I came of age in the 1960s when Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) was disrupting college campuses and demonstrators were protesting the Vietnam “conflict.”
So when a friend told me about an “alternative” mental health conference that was held last weekend in Anaheim, California, I immediately pictured a group of disgruntled attendees gathering to complain about the established psychatric community and plotting ways to change it. 
The agenda for “ALTERNATIVEs 2010: Promoting Wellness Through Social Justice“ didn’t disappoint.
The keynote speaker was Robert Whitaker, a prize winning medical writer, whose most recent book challenges the notion that mental illnesses are caused by chemical imbalances in the brain and adds that long term use of anti-psychotics actually may cause more harm than good.
A couple of workshops at the conference were run by David W. Oaks, the exective director of MindFreedom Intenational,which was founded in 1988 to advocate against forced medication, medical restraints, and involuntary electroconvulsive therapy. Its stated mission is to protect the civil rights of persons who have been “labeled with psychiatric disorders.” A majority of its members identify themselves as “survivors of human rights violations” in the mental health system.
Another session was led by Will Hall, who preaches that mental illnesses are not “disorders or diseases,” but “extreme states of consciousness that are mad gifts to be nurtured and cultivated.” His workshop was entitled: Coming Off Medications: A Harm Reduction Approach, and promised to help those who attended find safe ways to wearn themselves off anti-psychotic medications.
Because this was an “Alternatives” conference, I expected it would feature a variety of viewpoints that are not mainstream and different from what I might believe. And there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, I think diversity of opinion is good.
But what did trouble me was how this conference was bankrolled. MindFreedom didn’t pick up the tab, nor Robert Whitaker or Will Hall.
You did.
Yep, the conference was paid for by the United States Department of Health and Human Services: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, commonly called SAMHSA.
The government also is one of the major financial backers of the hosts who plan the biennial Alternatives conferences — the National Empowerment Center.
SAMHSA’s Administrator Pamela Hyde gave one of the opening speeches, welcoming attendees.
In addition to listening to Whitaker, Oaks and Hall, attendees could attend workshops on how to organize grassroots campaigns, run for political office, get elected to local boards and lobby government agencies. There were also several workshops that pushed the recovery model as being the best solution to our current mental health problems.
Please don’t misunderstand me.
I want consumers to be empowered. My son is a peer to peer specialist and in my speeches I call for all of us to get involved in grassroot politics and fight for mental health reform.
But I don’t believe that a govenment agency should be using tax dollars to teach people how to lobby the government. Nor do I believe the government should be financially supporting and pushing a single recovery concept.
I am not aware of SAMHSA providing financial support to the Treatment Advocacy Center, which lobbies for the passage of Assisted Outpatient Treatment laws.
Nor do I believe SAMHSA financially supports or endorses my belief that involuntary commitment laws need to focus on criteria other than “immediate dangerousness” – to make treatment available to persons who are clearly delusional but are not dangerous and therefore are being abandoned on our streets and in our jails and prisons.
The first time my son went off his medication, he ended up being arrested. The second time, the police shot him with a taser and the third time, he ended up in a hospital. Because of those experiences, I consider his disorder an illness, not a “gift.”
But my opinion is based on my experiences and it is my opinion, northing more.
If you read the biographies of many of the speakers at the Alternatives 2010 conference, as I have, you will understand why they feel so strongly about their viewspoints. And If I had undergone some of those same experiences, then I might agree with them.
But that’s the point, isn’t it?
The moment the government begins favoring, supporting and pushing one group’s beliefs and agenda, it is going to be shunning, undercutting and dismissing another’s.
That’s why I believe SAMHSA should not be using tax dollars to support a lobbying group that is pushing a single mental health agenda – even if SAMHSA officials share those same beliefs.
If the attendees at the Alternatives Conference believe in what David Oaks or what Will Hall are saying, shouldn’t they be the ones who rally around them and pay to hear them — not me?
Here is another question for you. If the government is financing and endorsing a speaker or group’s agenda, is that speaker or group really an “alternative” voice?





