You did the right thing Philip!
You don't have to apologize because you wrote the e-mail. It seems that questioning these reporters is unethical!
It's about time to, at least, send them e-mails otherwise journalism will not have a clue that they are not doing a good job.
The reporters' emails are at the end of the article.
Ops!
Wrong quotation. This is the right one:
"sometimes, people are right when they challenge their diagnoses.

PS: the expression "mainstream media" is powerful and put under suspicions their work by readers.
If they are the forth power I believe that the fifth power is starting to show it's work. And it's pretty good!

WSJ Philip, what do you expect? The very idea of tax-funded advocacy makes a freeper's head explode, but I seriously doubt P & A is under any danger of cutting under President Obama, who told NAMI he'll be hiring our kind in his administration.

I don't think I can sleep after reading that WSJ article, letter from Mom in her own handwriting and watching the video where the good doctor describes advocates as anti-psychiatry full stop, though I'd like to see what didn't make the cut, but there's Bruce expressing regret letting the dirty hippies secure his release. Talk about a hatchet job, the bias would be comical if the events were not so sad and complicated. No, he should not have been roaming free, which has fuckall to do with the rest of the story.

Thanks for writing, and sharing, that letter.

The law firm which helped sell those bills to the Maine legislature chats up its work here:

http://www.fulbright.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=news.detail&article_id=6519&site_id=286

This statement

"The revealing medical records are posted to a web site (www.amybruce.org) along with a summary and a detailed chronology. Fulbright lawyers created the documents and the Web site, which proved to be powerful tools in Joe Bruce's effort to change the laws."

may have been accurate when posted but it looks like the summary is the only document still posted there. It includes:

"Helen Bailey stated that she had reviewed the medical record (!) and saw no documentation to support William's having to remain at Riverview. Tab 16: Progress Note from the Treatment Team meeting, dated 3/23/06).

That editorial "(!)" speaks volumes. A legal agency's access to a client's medical record is in no way remarkable, and an advocate reviewing the chart is simply doing her job. To imply that it's somehow shocking or out of line is inflammatory and disingenuous.

Re: Paul "Rotting With Their Rights On" Appelbaum's comments in the video

"I think the advocacy services work best when the advocates see themselves as able to work with the doctors and the other staff at the hospital to get for the patient what that particular patient needs most.
There are advocates that don't believe that mental disorders are real, who don't believe that hospitalization has a role for any patient or that treatment for psychiatric disorders can ever be helpful."

Work best for who?

Hard to believe Professor Appelbaum is ignorant of legal advocates' obligation to take direction from their clients -- which can include advocating for their right to reject what hospital staff have decided they need most.

Consider how it would sound in reverse:

"I think clinical services work best when the providers see themselves as able to work with the patient's lawyers and other advocates to get for the client what that particular client wants most.
There are clinicians who don't believe that rights are real, who don't believe judges should be able to override clinical decisions or that refusing treatment can ever be helpful."

This story reads like a blog entry from a son and the father. It's a gripping story, yet as a mainstream news article it missed the opportunity to expand the article as stated in Philip's commentary.

I'm not sure how to say this, and will probably get eaten alive here by saying the truth, but I did get my daughter released from the state institution due to unsafe environment, and she was not well. She was the sickest (for the lack of a decent wording)she has ever been ever in her life and my life was in danger when she was home for 10 days after that.I could go on and on, but the point of this isn't how after 10 days she was deemed the most psychotic patient ever to walk into the U of Wa ER; or how I looked like a beaten and bloody CSI body.

What I want to end this with is why she was so psychotic and violent:

SHE WAS OVER MEDICATED ON 2 ANTIPSYCHOTICS and has never been violent unless SHE IS OVER MEDICATED.

THAT is where I'd like to see these extremists understand who blame lack of medication for violence when in fact all I have witnessed is violence ON meds.

The more violent patients get in psych wards the more they pump them up with meds.

The patient goes off meds and hits withdrawal psychosis and sadly blames themselves for not adhering to "treatment". When in fact it was the medications causing the violent behavior.

Medication is not the answer all of the time, and I raise the same questions, why didn't the reporters ask more?

