The Mental Health Problem – Sandy Hook School

Posted on Monday, December 17, 2012 by Post Scripts

by Jack

Today I learned by listening to various talk shows that violent video games are a direct link to gun crimes. Then I learned that violent video games are NOT a direct link to gun crimes… huh? I also learned the violence in today’s movies is contributing to violence on the streets – then I learned that movies have no impact on murder rates. (Actually murder rates have been on the decline, as well as crime in general).

Sure is a lot of disinformation out here, but that’s to be expected when the media goes into a marketing frenzy. This scramble to bring us the latest in gory details makes the media look like a bunch of heartless fools, all blindly in pursuit of ratings…what a shame, we deserve better. I can remember when the news was credible, but not so much today.

Speaking of news, here’s a little tidbit that you probably won’t be hearing in the MSM, “A troubling revelation has surfaced regarding a mental health bill recently defeated in Connecticut during this calendar year. Had it passed, that bill could have possibly taken Adam Lanza off the streets so he would not have been free to commit his heinous act on December 14.

In February 2012, Connecticut Senate Bill 452 (SB452) was put forward to remedy the fact that Connecticut was one of less than ten states in the U.S. to lack an “assisted outpatient treatment” (AOT) law. As David Stein has pointed out, there are just six states that lack such a law.

But the bill was passed to Connecticut’s Joint Committee on Judiciary in March, where it quietly faded away because of opposition by those who viewed it as “egregious” and “outrageously discriminatory.”

Had this law passed, it may have forced Adam Lanza to be treated for his alleged mental illness instead of allowing him to roam free, and ultimately to kill 26 persons and himself in a vindictive rage on Friday.” Click here for the full story.

Ever since the ACLU forced Gov. Reagan to release mentally ill from indeterminate stays in mental hospitals, we’ve had too many ugly incidents of violence by criminally deranged people. Something needs fixing here.

We need to sort this out as quickly as possible. We need facts, we need sensible dialog using logic and reason, not emotions and hysteria. And some day soon, we need to be able to profile for these potential shooters, so we can stop them. This likely means we will need better laws to backup our mental health professionals, not impede them like our current liberal laws.

Too often our mental health program lags far behind most European countries. We can do better.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to The Mental Health Problem – Sandy Hook School

  1. Chris says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    Jack: “Ever since the ACLU forced Gov. Reagan to release mentally ill from indeterminate stays in mental hospitals, we’ve had too many ugly incidents of violence by criminally deranged people.”

    This leaves out a big part of the story. Yes, the ACLU did successfully sue to keep people from being involuntarily committed unless they posed an immediate danger to themselves and others. But they also campaigned for increasing funds to mental health services so that people could get the care they needed. Reagan followed up by slashing funding to mental health care facilities, which to him were just more “entitlements” which took away money from the things he thought it should be spent on.

    “Too often our mental health program lags far behind most European countries. We can do better.”

    Unless I’m mistaken, those countries invest more government money into mental health programs. That’s something most conservatives oppose.

  2. Post Scripts says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    Good comments Chris… I found them balanced and rational, you also added what I omitted, that was helpful to understanding the problem. -Jack

  3. Chris says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    Thanks, Jack.

    I wonder if anyone here has read this piece yet, from a mother who has a son with mental illness and violent tendencies. It is very powerful.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-mental-illness-conversation_n_2311009.html

  4. Tina says:
    Tuesday, December 18, 2012 at 10:57 pm

    Chris conservatives DO NOT oppose providing adequate mental health services. We are in favor of people getting the best possible help. We are in disagreement with progressives about the best method for delivering such help. I do wish you could get the argument straight.

