As noted by Kate Thurman in the below essay, the focus of a proposed bill (link below) in the US Congress, is on police and crime, as if disability itself is a crime. It is important to distinguish between disability and crime. Police, politicians and journalists do not do that. They like to believe that mental illness, a psychiatric diagnosis causes crime. It is nonsense. But seldom are politicians, police and journalists logical these days. Politicians are focused on getting re-elected. Journalists want to get published, and invited to dinner by politicians. The psychiatric industry has wealth and a lot of influence to help them. It is supported by the pharmaceutical industry. Police want to get home safe and do not like to have to make accommodations for people who have been diagnosed as crazy. The simplest solution is to arrest if not to kill a suspect. The counter argument is just as illogical, i.e., that if a person has a disability he or she should not be held accountable for their crime.
Journalists, police, prosecutors, lawyers, judges, and politicians subscribe to the history of mental illness doctrine, whereby anyone with a history is guilty of violence because of the history. Again crime is equated to a psychiatric diagnosis.
This essay argues that the bill is limited to addressing severe mental illness without defining it. That is true, but also there is no pathology for psychiatric illnesses. They are made up by consensus (see Boston University Psychology Professor, Margaret Hagan's book, Whores of the Court.) These illnesses are defined as speech and behavior, usually protected by the constitution, which psychiatrists do not like or do not understand. It is a system of social control with no due process protections. Personal opinion masquerading as science.
Politically, liberals blame guns for violence. Conservatives blame psychiatric diagnoses. Neither makes sense. People are violent. It is extremely difficult to determine who will be violent, and when. Nonetheless psychiatrists with the encouragement of judges testify in court making predictions of people's future behavior. Politicians don't want to be bogged down. They have television interviews to do. It takes up too much time and requires critical thought. It is easier to blame a defenseless target.
The bill weakens privacy protections for psychiatric diagnoses. One more instance of government bias, unequal protection of the laws for people with disabilities by the elected criminal class. Psychiatric treatment can be used against a person in a court of law. Lawyers and judges do not tell patients that downside of this business.
The focus of this essay is on getting more taxpayer funded treatment by psychiatrists. But the psychiatrists do not cure their illnesses. They sell treatment. Once a patient always a patient. It is a good business model. But it is not science or medicine.
In theory the protection and advocacy agencies (P&A) protect the rights of persons accused of mental illness. But there is little actual protection and advocacy. They refer petitioners elsewhere because it is too much trouble. There are so many people with physical disabilities that they are prioritized over the crazy people.
There are restrictions on what the P&A agencies can do. Unlike immigrants, illegal aliens who get free legal, health care, tuition and housing. Law abiding citizens with disabilities get bupkis.
This essay says providing funds for police training and for research are good provisions. But police get billions and there are billions for research aside from this bill. The name of the bill suggests it is what NAMI is, i.e., a lobbyist for more taxpayer funded drug treatment. NAMI is a lobbyist for the drug companies. They allege they advocate for families. The individual with a disability has no advocate. The bill does not protect persons with disabilities. It deprives them of rights enjoyed by others some who are not even citizens. The problem is that there is no strong disability lobby. There are academic research lobbyists. Harvard University has three full time lobbyists based in Washington DC. The police have hundreds of organizations actively lobbying state and federal legislatures. Disability advocates, not so much.
[From the Cambridge, MA Disability Commission. January 27, 2016]
Mental Health Advocates Express Concerns over Murphy Bill
There is no doubt that our nation’s mental health system leaves much to be desired. Many people with psychiatric disabilities experience difficulty accessing treatment for a variety of reasons. These reasons include lack of funding and resources, low reimbursement rates for mental health services, a shortage of culturally competent care, and stigma perpetuated by inaccurate portrayals of mental illness in media, particularly following acts of violence, among other things.
To this end, it is admirable that the U.S. House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations, led by Representative Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, conducted a review of the system beginning in early 2013, just after – and in response to – the Newtown shooting tragedy. The Subcommittee indeed found many systemic problems in our mental health system and made numerous recommendations that culminated in the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act (H.R. 2646), more widely known as the Murphy Bill.
