[pachyderm]

The list of people invited to testify today does not include anyone diagnosed as being mentally ill:

Thomas Insel, M.D., Director, National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Harold Koplewicz, M.D., President, Child Mind Institute
E. Fuller Torrey, M.D., Founder, Treatment Advocacy Center
Michael Welner, M.D., Founder and Chairman, The Forensic Panel
Pete Earley, Writer, parent of a son with mental illness
Pat Milam, parent of a son with mental illness
Liza Long, parent of a son with a mental disorder
Michael Fitzpatrick, MSW, Executive Director, National Alliance on Mental Illness

I see that the noted advocate of involuntary treatment Torrey is included. This does not look promising to me.

[Hellion]

Umm crap, and back in time goes the treatment of the mentally ill and policies towards them I guess. Maybe I am right to be very distrustful of any help provided by the system.

[Perna]

I don't know, it's about SEVERE mental illness and violence and you have two sets of parents in there. I don't think the "randomly" general population mentally ill have much to say that would be different (and how do we know none of these people or the Congresspeople aren't also mentally ill?). It's just a hearing, an idea/broad spectrum first step. It's about violence too, and I don't see any police chiefs of large cities or anything in there either.

[venusss]

I see that the noted advocate of involuntary treatment Torrey is included. This does not look promising to me.

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by Perna

...you have two sets of parents in there. I don't think the "randomly" general population mentally ill have much to say that would be different...

The interests of patients and family members are not necessarily the same.

[Hellion]

Originally Posted by pachyderm

The interests of patients and family members are not necessarily the same.

That is a very good point, that sometimes people forget to consider when dealing with the mentally ill. It should be kept in mind mentally ill people have their own needs and wants to, what their parent might want for them isn't necessarily what they'd want for them-self. I hate the idea some people with mental illness end up getting treated as though they have no preference as to what happens to them. I think they sometimes forget the persons family is not the only one affected by the illness.

[venusss]

wait... is it THAT Liza Long that called her son mass murder in making on the internet?

if so, then What the flamming f---.

and yes, parents aren't really the best representatives of one's interest. No offense.

[Hellion]

Originally Posted by VenusHalley

wait... is it THAT Liza Long that called her son mass murder in making on the internet?

if so, then What the flamming f---.

and yes, parents aren't really the best representatives of one's interest. No offense.

Yeah hence the reason even though I know my mom doesn't have ill intentions towards me I put a limit on just how involved I let her get. Quite frankly she doesn't know what goes on in my head or where I'd like to go in life so she would have no way of speaking for me really.

[Perna]

Originally Posted by pachyderm

The interests of patients and family members are not necessarily the same.

We're talking about violence though, too; I don't want to necessarily hear from the crook about how to handle him. You and I aren't going to be very useful talking about violence and severe mental illness, (a) because we don't have severe mental illness and (b) we've never indicated any logical (or otherwise) proneness to violence where our opinion on it would be of significance?

A mentally ill person who "snaps" and goes over the line toward violence is not identifiable yet. We don't want to treat all seriously mentally ill people the same, as if they could snap and get violent but, since the seriously mentally ill generally need some sort of help living in the "normal" world, we have to figure out better safeguards to make sure if they "snap", they don't hurt themselves or others. If a parent is having trouble controlling a mentally ill child who has anger issues and is abusing them or threatening to, those parents need some sort of help; yes, maybe it's their "fault" the child is acting out as he is but, buying guns for him like one of the latest parents alleged did I think I read, is obviously not the solution? But I can't imagine that any serious mentally ill person with violent outbursts or an overly secret life (an indication of lack of support, to me) is going to have much to offer such a hearing? We do suicide watches, why not violent watches?

[venusss]

We don't want to treat all seriously mentally ill people the same, as if they could snap and get violent

actually that's Torrey wants.

[Hellion]

Originally Posted by Perna

I don't know, it's about SEVERE mental illness

But what exactly constitutes severe though? keep in mind this is the federal government we are dealing with and I question whether they really have the best intrests of the mentally ill in mind....leaning towards further limiting the rights of the mentally ill via bringing back widespread institusionalization and looking for signs of certain mental illnesses to force treatment on individuals under the basis that they might become violent all to 'protect' the public is a dangerous line to be walking and it seems that is exactly what they are doing.