    You have also grossly mischaracterized what happened under Reagan (as governor) with regard to mental health. We have addressed this before on PS. I posted the following on “No More Peets coffee for Me” by D. Franklin:

    http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2012/04/no-more-peets-coffee-for-1.html

    The following NYT article gives a chronology of events that spanned a period of time from Brown to Brown, governor wise:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html

    THE policy that led to the release of most of the nation’s mentally ill patients from the hospital to the community is now widely regarded as a major failure. Sweeping critiques of the policy, notably the recent report of the American Psychiatric Association, have spread the blame everywhere, faulting politicians, civil libertarian lawyers and psychiatrists.

    But who, specifically, played some of the more important roles in the formation of this ill-fated policy? What motivated these influential people and what lessons are to be learned?

    A detailed picture has emerged from a series of interviews and a review of public records, research reports and institutional recommendations. The picture is one of cost-conscious policy makers, who were quick to buy optimistic projections that were, in some instances, buttressed by misinformation and by a willingness to suspend skepticism.

    Many of the psychiatrists involved as practitioners and policy makers in the 1950’s and 1960’s said in the interviews that heavy responsibility lay on a sometimes neglected aspect of the problem: the overreliance on drugs to do the work of society.

    The records show that the politicians were dogged by the image and financial problems posed by the state hospitals and that the scientific and medical establishment sold Congress and the state legislatures a quick fix for a complicated problem that was bought sight unseen.

    ‘They’ve Gone Far, Too Far’

    In California, for example, the number of patients in state mental hospitals reached a peak of 37,500 in 1959 when Edmund G. Brown was Governor, fell to 22,000 when Ronald Reagan attained that office in 1967, and continued to decline under his administration and that of his successor, Edmund G. Brown Jr. The senior Mr. Brown now expresses regret about the way the policy started and ultimately evolved. ”They’ve gone far, too far, in letting people out,” he said in an interview.

    Dr. Robert H. Felix, who was then director of the National Institute of Mental Health and a major figure in the shift to community centers, says now on reflection: ”Many of those patients who left the state hospitals never should have done so. We psychiatrists saw too much of the old snake pit, saw too many people who shouldn’t have been there and we overreacted. The result is not what we intended, and perhaps we didn’t ask the questions that should have been asked when developing a new concept, but psychiatrists are human, too, and we tried our damnedest.”

    Dr. John A. Talbott, president of the American Psychiatric Association, said, ”The psychiatrists involved in the policy making at that time certainly oversold community treatment, and our credibility today is probably damaged because of it.” He said the policies ”were based partly on wishful thinking, partly on the enormousness of the problem and the lack of a silver bullet to resolve it, then as now.”

    The original policy changes were backed by scores of national professional and philanthropic organizations and several hundred people prominent in medicine, academia and politics. The belief then was widespread that the same scientific researchers who had conjured up antibiotics and vaccines during the outburst of medical discovery in the 50’s and 60’s had also developed penicillins to cure psychoses and thus revolutionize the treatment of the mentally ill.

    And these leaders were prodded into action by a series of scientific studies in the 1950’s purporting to show that mental illness was far more prevalent than had previously been believed.

    Finally, there was a growing economic and political liability faced by state legislators. Enormous amounts of tax revenues were being used to support the state mental hospitals, and the institutions themselves were increasingly thought of as ”snake pits” or facilities that few people wanted.

    One of the most influential groups in bringing about the new national policy was the Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health, an independent body set up by Congress in 1955. One of its two surviving members, Dr. M. Brewster Smith, a University of California psychologist who served as vice president, said the commission took the direction it did because of ”the sort of overselling that happens in almost every interchange between science and government.” (continues)

    Another blog sheds light on the truth about the ACLU’s involvement and the progressive idea that exists behind the lie:

    http://onespeedbikerpolitico.blogspot.com/2011/01/revisionist-history-meantal-health.html

    The blaming Ronald Reagan for destruction the mental heath system is typical progressive revisionists history. By the late 1960s, the idea that the mentally ill were not so different from the rest of us, or perhaps were even a little bit more sane, became trendy.

