A College Psychology Professor's Observations About Public Policy, Mental Health, Sexual Identity, and Religious Issues
Read this article, just out on the USA Today website for some insight into why the nation’s mental health policy is broken.
As we have seen, such concerns are not solely health related but security related as well. Sadly, “pro-family” organizations opposed efforts, eventually successful, to require health insurance coverage to include rational benefits for mental health care. We need to do much more to secure a safe and reasonable national policy.
This Reuters’ analysis raises some excellent policy questions regarding gun posession and schizophrenia.
There are complications of course in the implementation of any policy, but I would like to see public policy reflect public safety over individual rights to own a firearm.
Passage of that bill to strengthen the background check system was prompted when a deranged gunman killed himself and 32 others in April 2007 at Virginia Tech University — the deadliest shooting rampage in modern U.S. history.
It turned out that the Virginia Tech shooter, university student Seung-Hui Cho, had been judged an “imminent danger” to himself and others. But that court finding was not submitted to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
Since the 2008 measure to bolster the system became law, the number of records entered in the FBI registry of people deemed by courts to be dangerously mentally ill has more than doubled to about 1 million.
But that tally is still less than half of the total number of people — over 2 million — estimated to have been so adjudicated in the United States, the Brady Campaign says.
Arizona, for example, has submitted more than 4,400 names of persons ineligible to buy guns due to mental illness since 2008, a fraction of the nearly 122,000 estimated to have been officially judged dangerously mentally ill in the state since 1989, according to figures compiled by the Brady Campaign.
Most people commenting on the Arizona shooting are speculating about motive, the role of public discourse on the shooter, and the shooter’s mental health. I confess my bias from the start – from what I have read, the shooter Jared Loughner sounds like he is paranoid schizophrenic. Of course, I am not engaging in a formal diagnosis since I have no direct data. However, the signs are certainly suggestive.
What is bound to happen for some time to come is the blaming of the event on ideology. The left seems to be pulling out Sarah Palin’s use of bullseyes on Giffords district and the right is doing the same – apparently some disgruntled far left people also know how to use bullseyes. For some reason, The Daily Kos removed a post which had some very disturbing things to say about Rep. Giffords.
In any case, my personal view is that efforts to locate this horrible act in ideology is a mistake. As with other shootings, I think mental illness is underestimated by policy makers. Apparently there were warning signs which were “handled” but were not addressed in any meaningful way. The curent laws do not allow for a long term response to signs of instability, but rather on short term detention for people who might seem to be a danger to themselves or others.
The right and left will blame each side for the tragedy, but I hope at some point we will come together and look at the need for a more comprehensive policy relating to the treatment of severe mental illness and the long term treatment needs of those afflicted.
I am quoted often in this article by Kathryn Davis on parenting, primarily mothering and various adult outcomes, including homosexuality and eating disorders. Her initial focus is autism:
In his book, Teaching Individuals with Developmental Delays, author O. Ivar Lovaas notes, “The number of proposed causes was limitless because professionals found it easy to be inventive, considering their ignorance of the etiology of behavioral delays. These delays already tend to be amplified by the parents’ guilt and anxiety over the possibility of having contributed to the problem (a characteristic of most parents regardless of the child’s problem).”
Lovaas was a behaviorist who taught George Rekers. Rekers adapted the behaviorism into his treatment of GID but did not follow his teacher’s skepticism of parental cause for childhood issues.
AOL Health quoted me today on a new study which provides evidence for aggressive treatment of teen depression. The study supports the practice I found effective when I worked with teens and young adults on a regular basis.
Some might argue that the SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) need more time. However, practically, people don’t stay compliant with recommendations when there is little to no improvement. There are so many options from which to choose, it seems reasonable to pursue a new course while motivation to keep trying might be strong.
UPDATE: For some reason, the article is no longer available. Here is a link to a similar article and then to the press release about the study.
Copyright © 2012 · Lifestyle Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in
Recent Comments