(-6-1-2017) The President of the National Alliance on Mental Illness Board of Directors sent an email yesterday to the organization’s state and local leaders about NAMI’s upcoming board elections that one candidate is calling “fairly unconscionable.”

Without mentioning any candidates by name,  President Steve Pitman (shown in NAMI photo) wrote that the selection of five new board members will determine NAMI’s future for the next three years:

At issue will be whether we continue to build broad coalitions that allow for discussions of subjects like serious mental illness (SMI), hopefulness, recovery, stigma, etc.  This is the “big tent” approach that embraces “all”  in the conversation.  In the alternative,  NAMI would narrow its focus to that of serious mental illness in a much “smaller tent.”

The issue is one of strategy.  How does NAMI best build support for the issues surrounding SMI?  If one looks at the history of NAMI, this movement to a big tent approach has been slow and steady.  Through the years, the duly-elected boards of NAMI, with many different members, have supported this broadened focus.  The question now before our affiliates and state organizations is whether this big tent approach has helped to make the needed changes affecting those living with SMI and their families?  Going forward, what is the more effective strategy: big tent or small tent? 

The email, which I have included in its entirety at the bottom of this post, was read by candidates, who are campaigning on a “Focus on Serious Mental Illness” platform, as an attempt to sway the election against them. Four candidates have said that NAMI needs to focus more on SMIs, which include schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and severe and persistent depression, rather than expanding its reach into other diagnoses.

One of the candidates on the SMI platform, D. J. Jaffe, sent me an email complaining about Pitman’s action.

     The NAMI board president, in spite of an obligation to remain neutral sent an email to all affiliates and state organizations couching the election as being for or against the Focus in Serious Mental Illness ticket versus for or against say , stigma, which others are campaigning on.  This is fairly unconscionable.  This went out at same time ballots went out to affiliates and state orgs.  

In an email, I asked President Pitman if he wanted to explain his reason for sending his email. He said that he had nothing more to add to his originial email. It was  distributed nationally by NAMI’s headquarters and Pitman wrote it as board president, which would suggest that NAMI’s current 16 member board and NAMI’s executive director, Mary Giliberti, agreed with Pittman’s statement.

The four candidates running on a Focus on Serious Mental Illness platform are:

• D.J. Jaffe, Nominated by NAMI of Buffalo & Erie County (New York State)
• Robert S. Laitman, M.D., Nominated by NAMI of Westchester County (New York State)
• Mary Zdanowicz, Nominated by NAMI Cape Cod & the Islands (Massachusetts)
• Lauren Rettagliata, Nominated by NAMI Contra Costa County (California)

Click to continue…

(5-26-17) While it certainly is not unusual for a president’s nominee for a cabinet position to raise a ruckus, most assistant secretary choices sail through.

It appears that will not be the case with President Donald Trump’s nomination for the newly created job of mental health czar. Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) continues to express his displeasure  with the White House’s choice and has not been shy about saying so.

The bickering caught the attention of The New York Times this week.

Trump’s Pick for Mental Health ‘Czar’ Highlights Rift  -The New York Times

By BENEDICT CAREY and SHERI FINK

Caption: Elinore McCance-Katz has been tapped by President Trump to fill the position of assistant secretary for mental health and substance use. The “czar” position was created to overhaul the mental health care system and bridge more than 100 related federal agencies. CreditSteven Senne/Associated Press

Click to continue…

(5-25-17) Ever wonder what it is like to be the daughter of a CIA officer – and not just any ordinary operative but one who actually helped keep the Cold War from turning hot?

Eva Dillon has written an exceptional book called  Spies in the Family: An American Spymaster, His Russian Crown Jewel, And the Friendship That Helped End the Cold War.

Before I started focusing almost exclusively on mental illness and my novels, I published nonfiction books about American traitors. One was CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames, who plays a critical role in Dillon’s book so I was especially eager to read her account.

Dillon’s story focuses on two men. Soviet Major General Dmitri Polyakov was the most important Russian “asset” who worked for us during the Cold War, and Dillon’s father, Paul Leo Dillon, was his CIA handler.

To understand why her new book is both an excellent read and important, you must understand what Gen. Polyakov did for our nation. He was the United States’  highest-ranking, longest-serving Soviet double agent during the Cold War. James Woolsey, Director of CIA under President Clinton, called him the “jewel in the crown”who “kept the Cold War from becoming hot.”

My CIA contacts have told me that Polyakov’s disclosures alone filled an entire room full of file cabinets.

The second thing you must realize is Dillon has written a true insider book describing the mental toll it took on her father handling such a valuable “asset” who was in constant danger.

Dillon interviewed me for her book because Aldrich Ames was responsible for Polyakov’s arrest by the Soviet KGB. While the Kremlin had its suspicions for years, it was Ames who confirmed that the general had spied for us – a fact Ames told them even though Polyakov had retired from the GRU (Soviet military intelligence) and was an older man. Ames knew in disclosing Polyakov’s past, the general would be executed. Yet, Ames offered up Polyakov’s name simply to line his pockets and impress his new Kremlin “friends.” (In case you are wondering, Polyakov betrayed the Soviet empire for philosophical reasons not cash.)