However, many advocates argue that from the get go, this bill was informed by and written from a public safety standpoint, and while our nation certainly has a lot of work to do to curb violence, our broken mental health care system is one of the foremost public health crises of our time, and it must be addressed as such.
Rather than overhaul the system from the ground up, this bill calls for diverting attention and funding away from prevention and health maintenance care to late-stage crisis intervention for individuals with the most severe psychiatric disabilities. Creating a system to address violence rather than healthcare needs inevitably removes the focus from the very people it purports to help – people with psychiatric disabilities – and creates concerns for civil rights.
If the Murphy Bill were to pass as it is currently written, many people with psychiatric disabilities could be turned away from help if their levels of illness are not determined to be severe enough; there is no clear standard as to what constitutes severity. Additionally, like many so-called physical illnesses, mental illnesses tend to operate on a spectrum; there are times when people are stabilized and doing well and there are other times when they may have more acute symptoms. In no other medical specialty would anyone consider cutting access to care at any point along the spectrum; think of medical centers removing resources for outpatient care and investing in just intensive care units.
Also, generally speaking, the earlier someone receives treatment, the better her or his outcome. This bill calls for cutting funding for community-based supports that have a proven record for being effective. Funding would be increased for assisted outpatient treatment (AOT), which is court-mandated treatment that patients must follow or face punitive action, and for long-term involuntary inpatient hospitalizations, also known as institutionalization.
“We already know what works,” said Jennifer Mathis, Deputy Legal Director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. “Proven programs such as supportive housing, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT), peer support, mobile crisis services, and supported employment have extremely successful outcomes, including for people with the most significant mental health needs. The problem is that these services are not widely available to people who need them. This bill would make it even more difficult to take these services to scale, as it would invest mental health dollars elsewhere,” Mathis said.
The Murphy Bill also proposes changing portions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) by easing current privacy protection for patients with psychiatric disabilities, and allowing family members to access to portions of their mental health records. The protection of healthcare information is an important civil right currently afforded to all patients in the United States. This change would affect only those with mental health needs. This disparate treatment of one segment of the population is arguably discriminatory. Additionally, knowing that their families could access treatment information would likely deter many people from getting the help they need.
Each state has a federally funded protection and advocacy (P&A) agency that is charged with protecting the legal rights of individuals with disabilities (the Disability Law Center, a private non-profit in Boston, is the P&A for Massachusetts). The country’s Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) program provides a vital resource for individuals who experience discrimination due to having a mental illness. The Murphy Bill proposes cutting PAIMI funding from its current annual level of $36.1 million to $5 million; this greater than 87% cut in funding would drastically reduce the ability of P&A legal service agencies to protect the rights of this population.
In addition, the bill significantly reduces the authority of P&A agencies. According to the Bazelon Center, “the bill would prohibit the PAIMI program from providing advocacy and legal representation to help people with mental illness with a host of important issues, including housing, employment, education, community living, Medicaid benefits. Advocacy concerning anything other than abuse and neglect would be barred.” 1
Some provisions of the Murphy Bill could result in positive change. For example, it would provide funding for mental health awareness training for first responders. It also calls for increasing funding for brain research. But, while this bill may be well intended and include some provisions that may result in some improvements, many advocates feel that this bill fails to actually reform the mental health system and instead makes treatment more difficult to access for many, infringes upon the civil rights of people with psychiatric disabilities and removes key protections of a vulnerable population.
The full bill can be found online at http://murphy.house.gov/helpingfamiliesinmentalhealthcrisisact
If you would like to express an opinion regarding the Murphy Bill, contact your district’s U.S. House Representative (www.house.gov/representatives/) and the U.S. Senators for Massachusetts: Edward Markey (www.markey.senate.gov/contact) and Elizabeth Warren (www.warren.senate.gov)
--by Kate Thurman
[From the Cambridge, MA Disability Commission. January 27, 2016]
Mental Health Advocates Express Concerns over Murphy Bill
There is no doubt that our nation’s mental health system leaves much to be desired. Many people with psychiatric disabilities experience difficulty accessing treatment for a variety of reasons. These reasons include lack of funding and resources, low reimbursement rates for mental health services, a shortage of culturally competent care, and stigma perpetuated by inaccurate portrayals of mental illness in media, particularly following acts of violence, among other things.
