You are currently browsing the daily archive for May 6th, 2008.
And the studies just keep coming. This time with Paxil showing that it was no better than placebo in adolescents, plus a relative increase in adverse events compared to placebo.
John Grohol, PsyD has a writeup on PsychCentral.
It seems some psychologists are bored… They must be. Recently, a new movement towards treatment of worry about the future of the planet has emerged. Psychologists and therapists are having groups and treating individuals who are anxious about the future of the planet. There are plenty of legitimate difficulties out there for psychologists to treat, and I suppose this helps certain psychotherapists keep their practices simple, easy, and on the surface. In other words, “lets work with something that’s not too difficult and we’ll feel good about ourselves for addressing this major social concern.”
I suppose this appeals to the by-and-large liberal sentiment of psychologists in the field. Or it’s another fad for largely academic psychologists who magnify the importance of their personal interests. Although I must admit, there’s a certain appeal to adding “Simple Phobia, Ecological Type” to the DSM-V as a disorder that needs to be a focus of treatment. Then we’d have a label for people with ideology like Al Gore. Cogtive-behavioral psychologists could address the catastrophizing and psychoanalysts could examine the potty training conflicts of people worrying about “poluting the environment.”
For more on Ecopsychology and treatment, the New York Times, has an article.
And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God.
Mark 10:17
Ah yes, but we are separated right? Good people and bad people. In this case, the bad people are the mentally ill. I would not be incorrect in saying that there are only bad people. Only God is good. But is there a need to protect ourselves from people who would do us harm? Certainly. But look at the statistics. Are you more likely to die from a spree killer or a car accident. What about a heart attack? I suppose it wouldn’t make a good headline to say, “1000 people died yesterday from a heart attack.” Or…”150 people were killed yesterday on the nations roadways.” It’s only the things that are novel or unusual that make headlines. It’s only things that are unlikely to actually occur.
Sensationalist media reporting increases both suicidal and homicidal behavior (see The Copycat Effect). But it seems that law makers and the media want to talk about how we can stop these “mentally ill” people from acquiring guns. Having a mental illness does not necessarily make a person any more likely to commit violence than the general population. In fact the research shows that individuals discharged from psychiatric institutions are of roughly the same risk of being violent as others in their community. They are more likely to engage in violence than others in their communities if they are abusing substances. The same is true for others who abuse substances (they are more likely to be violent). If the media are truly concerned about these spree killers, they’ll change their reporting practices.
In rural America, a lot of people take their rights seriously. It scares them to seek help if they know they could lose their right to bear arms. The state of Illinois wants to extend state reporting on mental illness to include outpatient settings. So, if a patient has exhibited violent or suicidal behavior they must be reported. Furthermore, there are proposed links to the federal database so that people reported to the state, would automatically be entered into the federal database. It’s difficult to imagine how I, in good conscience, could comply with this requirement. I can see it now, I tell a patient if they have recently engaged in suicidal or violent behavior that I must report them. They won’t tell me, and the problem won’t be addressed. Result….dead bodies.
Also, I wonder how far this extends. Does it extend to thoughts??? “I’d like to stangle Bob. He really gets on my nerves!” Does this fall under the mandatory reporting rule? Who hasn’t had a thought like that. Wait….I never have!! Please don’t report me. No, the difference between violent and non-violent people is a history of violence. There’s already a reporting system in place for that…it’s called a criminal record. Would that have caught Kazmierczak before he was able to purchase guns and kill 5 students?? No, but neither would any of the reporting laws. We don’t know what caused this guy to unravel, but don’t blame the mental health system and don’t think we need more restrictive laws. People have free will, and there is no way to legislate against that. I do think the recent reportings of multiple spree killings could have played a role. I’m sure there are other newsworthy events out there in the world, like the spree killings of tornados in recent months. Maybe we should pass a law against high winds and thunderstorms….but that would be ridiculous right??? Just saying…
Since substance abuse seems to be an actually important variable, maybe there should be mandatory reporting for people undergoing treatment for substance abuse problems. I don’t actually think that, but at least it is risk factor that makes more sense. I’m saying that just to emphasize the point that these laws are not based on protecting people from violence, but that there is an incremental political agenda based stereotypes of the mentally ill with the ultimate goal of limiting the rights of all people.