Because they have fallen into their own mainstream media trap of believing BS from NAMI and TAC organizations.

What the answer is? I do not know.

I have yet to have one doctor or intelligent person in the "professional field" hear my words about medication-induced violence.

One piece of paperwork required of my daughter for "services outpatient" asked the question:

"How do you behave/act OFF medications?" they would not accept the answer of "OK and fine" they had no place on the form for "how do you react adversely to medications?"

The only answers they want to hear is "off meds, not good".

That is not the case, but in the government agencies that is what is expected, and that is what is expected to reside in a NAMI funded group/house home. Medication compliant or no housing. (with NAMI!, talk about biased).

I really would like to know more from the son in that story, and hear his views on how he feels on and off meds.

This push toward strengthening the laws for commitment because one guy goes bonkers is frightening. The vast majority of those with schizophrenia DO NOT hurt other people. So, we should force all people diagnosed with schizophrenia to be medicated because they might the one who turns out to be violent? That would be like saying that since some mental health professionals abuse psychiatric patients, then we should incarcerate ALL mental health professionals to prevent this from happening.

I wrote these reporters myself I was so disgusted with this story. I've actually written Elizabeth Bernstein before on an equally clueless story about suicide. Last time I tried to be respectful. This time I let it rip kind of the way Philip did. The title of my e-mail was "Shill for E. Fuller Torrey?" I notice the WSJ has been printing several articles in his support and even one by him in recent months. Maybe he's on the payroll now.
Here's the main thrust of my e-mail:
"Blackballing patient advocates without raising the slightest hint of scepticism about psychiatric treatment itself given the recent publicity and evidence about the toxic effects of psychopharmacology and the iatrogenic effects of standard treatment protocols on behavioral and physical outcomes is just mind boggling. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps the course of Bruce's behavioral and emotional problems was exacerbated rather than ameliorated by the treatments he had from the time he was a young boy? Do you think problems just might have occurred because no one ever educated him or his family about exactly how to taper off medication or what the implications of abruptly stopping medication would be? Did anyone tell him that once you start medication the risk of "rebound psychosis" if you stop is enormously increased and that rebound psychosis is far worse than any original presenting symptoms? And did anyone ever tell him that many psychiatric medications actually increase agitation, mania, psychosis and other bizarre out of character behavioral changes especially if doses are too high for an individual's particular metabolism or sensitivities. So maybe, just maybe, his mother was murdered because withdrawal was handled poorly or not at all. Or he was on some cocktail that was entirely inappropriate and poorly monitored. Now he is back on drugs and zombie like and flat in his affect being manipulated as so many victims are into becoming an advocate for the very treatment which probably drove him to murder. The only reason it's "working" for him now is because it's preventing the withdrawal that was so poorly handled so many times before. Are you not aware that outcomes for schizophrenics are actually better in those who are never medicated than in anyone who must submit to the horrors that E. Fuller Torrey is recommending? What William Bruce needs is not forced treatment with toxic and disabling drugs but a slow, carefully monitored taper and the kind of therapy that might really help him to heal. It's true that even patient advocates are often woefully ignorant of all the long term iatrogenic effects of treatments they are trying to help others avoid. Nevertheless that does not make the alternative of forced treatment the right one. You really have no clue about what you are advocating in this article and it's very disturbing. I suggest you do a lot more reading on the truth behind psychopharmacology before you write any more."
Maybe a few others here will consider writing them too. It really bothers me when such clueless articles get on the front page of a major newspaper.

Others here have written their own stories about abusive relationships with parents and the connection to mental illness.

This letter from the mother is quite eye opening in that regard. I think a look into the family dynamics would have been a good part of the story as well.

She(the mother) writes about wanting to trade yesterdays for tomorrows and this is eye opening to the possible abusive relationship of the mother toward the son:

"For every slap I would give you a hug. For everytime I attacked your self esteem."

She goes on further to discuss the break down of communication with him, and praising her first born only.

I have further questions, as to who actually committed the son, and how the advocates claimed the family was a negative force in the son's life.

At any rate, this is a very complex story, and could have been a very good series if the reporters had experience reporting mental health issues, which clearly they do not have.

"None of this would have happened if I had been medicated."

Was that article an Ad for serquel or another major tranquilizer? surely that wasn't an actual "news" article....

but more seriously, the WSJ has no integrity anymore, it just furthers the world view of NewsCorp... The Simpsons, Family Guy, Fox News, the WSJ, American Idol, all under the same corporate banner... ending creative and critical thought in the general public does seem like a good business plan for NewsCorp.

SHE WAS OVER MEDICATED ON 2 ANTIPSYCHOTICS and has never been violent unless SHE IS OVER MEDICATED.

Stephany

YES! I know.
When I was tapering Effexor I was a little violent and I've even hit a windshield with my hand closed.
Never did anything of this kind in my life.
Now I remember some of my violent behavior and numerous quarrels I had during this time - 2 years - and I can clearly see that I was out of my mind.
And there was two suicidal attempts.

Like alcohol can impare ones rational and intellectual part of the mind, so can psychiatric medications. The magical psych medications are only supposed to do only "good" things to the mind.

Ultimately even if someone hears voices , telling to do wrong , he/she still has the choice not to do so.

I wrote a email as well to the authors . I don't know if they will read their emails.

Anyone who can put a hatchet in his mother's head needs to be locked up for the remainder of his life. Yet, he's talking about law school. I hope they don't ever let him out.

I just wanted to say that I may have gone overboard on the withdrawal angle as it's quite clear William Bruce refused medication and it doesn't sound like he stayed on it for long. I still feel his treatment with medication could have worsened the course of his psychosis but it also appears his psychosis was worsening on its own in the absence of helpful, healing therapy of some kind. Of course we don't really know the details of his treatments as it relates to the progression of his psychological problems. He clearly was a high risk individual. The Abilify does seem to be quieting him now but it's also making him very flat. And any and all descriptions are of course biased by the point of view of those telling the story. Whatever the truth is and it will I'm sure always remain a mystery, the fact is Bernstein and Koppel have a very distinct point of view that neglects the complexity of dealing with mental illness as well as the iatrogenic effects of even short courses of treatment with psychiatric medication.

I agree with Lisa, in my rant about this story, one thing I carelessly left out, was the sadness I felt for the mother being murdered in such a gruesome way. No one ever deserves that, for any reason.

Yes, it's 99.99% certain Torrey's folks fed the WSJ the story; and yes, it was a blatant violation of journalistic ethics (as an ex-reporter myself) not to at least note the Torreyites' role in the story and in changing Maine law.

That said, with all due respect, it is not "f*ckall" that we end the story with one woman dead, one man widowed, and one son guilty and guilt-ridden.

And a serious question -- is a patient advocate supposed to fight for BETTER treatment or for NO treatment? We can fight about what constitutes "better" treatment until the cows come home, but the point is still an important one.

Given that there was some evidence of parental abuse that the WSJ noted but basically overlooked, even if the patient advocate concluded William Bruce was being overmedicated or wrongly medicated, how was sending him back to a potentially abusive home BETTER treatment?

Larry makes a good point. Sending William Bruce back to the environment that triggered the psychosis in the first place was not a good idea especially in the absence of any family therapy to figure out just how the dynamics were playing into WB's mental state. Often there is a profound dynamic at work creating these problems. The mother may not even have been deliberately or consciously super abusive; she just may not have known how to handle her own anxieties and emotions in the context of William's responses. I'm sure there's a darn troubled story here somewhere and William isn't the only one who needed help. And yeah, patient advocates know there's something profoundly wrong with the current system but they usually aren't too swift in knowing exactly what it is or how to ameliorate it and probably actually mistake no treatment for better treatment which isn't necessarily the case.

I can't even express my disgust with your ignorance. People like you ARE the problem with mental health care today. Did your mother's abusive treatment of you turn you into the ignorant jerk that you are today? I guess you failed biochem 101.
I just hope and pray that noone in YOUR family is ever the victim of a serious mental illness. Our family has been devastated because of laws that prevent treatment. People like YOU make our lives all the more a living hell on earth.