Skip to comments.Who’s Crazy? Mental-health experts are wrong.
Posted on 12/24/2012 3:45:03 PM PST by neverdem
Mental-health experts are wrong. Untreated, the seriously mentally ill are prone to violence.
While virtually the entire nation unites around the reasonable proposition that people with serious mental illnesses should not own assault weapons, one group takes umbrage: mental-health experts. In the wake of incidents such as the one at Newtown, the experts immediately issue press releases claiming that people with mental illness are no more violent than others, leading to the conclusion that people with serious mental illness should not be the target of gun-control efforts.
How can the chasm be so wide? Who is right? The public that believes mental illness is associated with violence, or the experts who claim it is not? The science of violence becomes clear when you look at the totality of violence studies versus any single study. The definitive answer is: It depends on who is mentally ill.
Studies of the 40 to 50 percent of Americans whom mental-health experts claim have some “diagnosable mental disorder” support the claim that “persons with mental illness are not more violent than others.” But the populations in those studies are disingenuously large. Studies of the 5 percent of Americans with the most serious mental illnesses — primarily schizophrenia and treatment-resistant bipolar disorder — who are receiving treatment also support the claim of mental-health experts that persons with mental illness are not more violent than others. But these studies prove only that treatment works, not that persons with mental illness are not more prone to violence. Studies of the 5 percent subgroup of the most seriously mentally ill who are not in treatment and are psychotic, delusional, or hallucinating, or are off treatment that has previously prevented them from being violent, are in fact more prone to violence than others. When people ask whether the mentally ill are more violent, they usually mean this group of severely ill individuals and not about their friends on Zoloft, Prozac, etc.
The mental-health establishment claims that people with mental illness are no more prone to violence than others. At the same time, it claims that, to prevent violence, more money is needed for mental-health treatment. Both claims cannot be true.
There is another gap in the logic of these mental-health experts. They think they are doing a good job with limited resources, but the public disagrees. Over $100 billion is spent on mental health. When more money goes into the system, more people get diagnosed as needing services. The incremental funding is rarely used for the most seriously ill. Witness California: In 2005, California voters passed the Mental Health Services Act, a 1 percent tax on millionaires to provide services for people with “serious mental illness.” As someone with a mentally ill relative, I thank Californians for that. But when the money rolled in, the mental-health system turned their backs on the seriously mentally ill. The California mental-health system diverted money to fund hip-hop car washes, gardens for Hmong, massage chairs for government employees, and public-relations firms to convince the public that all is well. The mental-health experts investigated these reports and found nothing wrong. The state auditor is investigating, and I believe her conclusion will differ.
The mental-health system claims more money is needed to identify who is mentally ill. Not true. Jared Loughner, who shot Gabrielle Giffords; James Holmes, who shot up a movie theater in Aurora; John Hinckley Jr., who shot President Reagan; James Bassler, who shot the former mayor of Fort Bragg; Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, who mailed explosive packages; Ian Stawicki, who shot five others and himself in a Seattle café; Eduardo Sencion, who shot National Guardsmen at a Nevada IHOP restaurant; Russell Weston, who shot two guards at the U.S. Capitol building; and Adam Lanza, who shot his mother, 26 others, and himself in Newtown, Conn. — all were all known to be ill before they became a headline. The problem wasn’t lack of identification. It was lack of treatment.
Those of us who wish to improve care for men and women who are most seriously afflicted with mental illness enjoy broad public support. The police are on our side. The parents of persons with serious mental illness are on our side. People with serious mental illness themselves are on our side. The mental-health establishment is not, and that is who politicians listen to.
Thanks for the link.
Jaffe is 100% correct
At the end of that first page is a link about “seeks privileges”....Very interesting...shows he’s a sneaky liar after 30 years
These "mental health experts" aren't stupid: Deny a patient the right to own a weapon and they sue if they are unable to defend themselves in an emergency. Fail to deny a patient the right to own a weapon and their victims sue them for doing so.
It is a no-win situation for them. Therefore, as the "experts in the field" they deny the linkage exists.
If it’s true that most seriously nutty people will nonetheless never try to murder someone... then it’s true. I’ve seen studies ridiculed for being too small, but this one is getting ridicule for being too large.
I see a furious orgy of dancing around the most obvious answer: communities, outraged about a spate of murderers visiting schools, should have armed the schools. Long ago. And shown no mercy to any (well intended or not) Federal regulation that would inhibit the capability of arming schools. It might be a nut today, a “sane” criminal tomorrow. Same result, if the school is not guarded.
well since my guess is that they prolly make up 1% to 3% of the population(i don't know the ratio) i'd say that's a pretty high percentage!
Their bottom line....I don't want to get involved....just collect my big fat paychecks.
You know damn well the theatre killer told his shrink of his plans...and she just sat on it.
Who engaged in the out of body spy travel to the shrink visits of the Batman killer?
“You know darn well” is not evidence of anything good or bad.
Because mental health, like all science, has be hijacked by the PC crowd. Ideology trumps fact.
How many more psychiatrists and psychiatric researchers are there out there who are themselves CRAZY?
Before accusing a segment of whining, try to nail down some facts. Such loaded language coupled with admitted ignorance scarcely wins agreement from anyone who didn’t already agree with you. To put it bluntly, you risk looking like you’re projecting.
I think FedGov wants to include “mental illness” in the upcoming gun laws so that any doctor can disarm you by prescribing a drug for a mental problem. Zoloft and Prozac are obvious, but if it includes insomnia, then Ambien and the others get you disarmed.
With all medical records becoming digitized and centralized, it will be easier to get this data into NICS and onto the 4474.
I will answer my own question: THE LIBERALS, who are chronically insane themselves.
Let the mentally insane idiot free after killing his grandmother with a hammer, but then make sure he live next door to the psychiatrist that gave him the “non-violent” diagnosis!
Anyone can claim to be “depressed” or sad. This is where the Obamacare costs will EXPLODE. Psychs will collect massive rent, donate a little the the ‘Rats, and us taxpayers will ‘circle the drain’!!!!
Considering the likelihood of a FATTER increase in their insurance premiums bankrupting their practices, and that they'd spend the bulk of their time defending themselves, and that they'd be unable to truly take a risk in helping a patient, and that the cost of the insurance would shrink their customer base to nothing, and that more people would go unidentified and untreated...
I disagree with you completely. The "bottom line" is tort law, just as it is with other physicians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.