And this shows that there is always more to the story than is published.
Sadly in this country (and many others) mental illness is often treated as a criminal offence rather than a medical issue. Timely and appropriate treatment would decrease the number of incidents and be better for society as a whole.
It doesn't show that there is more to the story. The fact that is there
may be more and what that is, if any, has not been reported. So there may not be more, or there may be, but either way we don't know. Presuming there is always a giant caveat which excuses completely the presented story is not healthy as much as presuming the original story at face value, even though the known unknown may be unfairly prejudiced / "less believable" than the face-value story.
And I've said it many times before, but
the only thing worse than failing to acknowledge mental illnesses, is those who make a mockery of it and maliciously plead they have mental illnesses when they do not. Be that as it may we give people the benefit of the doubt, but I still look at such incidents with a grain of salt.
Maybe I only relate to my own experience with depression. Apart from possibly attempted suicide (or suicide had I actually gone through with it), nothing I did when I was depressed was patently illegal. Incidents like these - which we see manifesting on aircraft often - have severe legal implications and can also represent a threat to other people's lives (not just the person in question).
Nine MSN currently have a poll running about whether or not alcohol should be banned on flights following a
call for it by an anti-alcohol group.
Sounds like an overreaction to me!
Although to be "fair", if they
did ban alcohol consumption on flights, I suppose it would dramatically reduce the incidence of these incidents; or, we will at least narrow down the cause of the incidents especially if it is shown to have little effect. (Consumption of alcohol, e.g. from personal duty free, would have to be also banned and classed as an offence punishable by law). Baby with bathwater or European approach to the rabbit in forest joke and all that.
I guess unless we ever find out what happened in this case, it's still premature to even contemplate this question, and the funny thing is that it seems to shift a whole lot of the responsibility onto the airlines rather than the person. It is seemingly going that way for alcohol consumption on the ground, i.e. someone drunk who is harmed when he leaves a licensed premises seems to shift the prime (or whole) responsibility onto the premises rather than himself. That's really, really questionable.
I think that unless the lack of malice or likewise (e.g. a mental illness) or anything which viably discharges responsibility from the passenger (e.g. airline negligently serves too much alcohol) can reasonably established, an incident like this should carry a stiffer penalty, which may include large monetary penalties or mandatory imprisonment. At the moment, it seems it is far too easy to get away with misdemeanours in the air, with the only known exceptions to be (possibly) sexual assault, wilful and clear-malice assault and terrorism.