As we have discussed, the incidences of violence committed by the mentally ill are not as common as one might think. However, when they do occur, they are of huge impact. If someone dies at the hands of a violent individual, I think that whether your assailant is mentally ill is not as important as the fact that someone has been killed. Call me silly. I believe that murderers have to be held to account. So, I read this article with great interest: http://bit.ly/1befhWH. The author seems to be discussing more than one topic. The first is violence coming from the mentally ill. He talks about a situation in which a mentally ill woman is found torturing her mother after informing multiple mental health professionals that she was going to hurt someone. The author notes that this woman wasn't taken seriously. Which means, according to the author, that help was available. I really disagree with that assumption. If someone threatening harm to other human beings was not taken seriously, that indicates that help was not available. Something was missing in the system. Was it access to beds? I don't know. Was it a problem in terms of competence in the mental health professionals doing the evaluating? I really don't know that either. But this really does remind me of the situation with the Creigh Deeds family. It was found that there had been beds available. But a patient needing intensive treatment didn't get it. And the result was death. My opinion is that the issues with the mental health system go beyond simply having available beds. Even though that is important. Obviously. The other factors that are important are:
1. Coverage for all individuals needing intervention. In other words, does income or lack of insurance impact whether someone gets help?
2. Availability of the level of coverage needed. In other words, for someone in crisis, are beds available? Or will the person be sent to an outpatient program 5 weeks after the initial intervention?
3. Knowledge and competence. How good are the professionals making the assessments? And how functional is the communication within the system? Do different agencies work well together? Are there procedures in place that facilitate people getting what they need?
4. Political issues. How seriously are the issues in dealing with mental illness taken? And does stigma restrict access?
Finally, the author seems to discount the impact of stigma on the whole issue. Yes, stigma is a factor. When physical and mental health issues are taken seriously as a simple matter of being human and prone to such problems, maybe it will be easier to get people in for help. Before it becomes a crisis. We can change our approach. But it requires a change in attitude. What do you think?
1. Coverage for all individuals needing intervention. In other words, does income or lack of insurance impact whether someone gets help?
2. Availability of the level of coverage needed. In other words, for someone in crisis, are beds available? Or will the person be sent to an outpatient program 5 weeks after the initial intervention?
3. Knowledge and competence. How good are the professionals making the assessments? And how functional is the communication within the system? Do different agencies work well together? Are there procedures in place that facilitate people getting what they need?
4. Political issues. How seriously are the issues in dealing with mental illness taken? And does stigma restrict access?
Finally, the author seems to discount the impact of stigma on the whole issue. Yes, stigma is a factor. When physical and mental health issues are taken seriously as a simple matter of being human and prone to such problems, maybe it will be easier to get people in for help. Before it becomes a crisis. We can change our approach. But it requires a change in attitude. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment