the world that excludes or attenuates other social, political, or personal forces that might be expected to control and influence behaviour.6 This suggests that an acceptable conceptual structure can be identified that might place Breivik, and others like him, within a framework of excessive fanaticism that might be reasonably characterised as a form of madness. Furthermore, such a view has the added virtue of placing the person under secure hospital care and not feeding into his delusional ideational state or that of those who might seek to emulate him."
It is a mistake to classify fanatics as madmen. Those football fanatics who sacrificed family and work responsibilities to follow hopeless national teams to Euro 2012 were sad rather than mad. They will derive no benefit or solace from psychiatry. Similarly, psychiatry cannot correct the views of violent racists or political fanatics. To mislabel such individuals as mad is to distract from the individual’s personal moral and legal responsibility for their opinions and actions and the necessity that we understand and address the social and political origins of abhorrent fanatical opinions in an ethnically diverse society.
Julian Sheather, the BMA Ethics Manager has also written a good blog that mentions the problems with using psychiatry to medicalise political opinion. You'll have to read it as he frames it far more eloquently than I could relay: http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2012/07/16/julian-sheather-anders-breivik-and-the-social-uses-of-psychiatry/
My own views from reading the above are if you categorise fanaticism as a form of madness, it absolves those extremist or fanatical views as being mad or even impossible to understand. Society may want to label someone like Breivik as mad to try to come to terms with an incomprehensible act like his, but at the same time that community may want to see him punished for his pre-meditated acts and therefore would need to be diagnosed as sane. By claiming that fanaticism is a form of madness means that you just write-off these views or acts as being 'mad' and never get any closer to understanding why fanatics are fanatics, and what evidence or prejudice their views are actually based on. Perhaps him as sane means that whilst the majority of us do not agree with his world-view, we can at least understand begin to try and understand the basis of his actions.
What does everyone else think?