[Perna]

Only if they are not supported/taking medication that helps them, etc. If you do better in the general society, do not harm yourself or others taking medication, then not taking it is just dumb. You do not have to take it but you are likely to be/act out your illness if you do not and society cannot afford that.

No one likes taking medication or likes the current side effects, etc. but, for right now, I have to take my thyroid pill and have to use my asthma inhalers and go to the ER when they're not enough, etc. I had to take the antibiotic that later got a black box warning or, at the time, I would have died.

Just because one doesn't like medication and doesn't want it, one can choose not to take it but there are always consequences of not doing so; in the case of severe mental illness, you may no longer be allowed to go out in society where you are threatening people or causing other problems. If you are not threatening people (including yourself) and causing problems for law enforcement or your family or whoever has to deal with you in a bad state, then it becomes obvious you don't need the medication (or are taking it).

It's not a whole lot different from people who are suicidal; we put them on suicide watch. People who are threatening or acting out, we put them in jail or mental health situations where meds stop the acting out. No one gets to endanger or ruin other people's lives to live their own any way they want. If you aren't 18 or whatever age to be held responsible for yourself, your parents get a vote; that's just the way it is. If you love running nude down the middle of city streets, you get jail or a mental health stay, depending on what is going on in your local society at this time; it's just the way it is.

[venusss]

So you think crazies are violent due their crazy and that meds take care of the violence? What about the stories the drugs actually cause violence? How you determine who is thread? Do you label not taking your drugs as symptom of illness, like Torrey does?

And as for threatening myself... and none else... I'd say that would be my damn business. Violence to others? I suspect many times insanity plea is to get off easier in the court.

Originally Posted by Hellion

But what exactly constitutes severe though? keep in mind this is the federal government we are dealing with and I question whether they really have the best intrests of the mentally ill in mind....leaning towards further limiting the rights of the mentally ill via bringing back widespread institusionalization and looking for signs of certain mental illnesses to force treatment on individuals under the basis that they might become violent all to 'protect' the public is a dangerous line to be walking and it seems that is exactly what they are doing.

Given the current political climate of fiscal restraint I don't think we need to worry about widespread institutionalization.
I'm also having a hard time envisioning forced treatment when there are so many who want/need treatment and can't afford it.
To me severe would mean when lives are endangered whether that danger is to the public at large or the mentally ill.
My thought on the general subject is that nothing much is going to come of this good or bad.

[(JD)]

I see this from another angle. Yes, those with mild mental unwellness might be caught up in a trap for a bit...

BUT the real problem with the school shootings and similar events IS mental illness!

WHY? I think, as other experts do, that it's because in the USA WE HAVE NO MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM! You all know this, agree I'm sure and have even posted rants about lack of caring for mental un-wellness issues.

THIS will give it it's due focus imo. THIS should, if it comes to the proper results, give support and eventually (real) money to the problem of the lack of proper health care initiatives in this country!

Guns don't kill people. Guns don't make people violent.

People are the problem. The stats prove that the violence is not being committed by legal, law abiding gun owners. The violence is by those without permits, and sometimes --more often than not-- those people also have untreated mental illness. UNTREATED is the key.

We all know why so many haven't been treated for their mental illnesses...

Let's get behind these hearings... write our legislators... and tell them the WHY frustrated and angry and such mentally ill people go off this deep end and take it out on others... lack of good care.

[TheDragon]

Statistically speaking, the majority of violence committed on a day to day basis are not by those that are "mentally ill." The only reason why this is even coming up is because of how much attention the shootings involving mentally ill people receive.

It's absolute BS to be placing any stigma of violence on mental illness, when at large, the problem of violence and crime at large doesn't have anything to do with mental health. This is just a way of having people feel like the issue is being addressed.

[venusss]

If crazy is genetic, then the level should be the same everywhere.

in the USA as much as sucks... "treatment" is more accesible. No other country has so much kids on amphetamines... or anti-psychotics even. So why don't we get higher level of violence in countries where less people is on heavy duty legal drugs? why are such incidents rare in other countries? there's countries with guns (switzerland for example), but these incidents just don't happen. Could it be a culture that somehow glamorizes violence?

And actually it's this attitude that makes people go untreated... stigma much, everybody?

[TheDragon]

Annnnd considering how high the crime rates are, for how many in America actually have access to treatment and are on medications.........

[Perna]

Originally Posted by VenusHalley

And as for threatening myself... and none else... I'd say that would be my damn business.