To this end, it is admirable that the U.S. House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations, led by Representative Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania, conducted a review of the system beginning in early 2013, just after – and in response to – the Newtown shooting tragedy. The Subcommittee indeed found many systemic problems in our mental health system and made numerous recommendations that culminated in the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act (H.R. 2646), more widely known as the Murphy Bill.
However, many advocates argue that from the get go, this bill was informed by and written from a public safety standpoint, and while our nation certainly has a lot of work to do to curb violence, our broken mental health care system is one of the foremost public health crises of our time, and it must be addressed as such.
Rather than overhaul the system from the ground up, this bill calls for diverting attention and funding away from prevention and health maintenance care to late-stage crisis intervention for individuals with the most severe psychiatric disabilities. Creating a system to address violence rather than healthcare needs inevitably removes the focus from the very people it purports to help – people with psychiatric disabilities – and creates concerns for civil rights.
If the Murphy Bill were to pass as it is currently written, many people with psychiatric disabilities could be turned away from help if their levels of illness are not determined to be severe enough; there is no clear standard as to what constitutes severity. Additionally, like many so-called physical illnesses, mental illnesses tend to operate on a spectrum; there are times when people are stabilized and doing well and there are other times when they may have more acute symptoms. In no other medical specialty would anyone consider cutting access to care at any point along the spectrum; think of medical centers removing resources for outpatient care and investing in just intensive care units.
Also, generally speaking, the earlier someone receives treatment, the better her or his outcome. This bill calls for cutting funding for community-based supports that have a proven record for being effective. Funding would be increased for assisted outpatient treatment (AOT), which is court-mandated treatment that patients must follow or face punitive action, and for long-term involuntary inpatient hospitalizations, also known as institutionalization.
“We already know what works,” said Jennifer Mathis, Deputy Legal Director of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. “Proven programs such as supportive housing, Assertive Community Treatment (ACT), peer support, mobile crisis services, and supported employment have extremely successful outcomes, including for people with the most significant mental health needs. The problem is that these services are not widely available to people who need them. This bill would make it even more difficult to take these services to scale, as it would invest mental health dollars elsewhere,” Mathis said.
The Murphy Bill also proposes changing portions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) by easing current privacy protection for patients with psychiatric disabilities, and allowing family members to access to portions of their mental health records. The protection of healthcare information is an important civil right currently afforded to all patients in the United States. This change would affect only those with mental health needs. This disparate treatment of one segment of the population is arguably discriminatory. Additionally, knowing that their families could access treatment information would likely deter many people from getting the help they need.
Each state has a federally funded protection and advocacy (P&A) agency that is charged with protecting the legal rights of individuals with disabilities (the Disability Law Center, a private non-profit in Boston, is the P&A for Massachusetts). The country’s Protection and Advocacy for Individuals with Mental Illness (PAIMI) program provides a vital resource for individuals who experience discrimination due to having a mental illness. The Murphy Bill proposes cutting PAIMI funding from its current annual level of $36.1 million to $5 million; this greater than 87% cut in funding would drastically reduce the ability of P&A legal service agencies to protect the rights of this population.
In addition, the bill significantly reduces the authority of P&A agencies. According to the Bazelon Center, “the bill would prohibit the PAIMI program from providing advocacy and legal representation to help people with mental illness with a host of important issues, including housing, employment, education, community living, Medicaid benefits. Advocacy concerning anything other than abuse and neglect would be barred.” 1
Some provisions of the Murphy Bill could result in positive change. For example, it would provide funding for mental health awareness training for first responders. It also calls for increasing funding for brain research. But, while this bill may be well intended and include some provisions that may result in some improvements, many advocates feel that this bill fails to actually reform the mental health system and instead makes treatment more difficult to access for many, infringes upon the civil rights of people with psychiatric disabilities and removes key protections of a vulnerable population.
The full bill can be found online at http://murphy.house.gov/helpingfamiliesinmentalhealthcrisisact
If you would like to express an opinion regarding the Murphy Bill, contact your district’s U.S. House Representative (www.house.gov/representatives/) and the U.S. Senators for Massachusetts: Edward Markey (www.markey.senate.gov/contact) and Elizabeth Warren (www.warren.senate.gov)
--by Kate Thurman
