RSS

Tag Archives: Mental Illness

Crime Of The Mind

13 Mar

Edgar Allan Poe

In New York City a man has been convicted of conspiring to kidnap and could be sentenced to life imprisonment. He did not in fact kidnap or hurt anyone, but did type extensively about his desire to do so. It is conceivable that this 28-year old man could spend the rest of his life in prison for having creepy thoughts. This in a land in which people who’ve been convicted of actual crimes serve their time and are released. What in the world does it mean for thoughts to be illegal?

Was the fact that this man a N.Y. police officer too emotionally charged for the jury? Was the jury swayed by the graphic nature of the defendant’s writing? Was the fact that the writing occurred in cyberspace perceived as more threatening than a handwritten journal? Was it that the defendant engaged with other typists in these fantastical plans? Something must have clouded the jury’s vision to render such a verdict. Is there reason to be concerned about the judgement of this police officer? Absolutely, but that’s a personnel issue, no? Were the messages so convincing that the jury was concerned about imminent danger? Perhaps, but that is why probation, monitoring and court mandated treatment were invented.

By equating thought with action we set a dangerous precedent. What does this mean for all crime writers for example? What does it mean for anyone who’s ever put pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard)? And what of those who engage with the dangerous writing? Are book clubs or theatre audiences aiding and abetting these dark thinkers? While no one will ever confuse Sweeney Todd with the contents of a chat room, the overarching premise is the same. The fact that the chatting, posting, emailing and texting wasn’t particularly well written or the least bit musically engaging doesn’t mean it wasn’t an exercise in creative writing. Creative writing by a man of questionable mental health of course.

But questionable mental health is not a crime. Do we want people with questionable mental health to be carrying a gun and be charged with protecting people? No. Do we want real and meaningful treatment for those who are not entirely well and who harbor violent thoughts? Without a doubt. Imprisoning (for any length of time) because of mentally illness is a black eye for us all. It is an ugly bruise of a reminder of how inept and misguided we are in matters of mental health.

 
4 Comments

Posted by on March 13, 2013 in Cultural Critique, Well-Being

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Stopping The Madness

17 Dec

trucks

When real news occurs technology and 24-hour access is a blessing. By patching together information from responsible radio sources, social chatter, and television visuals, we are able to piece together a reliable narrative. Our data gathering is confirmed and/or tweaked by the next morning’s newspaper. But when there is no more news, when we know what there is to know, the coverage still continues. The cameras and the microphone-wielding reporters scramble to create news after the fact.

Mobs of coffee swilling, logo wearing news personnel pass the time texting and chatting, waiting for a passerby to descend upon. They are rewarded for their perseverance by the person who desires to be photographed/interviewed. We could spend hours working out why anyone would want to place flowers on the ground while a swarm of dozens of camera people hover over one’s head. Perhaps it’s a similar motivation to wanting to go on record with “I didn’t really know him, he seemed different.” It’s odd but it is human nature to want to be part of something bigger.

But do we gain anything from the vulgar intrusion into people’s lives and the manufacturing of ‘news?’ The real events are usually horrific enough. No one need look for more horror. Every ‘expert’ frantically grabbed for a soundbite can pontificate from the news desk. If there is still news to come out of local offices, a reporter can be there and file the report the information. On-site cameras are not needed to report medical examiner reports or investigative results. Beside the stomach-turning element to covering mourning and grief is the danger of anesthetizing the public. While we don’t want to live in a state of perpetual sorrow, we most certainly don’t want to find ourselves numb and/or nonchalant about such horrific events. What is almost unthinkable is how the non-stop coverage can actually lead to more tragedy.

We can’t begin to ever really know what goes on in someone else’s mind. But we can look for clues and make educated guesses and predictions. A person ill at ease in the world, unable to connect with other people can retreat into a very dark world. If someone feels that they will never be able to be an active participant in life can look for ways to make their mark in death. No, it is not a simple equation and it by no means suggests that all socially awkward people retreat into darkness. But people who feel part of the world and valued by others wouldn’t look for ways to enact revenge on their path to death.

While there is no way to overstate that the time is now to rid our nation of guns and take mental illness seriously, it is also time to stop the media circus. Right now there is some compromised person watching this coverage and thinking of a way to become even more famous. The fact that I’m saying it doesn’t make it true, the fact that you feel it too, does.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on December 17, 2012 in Cultural Critique, Media/Marketing

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Stigma of Psychopathy

10 Dec

balcony

It’s fascinating to consider how our attitudes change over time. It is almost amusing to flip through a magazine from more than 40 years ago. Advertisements, editorial content and choices speak volumes about our priorities and concerns at the time of publication. Old movies also tell us much (often in the guise of propaganda or by virtue of what’s left out of a story.) While it’s doubtful that any newlywed couple ever slept in separate twin beds it is for certain that Hollywood wanted us thinking so. A study of older cinema is illuminating in what it tells us about what people held dear and what they scorned. Some of these values are practically foreign to many of us. You might need a crib sheet to understand the subtlety of a woman scorned for working outside the home, or the degenerating effects of a broken home. You may very well need to hit the pause button to consider what exactly ‘ruined’ a woman or what a ‘deserter’ was and what it supposedly said about a person.

