I'll respond more fully later, Michael. But in one of the senses I'm using responsible, the epileptic must be "responsible" for taking his medication, getting regular medical care, avoiding stressing situations, refraining from activities that might jeopardize others should he have a seizure, and so forth. There is a margin, sometimes a wide one, where an individual does not yet have knowledge of his condition or insight sufficient to enable effective therapeutic action. These individuals, as a matter of fact, cannot be responsible for their illnesses. This is most pronounced for an inchoate epileptic, say: he can't take preventive action because he doesn't yet know he's sick. It is much less true for the mentally ill, who have a twilight of recognition, often, from going about their daily lives and noticing not only how they feel but also how people react to them. There was plenty of the latter in Cho's life. I maintain that it's a very bad precedent to divorce responsibility from the actor himself except in the most extreme circumstances. Indeed, that is presently and will remain for quite some time the stance of U.S. law.
