©
IT TOOK the massacre of 32 men and women by a mentally unstable student at Virginia Tech in 2007 to focus attention on the state’s underfunded mental health system.
Gov. Tim Kaine and lawmakers took a small step forward last year with a package of reforms to the civil commitment process and $42 million for new community-based care, children’s services, crisis intervention and programs to keep mentally ill people out of jail, where too many end up because no one else will take them.
But officials need to be straight with Virginians about what was and wasn’t accomplished last year and what more needs to be done.
In its latest report, released this month, the National Alliance on Mental Illness bumped up Virginia’s grade from a D to a C. Only six states did better, but that’s a condemnation of mental health care across the country, not an endorsement of Virginia’s meager efforts.
The alliance’s report is a testament to the determination of counselors, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals in Virginia. They’ve set up team-driven support services to reduce the number of incarcerations and crisis hospitalizations. And they’ve developed a telephone referral service that has interpreters available for more than 100 languages.
But their hard work has occurred even as promises of new resources crumbled. Community service boards across the state were awarded $28.3 million of the reform package over two years for emergency and outpatient services, but that was later offset by budget cuts of $12.4 million. The state’s 16 hospitals were cut by $2 million, and the mental health agency’s headquarters took a $1.7 million hit.
State officials say they’ve made administrative reductions while preserving funding for new services, but the reality is that mental health agencies will be stretched thin by unfilled vacancies and austerity measures.
Virginia continues to spend too much money to keep people in institutions and too little on community-based services. It offers few housing options for individuals capable of living independently. And its stingy Medicaid eligibility guidelines ensure too many low-income people go without mental health care because they have no insurance.
It will take a prolonged effort over years to make progress on those needs. If Virginia instead decides to accept its C and settle for “it could be worse,” it certainly will get worse. It will take public pressure and a commitment from elected officials to make sure that doesn’t happen.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
gunny, I think the more we learn
about mental illness, its causes and triggers, the more we will deal with that problem as we would any other serious disease.
The human mind is complicated and diverse. And, I am sure you will agree on this, there is a lot of overtreatment for personality quirks in the search for the perfect mental state.
People who feel a little blue for whatever reason, look for instant cures. Folks who are naturally hyper or have attention deficit problems want treatment and drugs for the quick fix.
But in the realm of serious disorders, we are still not sure of what we should do or how far we can go.
And you have a good point in that an open society has to tolerate some fuzzy edges.
But I agree with the editorial in that we should not dump mentally ill people into prisons as the solution to getting them off the streets.
We can do better than that.
I see your point and raise you one chip
You have pushed my point…I believe more education would be pointless (in many cases). Many of us have lived with a person that was/is mentally ill for years. It isn’t until they do something that is off the rocker before we notice that something isn’t right. Unfortunately, or even fortunately we live in an open society that allows these people to coexist so long as they don’t stray too far from the norm; however, the unfortunate byproduct of an open and free society is that these people are left untreated if they don’t have a person who is forceful enough to care for them. Often, what society is left with is a mentally ill patient who really needs treatment BUT has committed a crime (before their illness is discovered). Now this changes the picture the person who is injured wants (blind) justice. The question is what do we do to continue to foster an open society, treat the mentally ill and to compensate the injured party? It seems that the current system may be the only way to cope with this dilemma.
Gunny, I doubt if anyone murdered your son
that he would walk away a free man. Sane, he goes to prison; insane he goes to a hospital until he his either deemed safe or he stays forever.
I am not talking about sociopaths. I am talking about the severely mentally ill or severely mentally retarded who probably needs either constant medication or supervision, but who we have decided should fend for themselves until somebody gets hurt. Personal responsibility, you know.
You say they should have a sponsor. Would that be you? Face it, if they had someone, they probably would be getting some kind of care.
The editorial was making the case that mental illness is not something that is handled in prison. It takes time and money, just like any other disease.
We can either throw these folks under a bus (euthanize them maybe?) or accept them as citizens who need our help for either a cure or protection in a humane fashion and as a public health issue.
sorry gunny go
The vast majority of mentally ill people are not "crazy"
What we have and have had forever is a population that doesn't even understand what mental illness is. It would do many to read up on the subject before spouting off.
