Phillip,

Thanks for this. It's good to see the truth in print. If there is indeed a slight increase in violence among the mentally ill, I wonder, how is mental illness defined for the purposes of being counted as violent? Is everyone who has ever seen a therapist counted among the population of "mentally ill?"

Sally

TAC has an in at the Washington Post, both in the news and editorial sections. One editorial writer promised to put me in her rolodex before future editorials, but she never did. Plus, never forget that the TAC director and Sally Satel are best friends and Satel gets published in the NYT and the New Republic despite being a lousy writer who does no or poor research on what she writes and being a shill for the Bush administration and big Pharma.

I think it's telling that while TAC keeps a blog, they don't allow comments. For them, it's all about a one-way conversation -- their making the research sound like it's saying one thing when in fact, it's saying something very different.

Brainwashing the general public with their own agenda. In my opinion, they keep comments closed because it prevents the truth from getting into "print" on their one-sided blog. They are the base of the media hype that controls the stigma against mentally ill people that TAC claims to want to remove. TAC is the fuel to the fire and is shamelessly promoting stigma.

You're absolutely right, Philip. TAC's material is hate speech and I wonder if our legal beagles (calling Jim Gottstein) would take this on.

The esteemed E. Fuller Torrey compares an unmedicated mentally ill person to someone with active tuberculosis sitting in a crowded theatre. As an unmedicated bipolar, I find that analogy extremely offensive.

One issue that gets lost in all this, of course, is that forced drugging is itself a very serious form of violence, to say nothing of a human rights violation. TAC's assumptions that these tragedies could have been avoided by forced medication are just that -- assumptions. They are unprovable assertions which play on the public's fear of the loonies. E. Fuller Torrey is an odious turd.

What if research determined that a minority group's members were statistically more likely to commit a crime? Would TAC support laws restricting the freedom of minorities on that basis? And, if they did, would the mainstream media take their position seriously?

As a group, the mentally ill suffer more hardship and discrimination than any other. It is simply unacceptable to have E. Fuller Torrey speak as an authority on these matters. Torrey's a quack and should stick with his "kitty litter causes schizophrenia" research.

Speaking of prejudice, I recently wormed out of several insurance agents the real reason I can't obtain life or health insurance of any use, even through the National Association for the Self-Employed or the AARP. It's not my mild hypertension or the chronic pain in my back--it's that I'm bipolar. I haven't been hospitalized in over ten years and have never attempted suicide. That's not important, just the outdated actuarial statistics. They will insure insulin-dependent diabetics now. Given modern treatment options, which allow me for the most part a normal life, I find this attitude medieval. But what ya gonna do?

As far as I know, there has never been a time in American history when there wasn't some group or other that was treated with this kind of bigotry. It seems to me the mainstream population always needs some group of outsiders to unite against in order to assure themselves of their own worth.

From what I know of history, Torrey and his type seem a lot like modern-day versions of the anti-immigrant bigots of the late 1800s and early 1900s. The libel and slander that they heap upon people called "mentally ill" is not much different than what used to be directed at whatever immigrant group was the most recent to arrive here in large numbers.

What Dr. Torrey says about "the mentally ill" today seems to echo the things that were said about Irish immigrants in the mid-1800s, or Italian immigrants a few decades later. It seems like just the same old thing with a slightly different spin. And this country has always had demagogues, like the dear doctor, willing and able to aggrandize themselves by expoiting the fears and hatred towards the latest group trying to fit in.

But Philip, I thought they were fine folks? ;)

Nice post.

I was reading some of TAC's comments on NAMI's blog and this latest gem they wrote. It just leaves me feeling very tired. It seems like their goal is to allow any psychiatrist to determine a patient has impaired judgment and be able to stick them in the hospital. If you don't take these pills, then off to the hospital. That scares the hell out of me. I also find it interesting that some of the proponents of lowering the qualification standards for "assisted" aka forced treatment are themselves showing signs of impaired judgment. Some of them are seriously overweight which I would guess is against most doctors' recommendations - it increases their risk of stroke, diabetes,heart disease, sleep apnea, and on and on and on. We better start rounding up the obese and forcing them to exercise and get on a proper eating plan, because they're killing themselves. Just think how many lives we could save if we forced people to take their antihypertensive meds, eat their fruits and veggies, lay off the baked goods, and exercise. Who cares about civil liberties if we're saving lives, right?

LIsa,

I agree with you that TAC seems to want psychaitrists to lock up anyone who they feel has impaired judgment. Since you can't be released from a psychicatric hospital unless you take medication that impairs your judgment, anytime anyone taking a psych drug presents to a psychiatrist his or her judgment is impaired and thus he can immediately be locked up. Scary.

Excellent post, Lisa. The difference might be that people fear mental illness (as opposed to fat, which only disgusts them) and fear is a powerful motivator. What people don't seem to realize, however, is that a psychiatric diagnosis can happen to anyone -- so every member of our society is potentially subject to forced treatment. It's not just the guy muttering to himself on the street corner; it could also be you or your neighbour. Forced treatment is one of the primary civil rights issues of our time. Yet, the BC Civil Liberties Union has nothing much to say on the matter. The concept of civil liberties apparently doesn't apply to the psychiatrically labelled. That's just got to change.

A related story:

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s2i20928

psychiatry is nothing more than witchcraft