Home » Mental Illness » Page 218

Want My Advice? Go To Another County For Legal Help

by

About once a month, I receive a panicky telephone call or email from a distraught parent who attempted to get an adult child with a mental disorder  involuntarily committed in Fairfax County, Virginia, where I live.

Forcing someone into a hospital for treatment is a desperate act that is traumatic for the person who is ill and their entire family. It should only be done when all other options have failed.

The parents who contact me were stymied by one of the special magistrates who ultimately decide if a person meets the legal criteria to be forced into a hospital. We have three such magistrates in our suburban Washington D.C. county and two of them, Mark H. Bodner and Jose E. Aunon,  are known state-wide for being reluctant to approve involuntary commitments.

“My son,” one caller told me, “has a long history of mental illness. He was living in our basement where he was hearing voices and talked about killing himself.”

Another parent said, “Our daughter was violent and her psychiatrist recommended that she be hospitalized.”

In both instances, the Fairfax special magistrates refused to authorize an involuntary commitment, the parents reported.

Click to continue…

Walking In Others’ Shoes

by

 Two unrelated stories last week caused me to think about how easy it is to blame others without “walking in” their shoes.

The first was an incredible magazine story published by The Washington Post and written by Susan Baer. I once worked at the magazine and knew the subject of the cover story, although certainly not well. One of my former colleagues, Robert Melton, suffered a stroke that drastically reduced his cognitive abilities. He was married and his wife, Page, continued to love and take care of him even though he had become a stranger who had little understanding of their marriage.  Eventually, Page fell in love with another man. She divorced her husband to marry him.

What makes this story incredible is that Page and her new husband did not abandon Robert. Rather, they made him a part of their new family and even moved Robert with Page to St. Louis when she joined her new husband to begin their lives together.

The story, which was brilliantly told, was a courageous effort to describe one of the most difficult challenges that a person can face in their lives:  what do you do when someone you love suffers a debilitating brain injury. It is an especially poignant question for those of us who love someone with a severe mental disorder.

But many readers saw the article much differently. Writing in today’s Washington Post, columnist Robert McCartney revealed in his column that the story sparked a torrent of mean-spirited comments from readers, especially anonymous ones.

Click to continue…

Welcoming 2012 With A Look At The Past

by

Since launching this blog on January 1, 2010, I have written 184 posts. In an average month, between 2,000 to 3,000 readers check to see what I have posted. When a blog is especially controversial that number can jump to  6,000. Readers have posted 1,000 comments. Thank you for your interest.

I started this blog after several New York publishers rejected an idea for a book that I called HOPE.  I wanted to write about successful mental health treatment programs that were helping people recover. Unfortunately, the editors who heard my pitch were not interested in a book about success stories. I began this blog because I wanted to continue writing about issues, mostly mental health related, that are important to me, especially hope.  

The start of a New Year is a good time for reflection –  so I have reviewed my 184  posts and picked out a handful to highlight.  If you didn’t read them when they were originally posted, perhaps you will glance at them now. 

Click to continue…

We Need to Establish a Legal Right to Treatment

by

Last week, I explained why I believe the “dangerousness” criteria is an impediment to getting people the help that they need. One reason why civil rights activists pushed hard in the 1970s to get “dangerousness” established was because forcing someone into a state mental hospital was a draconion move.  Being committed was often a de facto life prison sentence. Barbaric treatments, such as forced lobotomies, destroyed lives.

What happens today if someone is forcibly committed?

 In Virginia, on average, you will spend five days or less in a locked mental ward. Your “treatment” will be medication and, if you are willing, therapy in groups where the topic will center almost exclusively on the importance of taking medication. After your five days end, you will be discharged. If you are fortunate, you will be linked to community services. But there’s a good chance that you will be released without any serious follow up.

In short, your life will have been disrupted — not only by your illness — but by the state. Yet, little will be done to actually help you recover from your disorder or help you better handle your symptoms.

This is not meaningful treatment. It explains why some critics are so adamant about clinging to the “dangerousness” criteria. Deep down, they do not believe involuntary commitments benefit anyone. Click to continue…

Dangerousness: a foolish criteria

by

A front page story in The Washington Post yesterday was published under the headline: “Hinckley: Man on the mend or a danger?”

According to the story, a federal judge will decide the fate of would-be assasin John W. Hinckley Jr., this week after listening to five days of testimony.  Hinckley’s family members, as well as his doctors and case manager, claim the now 56-year old Hinckley does not present a danger either to himself or to the community. The depression and unspecified mental disorder that drove him — along with his narcissistic personality disorder — to nearly kill President Ronald Reagan in 1981 are now all under control.

That’s not so, prosecutors claim. They insist that  Hinckley, who has spent the past three decades in mental facilities,  is deceptive, lazy, and can’t be trusted. The Post quoted Assistant U.S. Attorney Sarah Chasson stating, “Mr. Hinckley has not been a good risk in the past and, therefore, is not going to be a good risk in the future.”

The judge is being asked to determine if Hinckley is “dangerous.”  If he is, the judge will not grant him more freedom than the ten day visits that he currently is allowed periodically with his mother — while being monitored by the U.S. Secret Service.

I often am asked how “dangerous”  became the criteria that is used  to decide if someone is so mentally ill that he/she can be involuntarily held and forced to undergo treatment. The question is an important one, especially for those of us who have loved ones with mental disorders.

Click to continue…

Moving at “Glacier” Speed To Find New Drugs

by

The National Alliance on Mental Illness recently gave its 2011 Scientific Research Award to Dr. Jeffrey A. Lieberman who has a long and impressive resume in researching schizophrenia. Among his many titles, Dr. Lieberman is chairman of Psychiatry at the Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, and is Director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute. 

Before he accepted his award, Dr. Lieberman gave an hour long lecture about his research. I want to share some key points with you that he made about current medications commonly prescribed for mental illnesses.

Click to continue…