How intriguing that we once felt so strongly about issues that have lost their power to shock or hurt. It must be a sign of some sort of progress? Our attitudes about marriage, relationships, parenthood, working, religion, and the public versus the private world have changed drastically since married people were shown sleeping in twin beds. If they choose to be relevant, media (in all forms) must somewhat reflect the realities of the time. Slowly but surely families are depicted as the freeform drawing they often are, rather than the coloring within the lines they might have once been. The melding of the public and private means most of us now know far more than we care to about strangers. Diseases and ‘conditions’ that were once private, feared, or barely noted, are discussed in loud outdoor advertising voices. There really are no private parts anymore. Except one: the mind.

Mental illness, despite all of our progress is still quite demonized and stigmatized in our media. Certainly we can all comfortably bandy about pop-psycholoigy terms. We could probably rattle off the names of a handful of medications for depression or anxiety. Thanks to reality television we think we know what obsessive compulsive disorder is. What we know and what we’re comfortable discussing is cocktail party chatter. Any mental illness serious or complex enough to not warrant a television commercial, magazine advert, awareness campaign or walkathon is a no-go zone. Shrouding mental illness in shame in secrecy only fuels our misunderstanding yet we hold onto this attitude.

When the newsreader intones (in sotto voce) “The suspect sought counseling” we get the message: ‘Oh, he/she is crazy.’ (For the record you know what’s actually crazy? Thinking you’re not crazy.) The toxicity of this message; 1) seeking help for mental health is suspect 2) mental illness is synonymous with criminality is the very definition of stigmatization. The only thing all criminals have in common is that they committed a crime. Mental illness takes many forms and very few of them involve any violent behaviors. People with illnesses are much more likely to hurt themselves (passively or actively.)

It’s the ambiguity of mental illness that is at the core of these attitudes. The mind is confusing. It is difficult to talk about personality disorders in 60 seconds. Many mental illness can be quite complicated and often incurable. A true understanding of the subtleties and complexities is probably best left to the professionals. But we don’t need to understand something to accept it. What we need to do is rebrand mental illness. Newsreaders think nothing of loudly broadcasting starlet rehabilitation for drug addiction or eating disorders (psst: nice lady reading the teleprompter – addiction and eating disorders are mental illnesses.) We speak publicly and loudly about post-traumatic stress disorder and post-partum depression (mental illness, mental illness.) If all mental illnesses were called by their proper name(s) perhaps we could shed the shame. Words are powerful (just think of all the ones you no longer feel comfortable using.) Once mental illness is seen as diverse expansive and existing any and everywhere, we can celebrate and support treatment in a meaningful way.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on December 10, 2012 in Media/Marketing, Well-Being

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Shameless

27 Aug

The University of Colorado, Denver has been conspicuously silent about their former graduate student turned gunman. There’s nothing particularly surprising about that. Universities are loath to discuss their students or alumni unless doing so will bring glory to the institution. Universities are also part of the elite group of organizations known as suffering from acute “litigation paranoia.” But onlookers accept the silence as being a vague yet misguided attempt at protecting someone’s privacy.

If what we were discussing was a physical disease or impairment, patient privacy would be a valid and even laudable motivation. As a society we’ve determined that patient privacy, even when a diagnoses could involve potential contagion, is necessary. We’ve also determined that when a disease poses an imminent public threat the afflicted will be quarantined (and thereby outed.)  In other words; public good trumps the individual. On the most basic level we apply this same principal to mental health as well. If a person states (unequivocally) that he/she is going to hurt him/herself or others, they are held (usually for a very short period) until they can be examined and either sent on their way or hospitalized.

This flaccid approach to protecting individuals and the public stems from the deinstitutionalized of mental healthcare several decades ago. The “expression of specific harm” is employed to prevent people being hospitalized against their will. One only need sit with the preceding sentence a bit to see the absurdity of this approach. People struggling with mental health issues rarely are clear and conscientious enough to seek hospitalization on their own. We leave it to the ill to state clearly their intentions to do harm before highly trained professionals are allowed to intervene. That’s a problem.

