How Shootings Stigmatize People Living with Mental Illness

[GunClasses.Net]

This article is from the National Alliance on Mental Illness and is posted here for information purposes only; our sharing it with you does not imply that it either represents or does not represent GunClasses.Net, or the opinions any of its instructors or affiliates:

http://blog.nami.org/2013/09/how-shootings-stigmatize-people-living.html

Monday, September 23, 2013

How Shootings Stigmatize People Living with Mental Illness
By Michael J. Fitzpatrick, NAMI Executive Director


On Sept. 20, CNN.com invited and published the following guest article by NAMI Executive Director Michael J. Fitzpatrick. NAMI also released statements on the Navy Yard tragedy on Sept. 17 and Sept. 19.

When tragedies occur, such as the one at the Navy Yard in Washington, all Americans are deeply affected.

They include the one in four American adults who experience mental health problems. That's approximately 60 million Americans. Their first reaction is much like that of anyone else: feelings of anger and anguish and wanting to know when such events will ever stop.

But there's another, secondary impact to this community if a history of mental illness is suspected. Tragically, in the case with the Navy Yard gunman, mental illness appears to be a factor. But in too many cases, people simply assume that it is, no matter how much we caution that it's best not to attempt to diagnose any medical condition speculatively through the news media.

Unfortunately, stigma surrounds mental illness. It's most associated with a violent stereotype. The result has always been fear, prejudice and discrimination toward anyone struggling with a mental health problem.

The stereotype endures despite the fact that the U.S. Surgeon General has found that the likelihood of violence from people with mental illness is low. In fact, "the overall contribution of mental disorders to the total level of violence in society is exceptionally small."

Despite the impact of the Navy Yard tragedy and those of Newtown, Aurora and Virginia Tech on perceptions, a much greater, different reality exists. Many thousands of veterans experience post-traumatic stress disorder. Civilian employees of the military seek help for depression; teachers live with anxiety disorders. Students succeed academically while managing bipolar disorder.

People living with schizophrenia may be psychologists, professors, peer counselors or businesspersons. They are all members of their communities. Few are violent.

In the face of violence, people may simply be unable to fathom how an event could occur other than through mental illness, thought of often in non-medical terms such as "madness" or "insanity." Their perceptions also are conditioned by headlines that largely overshadow the greater reality.

Stigma perpetuated by the Navy Yard tragedy will be internalized by many people living with mental health problems, causing them to stay silent and withdraw from others. This will impede their recovery in many ways.

Stigma will remain a major barrier that keeps people reaching out for help when they need it.

In the wake of such tragedies, some will call for persons with mental health problem to be "screened out" by employers in the hiring process or to deny them security clearances. In the first case, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides some protection against discrimination, but it is not always followed or easily enforced.

With top secret security clearances, just ask any member of the military or government official or contractor about the anxiety they often feel if they need to see a psychiatrist and then need to disclose it as part of a security clearance application or review.

Many issues need to be addressed in the case of the Navy Yard tragedy and the tragedies before it. They include what happened -- or didn't happen -- in the military and veterans mental health care systems, particularly when the gunman allegedly sought help from the Veterans Health Administration. Was there effective engagement?

The response of law enforcement should also be addressed. In theory, had the police both arrested and charged the gunman in past incidents involving a gun or disorderly conduct, he would have been put into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database and prohibited from buying a gun, regardless of his mental health status. It is also possible that his case might have been handled by a mental health court, leading to supervision and treatment.

Had Rhode Island police who responded to the gunman's 911 call for help in August been trained for crisis intervention and worked with a mobile crisis unit to have him medically evaluated, then perhaps this past week's horrors could have been averted.

Those are issues that must be pursued. But in the haste to respond, let's not stigmatize or discriminate against the millions of American who live productively with mental illness and who share the anguish and anger of other Americans in response to tragic horrors.

If stigma wins, things won't get better.

[TaTaToothy]

I respect the intentions of the author, but I have never really understood the sentiment that we as a society are somehow stigmatizing mental illness in a way that impedes treatment.

