CA Donut Shop Changes Owners and Policy


[letter to journalist about article]

Dear Patty Fisher,

It is great that you wrote about the resolution of the donut shop's insults to persons with disabilities (Patty Fisher, "Doughnut sensibility," San Jose Mercury News, August 23, 2009
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_13189751?source=most_emailed
) Journalists ignore and sometimes condone abuses of persons accused of mental illness especially denial of Constitutional rights. Here are comments about your article.

Your refer to "mental health advocates" without specifying. Some journalists and politicians believe that NAMI, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (or whatever they call themselves now), are advocates for patients. NAMI promotes drug treatment. Pharmaceutical corporations give NAMI about $3 million each year to promote drug treatment while saying they fight stigma. They do not focus on defending and asserting the rights of persons accused of mental illness.

You refer to "the mentally ill" as if they are a group of illnesses. These are humans with flesh and blood and feelings and rights. They are persons. Referring to them as illnesses is what doctors and psychiatrists do which dehumanizes them and leads to abuses.

You ask "why did that take so long?" for the donut shop owner to meet with the protesters. That is a question that needs to be asked regarding why the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 has not been enforced to protect the rights of persons with disabilities? Those law are still ignored. When it comes to equal protection of the discrimination laws persons with disabilities are ignored.

You say, "the owners didn't understand how offensive their mental-hospital theme was." The same can be said about journalists, politicians, lawyers, judges, police, and psychiatrists who refer to their patients as illnesses. How often do we read or hear that a person accused of crime "has a history of mental illness?" Why do prosecutors reveal medical records at arraignments? Why do journalists report that and diagnoses from relatives, neighbors and lovers?

You say, "Making light of serious mental illness only contributes to the stigma, which makes it difficult for people to admit they need help and seek treatment." That is NAMI's position. Stigma makes it difficult to get police protection from crimes. It prevents the right to be heard by judges and politicians. It prevents the enjoyment of many rights and privileges enjoyed by others. There is nothing stopping anyone from getting treatment. Indeed what other illness do police enforce diagnoses? NAMI does not address these abuses because they lobby governmenet for taxpayer funding of treartment.

You say, "He refused to meet with local mental health groups" without specifying. Are these groups that work for rights of persons with disabilities or groups that promote treatment?

Please continue to write about these abuses. The only way to stop them is to shine light on them. Currently the public discourse on psychiatry is controlled by the business interests -- psychiatrists, drug companies and providers.