Click to continue…

 

(5-22-17) From the White House down, politicians on both sides of the aisle, celebrities, and even mental health therapists need to stop using language inappropriately that increases stigma and marginalizes mental illnesses. 

Unfortunately, there has been a shameful increase of such remarks recently, especially last week. The use of inappropriate language showed up internationally, as well, with Russian President Vladimir Putin misusing the word “schizophrenia” when talking about American politics. 

One way to fight this is for responsible media outlets to explain when these words are used erroneously. Repeating them unchallenged fosters stigma.

I’ve posted an excerpt at the bottom of this post from the Associated Press style-book, which most publications use as their ethics standards.

Examples:

1.  President Donald Trump reportedly told Russian diplomats that ex-FBI Director James Comey is a “nut job…” according to The New York Times… “He was crazy, a real nut job.”

2.  Trump directed the term at “wacky Glenn Beck.” Trump said the nationally syndicated radio host is a “real nut job” because he “always seems to be crying.”

3. Trump said North Korean leader Kim Jong Un “could be a total nut job.” “I mean, you’ve got this madman playing around with the nukes, and it has got to end. He’s certainly — he could be a total nut job, frankly,” Trump said on Fox News’ “On The Record” in January 2016.

4.”You know, I call him crazy Bernie because he’s not very good,” Trump said.

Here’s the flip side.

Click to continue…

 

(5-18-17) Four candidates are seeking election to the National Alliance on Mental Illness national board on what they are calling a “Focus on Serious Mental Illness” platform.

They are:

• D.J. Jaffe, Nominated by NAMI of Buffalo & Erie County (New York State)
• Robert S. Laitman, M.D., Nominated by NAMI of Westchester County (New York State)
• Mary Zdanowicz, Nominated by NAMI Cape Cod & the Islands (Massachusetts)
• Lauren Rettagliata, Nominated by NAMI Contra Costa County (California)

In their five minute candidate speeches, all four said they want NAMI to focus more of its attention on adults with serious mental illnesses, defined as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and severe and persistent depression (known as SMIs).

Virginia has one nominee seeking election. Frankie Berger, Nominated by NAMI Central Virginia (Virginia) is not part of the “Focus on Serious Mental Illness platform.” However, in her speech she cites her concerns about the need for more services for individuals with SMI.  Most of her talk is about her struggles as a youngster single-handedly being responsible for her mentally ill mother – oftentimes using babysitting money that she earned to pay household bills. You should listen to her emotional story here.)

D. J. Jaffe, author of the book Insane Consequences: How the Mental Health Industry Fails the Mentally Ill, and Mary Zdanowicz, who was executive director of the Treatment Advocacy Center for nine years, are perhaps the best known of the four hoping to change NAMI’s sixteen member board.

In their speeches, both mention that NAMI needs to do more to counter anti-psychiatry groups and actions by the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. (You can listen to their speeches here – Jaffe  Zdanowicz.)

In an email, Jaffe wrote:

“We want NAMI to return to a focus on the four percent with serious mental illness, versus the eighteen percent of adults with any mental illness. In other words, we believe we should focus on the eleven million who are the most seriously ill versus the forty-three million with a wide range of ‘conditions’ that NAMI now claims to represent even though there are scores of other organizations advocating for them.”

I’ve felt tension before within NAMI’s ranks, but I was surprised recently when I was asked to substitute the term “mental health condition” for “mental illness” at a recent NAMI function and specifically asked to focus on “positive stories of recovery” rather than how individuals with SMIs are ending up in jails and prisons.

I have never been asked before to do this and I was astonished because “mental illness”  is part of NAMI’s name.

Curious, I checked NAMI’s website and saw that the category “Mental Illnesses” had been replaced by “Mental Health Conditions,” which were identified as  “ADHD, Borderline Personality Disorder, Anxiety Disorders, Dissociative Disorders, Eating Disorders, Obsessive Compulsive Disorders, Post Traumatic Stress Disorders,” along with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression.

NAMI’s website explains:

“A mental health condition isn’t the result of one event. Research suggests multiple, linking causes. Genetics, environment and lifestyle influence whether someone develops a mental health condition. A stressful job or home life makes some people more susceptible, as do traumatic life events like being the victim of a crime. Biochemical processes and circuits and basic brain structure may play a role, too.”

In the midst of all this, I was asked to help publicize a series of rallies being held on May 20th by a group called  Families for the Treatment of Serious Mental Illnesses, whose organizers include NAMI members who said they felt abandoned. I was surprised at how widely that blog spread.

NAMI’s Executive Director Responds

In a telephone call, NAMI’s Executive Director Mary Giliberti, said she could not comment on specific candidates. She said NAMI has always and will always advocate for individuals with serious mental illnesses.

“If you look at NAMI’s work as a whole – our helpline, education programs and advocacy – we are the go-to organization for families and individuals with serious mental illnesses and much of our recent work has been getting our name out there so we can reach more of them as early as possible.”

She explained that NAMI broadened its mission “to reach people early because we now know that you can get better outcomes for people with serious mental illness and reduce the worst consequences if we intervene early.”

Click to continue…