Hikermor and Bob are concerned with whether her history of mental illness might have contributed to her getting lost. They may very well be right, but I am not concerned with this. I am concerned with the article's contribution to the stigmatization of people with a history of mental illness.

Look, by failing to make clear the connection, the article encourages people to attribute anything out of the ordinary that currently or formerly mentally ill person does to the illness. Why did Fred throw out that perfectly good burger? Must be because he has been seeing a shrink! He's nuts! Why did Mary get upset after I fired her? Must be because she was taking anti-depressants for a while ten years ago!

This brings back an attitude from an unenlightened age, when the mentally ill (or even perfectly healthy people who just did not adhere to social norms) got locked away. Once marked, always marked. In other words, it worked like a criminal record. Someone committed a crime some years ago. Anything he did afterwards will be given a negative interpretation. Oh, no, he's in our store! He must be here to rob us!

I'd challenge the writer to do a better job. If this woman's actions were a direct result of her mental illness, then the writer should state as much. Otherwise the article is just perpetuating this unenlightened attitude, and it's indirectly causing you to adopt the same.

Well, the other thing I was concerned with was cats... Aren't they warm and cuddly? Apparently they'll hunt for food on their own, too.