    Reformers dreamed of taking the mentally ill out of the large institutions and housing them in smaller, community-based residences where they could live more productive and fulfilling lives. Simultaneously, the ACLU was pushing a mental health patients right agenda that resulted in O’Connor v. Donaldson (see below) In 1967, Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS), which went into effect in 1969 and quickly became a national model. Among other things, it prohibited forced medication or extended hospital stays without a judicial hearing. The Governor signed a bill inspired by those who clamored for the “civil rights” of the mentally ill to be on the street and who claimed they’d be better off with community counseling.

    So no, Reagan, didn’t close mental hospitals or put anyone on the street. Progressive views on mental health, a misguided ACLU, and politicians who “know better” did it. Then finally (the last year Reagan was governor), O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), the Supreme Court found a constitutional right to liberty for mental health patients: “There is…no constitutional basis for confining such persons involuntarily if they are dangerous to no one.” With this constitutional recognition, the practice of mental health law became a process of limiting and defining the power of the state to detain and treat. The result was a codification of mental health rights that have done away with non-voluntary commitment except in extreme cases.

    Change began at the federal level under JFK following studies in the 1950’s and new (experimental) treatment drugs:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Mental_Health_Act

    The Community Mental Health Act of 1963 (CMHA) (also known as the Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act, Mental Retardation Facilities and Construction Act, Public Law 88-164, or the Mental Retardation and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963) was an act to provide federal funding for community mental health centers in the United States. This legislation was passed as part of John F. Kennedy’s New Frontier. It led to considerable deinstitutionalization. …

    http://www.wordaroundthenet.com/2012/09/common-knowledge-reagan-and-homeless.html

    For some reason the “Reagan closed the asylums and filled our streets with loonies” myth is one of the strongest and oldest in our society. And yes, its a myth.

    The truth is, many mentally ill people were removed from hospitals and asylums and set out on their own. That happened because of several court cases, the most critical one being a Supreme Court case in 1975 called O’Connor v. Donaldson. The court ruled that someone may not be incarcerated in a mental institution against their will unless they are a danger to themselves or society. To do so would be a violation of their basic civil rights to liberty and as a result many people who had been thrown into these institutions were set free.

    In fact the ball started rolling in the Kennedy administration, with the final bill he signed into law the Community Mental Health Act, which commissioned a study on how the mentally ill and insane were being treated and whether the current system was good or bad.

    Previously it had been not uncommon in cities for cops to arrest people who were mentally handicapped and stick them into an institution even if they were functional. Sure, maybe they talked to themselves and seemed crazy, but they could function in the world, even hold down a job. But if they were causing any problems, or deemed a “vagrant” (someone with no visible means of support or fixed address), they could be thrown in jail or an asylum.

    Ronald Reagan was Governor of California from 1967 to 1975, and ran for president in 1976. He was defeated in the primaries and spent 4 years working on his campaign, his speeches, and behind the scenes with the Republican Party. He was elected president in 1980, five years after the court decision to put mentally ill people on the streets. President Reagan had absolutely nothing to do with that decision or the release of these people.

    Let me repeat that: it was the Supreme Court case of O’Connor v. Donaldson in 1975 that put the mentally handicapped on the streets, that opened asylums and put relatively harmless and functional insane people into the general population, not Ronald Reagan, and not when he was president. That is absolute indisputable fact.

    Ronald Reagan did sign the Lanterman–Petris–Short Act in California as governor, which took effect in 1972, effectively doing what the O’Connor v. Donaldson ruling did nationwide. The bill had bipartisan support and was widely lauded by the left as a civil rights masterpiece. The ACLU argued for the end of forced institutionalization of harmless insane people, not Ronald Reagan. (emphasis mine)

    There were more homeless on the streets under Reagan, though, that much is true. Part of it was the supreme court’s decision – many of these people were no harm to themselves or others, but weren’t really capable of taking care of themselves adequately and couldn’t hold down jobs on their own. So they ended up on their own, on the streets. They’re still out there after 12 years of Democrat presidencies, by the way.

