Home » Crazy

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…

Getting Ready for “Killer” Publicity

by

The Serial Killer Whisperer Book CoverI’ve been busy getting ready for the release of The Serial Killer Whisperer in January.

Unless there is a pressing reason, most publishers take an entire year to prepare a book for publication after the manuscript is accepted. This can be frustrating for an author. Writers want their work in print ASAP!

Publishers use the time to design a book jacket, put together photo inserts, do final editing, and print advance copies which are then sent to book reviewers and television producers in the hope of creating a favorable pre-release “buzz.”

Click to continue…

Hollywood Buys WITSEC for TV Drama

by

 

 

My good friend, Gerald Shur, and I have received lots of inquires from Hollywood about  our nonfiction book, WITSEC: Inside the Federal Witness Protection Program since it was published ten years ago. For those of you who have not read it, Gerald is the Justice Department lawyer who came up with the idea of creating a government program that would protect mobsters and give them new identities in return for their testimony against their Mafia Godfathers.

 By the time Gerald retired in 1995, he had overseen the handling of such famous gangsters as Joseph Valachi, “Jimmy the Weasel” Fratianno and “Sammy the Bull” Gravano.  The witness protection program that he created helped shatter the mob’s code of silence.

Interested screenwriters and producers would call us and ask about WITSEC. But for a variety of reasons, we never sold the dramatic rights — until now.  The trade magazine, Publisher’s Weekly, announced the sale.

Click to continue…

Cries for help from readers

by

I get dozens of emails each week from readers who have read CRAZY: A Father’s Search Through America’s Mental Health Madness. Most are from writers who are frustrated and desperate for help. Here are several examples.

The First Letter
 
The hardest thing for me is to convince other family members that our loved has little insight. It’s not that he’s stubborn, lazy, or means to be argumentative, or to even do risk taking behaviors. But, they don’t get it and don’t wish to read literature or research about the brain and how brain disorders affect the function of the brain – mood and thought processes. Nor, do they want to deal with him, because they don’t know how or don’t want to know how. They’ve their own lives and stresses as well. Yet, I ask, would we walk away and further stigmatize a loved one with dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer (including brain cancer), heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, and any number of illnesses including addictions that affect the brain? Would we expect a loved one to break his or her leg without helping them to get proper medical treatment? I’ve not heard from our loved one in two weeks. I’ve sent texts, private messages on Facebook, and called leaving messages, to no avail. The only thing that keeps me even keeled is my involvement with NAMI, and letting our loved one know that I’ve not abandoned him in any way.