If mental illness treatment was more proactive there would be less crime. Sorry if anyone disagree's, but it's a fact. As far as families being more proactive, they too follow the same old, "I didn't know". Every day you pass mentally ill people on the street, you sit next to them at a bar or restaurant and never suspect there is a problem, until there is one.
The key, in my opinion, is education of the general public to become more knowledgeable of mental illness, but I bet you would find that people don't really care enough to even want to find out. To them they are just "crazy".
Civilized People help!
I agree to a point. Civilized people will assist (I hope) a person in need; however, that handicap person or heart attack person won’t be trying to rip your head off or just trying to rip you off. I believe that sociopaths are mentally ill however until they cross the line they should be allowed to live in peace BUT when they do harm they must be responsible for their actions. The same applies to mentally ill. I don’t want hear that my son was murdered by a mentally ill person and now that person is going to walk away unpunished because they are mentally sick. Someone has to be responsible. A “I’m sorry for your loss” is unacceptable; therefore, if the mentally ill are too incompetent to function in society they must have a sponsor. Otherwise, keep the laws as they are…
Gunny, that was my point
Blindness, deafness and epilepsy are not mental illnesses. We accept the fact that a person who has epilepsy cannot control his seizures, but a severely paranoid and delusional person can control himself.
Mental illness is a disease, most often genetic, and will often cause people to act irrationally through no fault of their own except that the chemistry and the neurons are not working properly.
Maybe he or she has family, and maybe not. Society needs to be prepared to take care of those who are incapable of caring for themselves, particularly if they are a danger to others. Humane treatment, not punishment is the moral and just thing to do. Just as we would treat any disease.
If a man has a heart attack in the middle of the street, do we wait for family to take care of him, or do we call for help and get him treated?
Why is severe mental illness any different?
Try again!
Very poor analogy Len Rothman last time I checked blindness isn’t considered to be a mental illness, as well as deafness (shooting any (deaf) person should be based solely how they act when approached by the police and on what they are doing that led up to the shooting) and mumbling to one’s self and hearing voices. The problem begins when the person acts on the voices. Maybe family members should become proactive with respect to their relatives. Society spends too much time making up for family shortcomings. When society has to step in and discipline a mentally ill (crazy) person that person should be dealt with harshly. The incentive is for that person’s family (hopefully love ones) to take responsibility for their kin and get them the help they need. Most often the family knows and has known that their relative etc…has had a mental problem for years. Yet they don’t do anything until that person has a run-in with the law (usually killed in the run-in).
Don, my point was that the insane
or mentally ill shouldn't be warehoused in prison, not that they should go free if they are deemed dangerous.
Prison is punishment. We have decided to place the sick in prison, rather than treat them because we don't want the expense.
Mental illness has a stigma that other, more acceptable, physical diseases do not have. Centuries ago it was deemed to be "possession", decades ago, (and still today among some religious conservatives) it was moral failure unless the illness was so severe as to require warehousing in filthy cells.
One of the cruelest parts of our justice system is that a person who is judged too insane to execute, is treated until he understands what he did when he was ill, then killed.
That is like treating an epileptic for his public grand mal seizure, then jailing him for disturbing the peace.
Very poor...
Choice of words, or comment, or editorial, whatever you want to call it.
Downplaying Cho's actions to the level of mentally ill. Just not kosher.
"Since you bring up Cho and VA Tech as an example, remember that Cho had committed numerous crimes (stalking, sexual invasions of privacy) for which he WAS NOT prosecuted because his mental illness was seen as an excuse. Had the law been enforced he would have been unable to legally buy firearms and would not have been at VA Tech, and his crimes would have brought his condition to the attention of his family in a serious manner."
That said it best.
Len, its not about punishment
Its about protecting the public from dangerous people who are also mentally ill.
Again, using Cho as an example, since the Pilot always uses him as an argument for controlling guns instead of dangerous people, had he been charged for the crimes he committed, he would have been either convicted or found insane. Either would have blocked his legal access to firearms and his victims, and would have made his family aware of the depth of his problems in spite of medical privacy laws.
By choosing to give him a pass because he was mentally ill and not prosecuting, his illness was allowed to fester until he escalated to mass murder.
Would it not have been better that he either be in jail if found to be a sane stalker or involuntarily committed and treated if insane?