    Part of the reason for the increase is what we’re experiencing right now. The Carter economy was so horrific that after several years of double digit inflation and unemployment, a lot of people lost their homes, lost their jobs, lost their savings. Some of those people ended up on the streets, living in cars, boxes, and shelters. Whole families were thrust into the streets because of the recession. But Ronald Reagan worked to pull the United States out of the recession, and Carter put us into it. Blame President Carter, not President Reagan for homelessness of this sort.

    There is another cause which can be partly put at Ronald Reagan’s feet though. By the end of Reagan’s term in office, federal funding for state and local assistance programs had been cut by 60%.

    Reagan eliminated general revenue sharing to cities, slashed funding for public service jobs and job training, almost dismantled federally funded legal services for the poor, cut the anti-poverty Community Development Block Grant program and reduced funds for public transit. The only “urban” program that survived the cuts was federal aid for highways – which primarily benefited suburbs, not cities.

    These cutbacks had a disastrous effect on cities with high levels of poverty and limited property tax bases, many of which depended on federal aid. In 1980 federal dollars accounted for 22 percent of big city budgets. By the end of Reagan’s second term, federal aid was only 6 percent.

    That NHI article is trying to portray this as some great evil but think about this a bit. Not only does the US Constitution not permit the federal government to tax citizens and hand it out to other citizens in terms of aid, but the problem here is that the states weren’t picking up the slack. Instead of handling this themselves, states were busy spending the increased revenues in the 80s Reagan boom economy on other programs, raising public employee union benefits and wages, and ignoring the needs of their community…. (emphasis mine)

    Let us not forget that Democrats ran the House when Reagan was president so all federal funding legislation was written by the Democrats under Tip O’Niell.

    Meanwhile Gateway Pundit reminds us that activists groups, including the ACLU, were doing their thing in Connecticut just this year:

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/far-left-groups-defeated-connecticut-mental-health-protection-laws-just-months-before-shooting/

    …Connecticut is one of only SIX states in the U.S. that doesn’t have a type of “assisted outpatient treatment” (AOT) law (sometimes referred to as “involuntary outpatient treatment”). There’s no one standard for these types of laws, but (roughly speaking) these are laws that allow for people with mental illness to be forcibly treated BEFORE they commit a serious crime. …

    …Earlier this year, Connecticut considered passing an AOT law (and a weak one, at that), and it failed, due to protests from “civil liberties” groups.

    I did read the article written by the mother with a mentally ill son and you’re right, it was very compelling. It’s a shame that civil liberties lawyers often intervene to prevent this woman from receiving the help she and her son need.

    It makes sense that mental health providers would have the ability to decide with parents what the best treatment for their children should be…I think that’s called freedom.

  5. Peggy says:
    Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 8:24 am

    Texas school district set up The Guardian Plan based on The Air Marshal plan used to protect plane passengers.

    Stop school shootings by letting teachers fire back, say Texas officials:

    Lawmakers and educators in Texas say the way to guard against school shootings like last Friday’s at a Connecticut elementary school is to make sure teachers can shoot back.

    “We give our ‘Guardians’ training in addition to the regular Texas conceal-and-carry training,” Thweatt, whose school is about three hours northwest of Dallas, told FoxNews.com. “It mainly entails improving accuracy…You know, as educators, we don’t have to be police officers and learn about Miranda Rights and related procedures. We just have to be accurate.”

    Thweatt is the architect of “The Guardian Plan,” a blueprint for arming school staff, including teachers, that may be catching on, at least in the Lone Star state. Teachers there are allowed to have weapons in the classroom, as Thweatt’s faculty members do, but State Attorney General Greg Abbott suggested Monday that lawmakers may consider ways to encourage the practice statewide.