Adding to that little issue is the fact that we are freaked out by mental health issues. Yes, we’ve been Oprahfied enough to (sometimes) toss around the right terms. But we are glaringly uncomfortable dealing with real life mental health. If we see someone, day in and day out, who we consider odd, what do we do? Maybe we mention it to a friend, but beyond them who would we actually tell? And what is exactly do we say? Is the guy who only comes out at night and keeps his door covered in aluminum foil a danger to anyone? Are his odd behaviors actually highly honed coping skills for his illness? Maybe he sees a psychiatrist every day and is adequately medicated. Maybe he’s just eccentric (versus ill.) More often than not, we say nothing and just hope to avoid someone who makes us uncomfortable.

There is somewhere where aluminum foil should send an observer directly to the phone, and that’s at a university. Most students (graduate and undergraduate) are under 30 years of age; a primetime for the onset of very serious mental illnesses. Students are often sent away to school already presenting symptoms and perhaps fully medicated. The beauty of a controlled environment (like a university) is that elaborate and accessible systems are in place. A professor who observes disturbing behavior knows exactly how to report it immediately. No doubt, they sometimes do. But too often we err too heavily on the side of our own discomfort (which we shroud in “patient privacy” rhetoric.) It’s very unsettling to be the person who may upend someone’s life. However it’s far worse to be the one who stayed silent.

When we stop seeing mental health issues as being somehow shameful we will be a safer and more humane society. When newsreaders no longer intone (in sotto voce;) “He even spent time in a mental hospital” we will be further ahead. When a political candidate gains sympathy points for a spouse with a physical illness and looses popularity for one with a mental illness, we will be further ahead. When we stop using the word “rehab” (invoking images of large sunglasses and hangovers) as a euphemism for mental health facility, we will be further ahead. And when celebrities stop claiming to be suffering from “exhaustion” (as if it’s the 1900s) versus having depression, we will be much further ahead. There is no shame in illness of any kind. The only shame is silence.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on August 27, 2012 in Cultural Critique, Education

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

A Moment Of Outrage

21 Jul

It is inevitable that shortly after a massive shooting the volume of the gun control debate increases. It’s not that shootings don’t occur every single day. It’s not even that victims don’t amount to the double digits every day. Our response is more connected to how and where a critical mass was attacked. We are understandably shaken to the core to consider the fact that we too have been to; movie theaters, high schools, daycare centers or grocery stores. It is completely natural and normal to respond strongly to something to which we can personally relate. We may (fortunately) have never lived in a neighborhood rife with gun violence. We may have never played in parks where gun toting teens hangout. But when violence happens to people not associated with “unfortunate circumstances” we pay attention. Headlines are rarely grabbed for what we consider commonplace. (Case in point: a house fire that killed three children and two adults in Connecticut was on the front page [literally and figuratively] for days if not weeks. A house fire killing three children and two adults in Newark is on page 17 today.) Considering that change often occurs when people in power decide to make a difference, we have the luxury of seeing this inequity in a positive light.

Most of us would agree that there are people who enjoy guns. They like to hunt, or collect or grab this particular right as if it’s all they have left of the American Dream. But anyone who states (with a straight face) that how we should deal with a mad gunman using semi-automatic weaponry is by arming everyone with a handgun is not a gun enthusiast. They are lots of other things; but not a gun enthusiast. Even if all those teens (and babies) and suburban adult moviegoers were sharp shooters they could not neutralize the affects of a madmen with semi-automatic weaponry. Even movies that glamorize violence are more realistic than that. There is no legitimate reason (which I can discern) why semi-automatic weapons fall under any right to bear arms protection. There is no rational reason that it is so very easy to purchase such weaponry.

We would be much further along in the gun control conversation if we focus on classes of firearm. If we decide as a society that we as individuals are not “entitled” to weapons of warfare we would be much further ahead.

As critical as examining the sanity of the weaponry ‘free market’ is how we examine and treat the mentally ill. How many times do we turn a blind eye to that woman or man who seems off? How many times has a seriously mentally ill person been turned away from a facility because they are not in immediate danger? How many institutions employ or teach very fragile individuals without providing them support? Why are we so frightened of mental health issues? We were shamed into tearing down the worst of our nation’s snake pits and walked away relieved. “Well, that’s done!” We have done nothing concrete or systemic since deinstitutionalization. People of good intentions try to help individuals and are often left in a labyrinth of closed doors and catch-22s. The system is designed to protect the rights of the mentally ill individual. By definition someone experiencing mental illness is not in his/her right mind. Somewhere between the snake pits of yesteryear and the benign neglect of today lie compassion, humanity and a solution.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on July 21, 2012 in Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,417 other followers