No woman is an island, entire of herself, etc.

We are all enmeshed, even the homeless and those who don't want to be; somebody has to clean up the body of the suicide, somebody has to do something with it so it doesn't endanger community health, etc.

Taking illegal drugs, getting drunk, getting VD prostituting yourself, you have to get the money from somewhere and if you are getting aid from a public source, that is indirectly from me.

I'd like a vote as to whether you use the food money the public gives you for food versus for getting high. If you are stealing stuff, hustling to get the money to buy, I have higher insurance premiums as a result which I resent.

If you get sick or are in a fight and get shot or knifed, raped or whatever, currently I help pay the ER bills if you cannot and have to pay for the police to check out the crime. If you are in a place with government health care, not trying to care adequately for yourself, actively harming yourself uses up more health care resources which make my lines longer and burns out the health care workers who work with you faster so they don't have as much to offer me if I need it.

The severely ill are severely ill. Yes, I want to help take care of them but if they cannot get along with society in a way that society, all of us, the "majority" approves of, they get sanctioned in some way, just as others who are not able to take care of themselves or arrange care for themselves and live in society, such as criminals. If you are senile and unable to care for yourself and don't have friends or relatives able to care for you, you have to go to a place where you can be cared for. As with all things, some have better resources than others so some go to high end nursing homes and some to public ones. That will always be the case, I don't think there will ever be a time when everyone is the same/treated exactly the same, there have been communists, socialists, commune-ists (interesting, communist is the same as communist :-), anarchists, fascists, dictators, religious communities, etc. that have tried that and not many seem to want that.

It's a single hearing. There might be more in the works; maybe they are going to interview the ciminally ill faction, don't know.

[venusss]

forced treatment costs money too. And uses resources.

if we wanna be all about money, one suicide costs less then life time prescription of APs and disability pay. But we already think in other realms too, so it's pointless to calcutate this way.

[TheDragon]

Hmmm...and how much of American taxes go to these described services, compared to say...your military? If you're going to use of the concern of how your money is being used, I'd look elsewhere.

[venusss]

Originally Posted by TheDragon

Hmmm...and how much of American taxes go to these described services, compared to say...your military? If you're going to use of the concern of how your money is being used, I'd look elsewhere.

not american, but I'd rather actually pay for a predator drone, then for shoving anti-psychotics down throat of person who "do not want" because they may be violent, cause Mr. "cat poop causes schizo" and a mommy blogger say.

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by VenusHalley

not american, but I'd rather actually pay for a predator drone, then for shoving anti-psychotics down throat of person who "do not want" because they may be violent, cause Mr. "cat poop causes schizo" and a mommy blogger say.

Uhhh....you rather bomb Pakistanis than drug possible schizos? :O

[(JD)]

Surely there is a difference between the mentally ill who are taking their medication and in treatment and those who aren't or haven't been adequately diagnosed or treated? Yes. And that's why anyone can pull statistics to prove their point.... it depends upon the parameters.

In Cocord ie., of 5 shootings, 4 were by mentally unwell. Other stats are similar (especially of the most recent school shootings... 7 or 8 of them and 6? were of obvious mentally ill (not sure on those stats but close).

The issue is UNTREATED mental unwellness. Those without any care, and those who tend to go off their medication when they think they are fine.

BUT this is a really serious and tricky issue. I can see where an overreaching (or just plain ignorant) council and administration will want to throw ALL mental unwellness into the pot... including those with even occasional depression. See how that works? Just about EVERYONE has some bought with depression. This would be a perfect way for those who want total control and removal of all weapons to add "depression" into any mix of non-permit-able people list.

If you happen to think that gun laws keep you safe... check out (all) statistics regarding Chicago IL. It has a ban on ALL firearms with stiff laws and penalties... AND it has the highest murder rate by firearms in the country. How does that work for us? It doesn't.

I think it's important to contact your representative and tell them what you think--whatever it is. Let them know this IS a hot topic, that the American people ARE very interested...plus, most of us here have a good view regarding the mental health issues, and the LACK of funding for good care! Tell them!

TC

[pachyderm]

Originally Posted by Perna

You and I aren't going to be very useful talking about violence and severe mental illness, (a) because we don't have severe mental illness and (b) we've never indicated any logical (or otherwise) proneness to violence where our opinion on it would be of significance?

Speak for yourself!