    “Bearing arms whether by teachers and guards and things like that will be all a part of more comprehensive policy issues for the legislature to take up in the coming weeks,” Abbott said. “And you can be assured in the aftermath of what happened in Connecticut that these legislators care dearly about the lives of students at their schools and they will evaluate all possible measures that are necessary to protect those lives,” he said.

    Each Guardian must obtain a Texas conceal-and-carry permit, and must lock-and-load their weapons with “frangible” bullets that break apart when colliding with a target. “They go through people,” assured Thweatt.

    “They’re very similar to what the air marshals use. The bullets are glued together with polymers, and we insist upon them because we don’t want the bullet to ricochet off a wall after it’s fired and hit a child.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/12/18/stop-school-shootings-by-letting-teachers-fire-back-say-texas-officials/

  6. suzen says:
    Monday, January 7, 2013 at 1:08 am

    Sandy Hook School In Monroe Offers Fresh Start For Kids …. She said mental health counselors continue to be available for anyone who needs them. ….. Yet on the issue of gun violence,

  7. Tina says:
    Monday, January 7, 2013 at 10:25 am

    suzen thanks for commenting but your thought is incomplete and I’m not sure what you are saying.

    If you’re saying that the mandatory checks on gun purchasers should better screen for the mentally ill we agree.

    Or are you referring to the fact that so many shooters/plotters have been on Psychiatric drugs?

    http://beforeitsnews.com/health/2013/01/60-school-shootings-in-20-years-of-4800-violent-incidents-all-linked-to-psychiatric-drugs-2464466.html

    While in the wake to the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre most of the debate has centered around gun control, perhaps more of the debate should be focused on the mood altering drugs that people are being given as more than 60 school shootings among and more than 4,800 violent attacks have been linked to psychiatric drugs.

    The website SSRI Stories (http://ssristories.com/) tracks violence related to psychiatric drugs. The site has links to more than 60 school shooting incidents as well as other violent acts over the past 20 years.

    This website is a collection of 4,800+ news stories with the full media article available, mainly criminal in nature, that have appeared in the media (newspapers, TV, scientific journals) or that were part of FDA testimony in either 1991, 2004 or 2006, in which antidepressants are mentioned.

    This web site focuses on the Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs), of which Prozac (fluoxetine) was the first. Other SSRIs are Zoloft (sertraline), Paxil (paroxetine) (known in the UK as Seroxat), Celexa (citalopam), Lexapro (escitalopram), and Luvox (fluvoxamine). Other newer antidepressants included in this list are Remeron (mirtazapine), Anafranil (clomipramine) and the SNRIs Effexor (venlafaxine), Cymbalta (duloxetine) and Pristiq (desvenlafaxine) as well as the dopamine reuptake inhibitor antidepressant Wellbutrin (bupropion) (also marketed as Zyban).

    A few entries picked randomly from the website, SSRI Stories, that includes links to the media stories:

    http://ssristories.com/index.php

    Prozac WITHDRAWAL 2008-02-15 Illinois ** 6 Dead: 15 Wounded: Perpetrator Was in Withdrawal from Med & Acting Erratically

    Luvox/Zoloft Antidepressants 1999-04-20 Colorado **COLUMBINE: 15 Dead: 24 Wounded

    Luvox 1993-07-23 Florida **Man Commits Murder During Clinical Trial for Luvox: Same Drug as in COLUMBINE: Never Reported

    Zoloft Antidepressant & ADHD Med 2011-07-11 Alabama **14 Year Old Kills Fellow Middle School Student

    Prozac Antidepressant WITHDRAWAL 1998-05-21 Oregon **Four Dead: Twenty Injured

    Meds For Depression & ADHD 2010-04-28 Massachusetts **Sixteen Year Old Kills 15 Year Old in High School Bathroom in Sept. 2009

    Meds For Depression & ADHD 2011-03-18 South Carolina **Teen Shoots School Official: Pipe Bombs Found in Backpack

Comments are closed.