In this particular instance, Aaron Alexis was floridly psychotic. He believed that his brain was being controlled by electromagnetic waves. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/us/sh ... -says.html Obviously a person whose beliefs are this disturbed is going to be paranoid and resistant to being told his beliefs are wrong, much less to being hospitalized. That is a function of his illness, and I don't think any kind of societal stigma is the primary barrier to seeking help. I would say the same of other spree killers like, among others, James Holmes and Seung-Hui Cho.

What the article has right, though, is that law enforcement should be equipped and trained to take reasonable steps to help the mentally ill in the interest of protecting them and the public at large. That can be difficult to balance with personal freedoms, though. Here, Alexis had called the police in RI complaining that he was hearing voices that had followed him from one motel to another. While that sounds bad given what he ended up doing, the police can't just arrest someone for acting crazy unless he poses a demonstrated danger to himself or others. Certainly if they did, it would further reinforce the "stigma" the article appears to be so concerned about.

[Snakeman721]

In this particular instance, Aaron Alexis was floridly psychotic. He believed that his brain was being controlled by electromagnetic waves. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/26/us/sh ... -says.html



ELF waves (extremely low frequency)...right out of the X-Files! They did an episode on X-files about ELF waves causing people's inner ears to explode....plausible? Maybe....

[LePetomane]

Just as Muslims are stigmatized for terrorist activities it is difficult not to stigmatize the mentally ill because of the most recent shootings.

[MaryB]

This is just another way to bar gun ownership. Oh you saw a shrink, no guns for you.

[unfitmother]

from http://chrisuggen.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-broader-based-response-to-shootings.html (written pretty soon after the newtown shooting):

4. The focus on mass shootings exaggerates the relatively modest correlation between mental illness and violence. Those who plan and execute mass shootings may indeed have severe mental health problems, though it is difficult to say much more with certainty or specificity because of the small number of cases in which a shooter survives to be examined. We do know, however, that the correlation between severe mental illness and more common forms of violence is much lower -- and that many types of mental health problems are not associated with violence at all.

[Seismic Sam]

Well, as much as some people may not like it, mental illness IS a cause of some mass murders, and the public can hardly be blamed for making the connection. As mentioned, Aaron Alexis was psychotic, and Adam Lana from Sandy Hook had nearly lifelong struggle with mental illness that sent him on his rampage.

And quite frankly, I think the case for the public's distrust/discrimination of the worst half of mentally ill people is a bit of a crock, as these people have voices from other worlds or planets or dimensions talking to them and trying to get them to do bad stuff, and do you REALLY think that the public distrust of some people against them is going to even be noticeable??

And for those who are treatable and can recover, then YES you will have to live with that distrust just like any released con, doper, wife beater, or other forcibly institutionalized person, and when you prove yourself defendable and rehabilitated or cured that will go away. But you gotta earn it, and expecting instant love and approval is the usual liberal knee-jerk reflex, just so long as THOSE people move in next door to THEM.

Nice article, but it's really wishing that human nature isn't what it is, which again is kind of a classic liberal wish.

[yukonjasper]

Well, as much as some people may not like it, mental illness IS a cause of some mass murders, and the public can hardly be blamed for making the connection. As mentioned, Aaron Alexis was psychotic, and Adam Lana from Sandy Hook had nearly lifelong struggle with mental illness that sent him on his rampage.

And quite frankly, I think the case for the public's distrust/discrimination of the worst half of mentally ill people is a bit of a crock, as these people have voices from other worlds or planets or dimensions talking to them and trying to get them to do bad stuff, and do you REALLY think that the public distrust of some people against them is going to even be noticeable??

And for those who are treatable and can recover, then YES you will have to live with that distrust just like any released con, doper, wife beater, or other forcibly institutionalized person, and when you prove yourself defendable and rehabilitated or cured that will go away. But you gotta earn it, and expecting instant love and approval is the usual liberal knee-jerk reflex, just so long as THOSE people move in next door to THEM.

Nice article, but it's really wishing that human nature isn't what it is, which again is kind of a classic liberal wish.

+1000 well said.
As for those who would say that mental stability shouldn't be part of the gun owning equation, I say BS. That needs to be qualified to understand what the mental issues are that require/required treatment, but I don't want someone who regularly has aliens, dogs, government agents you name it in there head owning firearms. Sorry if that is you, but people who aren't in touch with reality shouldn't have guns - I don't care what the 2nd amendment says.

[DoxaPar]

I didn't read the article (only the title) but I think a few things have contributed to this:

1) It is VERY difficult to involuntarily hospitalize someone for treatment long-term now. There are times that folks just need in-patient help but simply will not ask for it or hospitalize themselves (for a variety of reasons including the cost of care and how some mental illnesses impact judgment). This impacts public safety in some pretty negative ways. Moreover, while I understand the objections to this we need to recognize that you're not doing any favors for the seriously mentally ill by letting them go. A lot of this came about through the growth in deinstitutionalism and the Community Mental Health Act (although it wasn't entirely bad) of the 1960s.

2) I think that mental illness is already stigmatized. The shootings just make it worse. Moreover, it's also possible that because it is already stigmatized those people who feel the pain of mental illness don't get the treatment and support they need. Thus, it magnifies the issue of both a negative public perception of mental illness and the actual individual problem.

[Mn01r6]

I didn't read the article (only the title) but I think a few things have contributed to this:

1) It is VERY difficult to involuntarily hospitalize someone for treatment long-term now. There are times that folks just need in-patient help but simply will not ask for it or hospitalize themselves (for a variety of reasons including the cost of care and how some mental illnesses impact judgment). This impacts public safety in some pretty negative ways. Moreover, while I understand the objections to this we need to recognize that you're not doing any favors for the seriously mentally ill by letting them go. A lot of this came about through the growth in deinstitutionalism and the Community Mental Health Act (although it wasn't entirely bad) of the 1960s.

2) I think that mental illness is already stigmatized. The shootings just make it worse. Moreover, it's also possible that because it is already stigmatized those people who feel the pain of mental illness don't get the treatment and support they need. Thus, it magnifies the issue of both a negative public perception of mental illness and the actual individual problem.

While I agree with your #1 point, remember that even an involuntary commitment of a day removes the ability to own a gun (not just a 72 hour hold, but an honest to goodness commitment of any length). They may be back out on the street, but should not be able to pass a background check if the government would just do its job and get the databases accurate.

[yukonjasper]

While I agree with your #1 point, remember that even an involuntary commitment of a day removes the ability to own a gun (not just a 72 hour hold, but an honest to goodness commitment of any length). They may be back out on the street, but should not be able to pass a background check if the government would just do its job and get the databases accurate.

Isn't that the issue with many areas the Government wishes to control - if they would just enforce and competently adjudicate the laws and regulations on the books, they would find no need to pass further rules. Many of the "loopholes" they intend to close wouldn't be there with proper enforcement of existing law and policy. Too many laws and regulations to keep track of.

[MaryB]

Problem I see is government is going to abuse this to deny people owning firearms.

[GunClasses.Net]

...should not be able to pass a background check if the government would just do its job and get the databases accurate.

When Obama pushes for new regulations, he has made assertions such as, 'these are common sense initiatives we all agree on' or that are 'supported by gun owners, except for a few in the extreme'. Not that this has the broad support of gun owners he claims it has, but it seems evident that while some gun owners reject background checks, other gun owners do think that the government should both collect and maintain databases of files on citizens as well as should learn who's acquiring firearms, so that the government can screen and decide who should or should not be allowed to do so?

[GunClasses.Net]

What does this mean, exactly, from the bottom of this thread's webpage?

WHO IS ONLINE
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests

Please forgive me... I'm not well-versed in this; what is a Google [Bot]...? What do they do?

[DoxaPar]

...should not be able to pass a background check if the government would just do its job and get the databases accurate.

When Obama pushes for new regulations, he has made assertions such as, 'these are common sense initiatives we all agree on' or that are 'supported by gun owners, except for a few in the extreme'. Not that this has the broad support of gun owners he claims it has, but it seems evident that while some gun owners reject background checks, other gun owners do think that the government should both collect and maintain databases of files on citizens as well as should learn who's acquiring firearms, so that the government can screen and decide who should or should not be allowed to do so?

While that's probably true we're talking about a VERY small number of people who commit violent crimes with a firearm as a result of a severe mental illness who passed a background check. And didn't the Navy yard shooter fail a BG check for an AR-15? I thought I read that somewhere.

The bulk of the issue are crimes committed with firearms by people who got their guns without a background check.

Edit: Apparently he was turned down because he was trying to buy it out-of-state.