A Smoothie Won't Save My Child

Smoothies are undoubtedly delicious. But they don't cure
mental illness. Photo by Richard Dudley, freeimages.com

Why We Need Substantive Mental Health Reform Now

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, I tuned in to C-SPAN to watch Representative Tim Murphy and the House Oversight and Investigations SubCommittee address concerns about a lack of leadership in mental health. The hearing was convened in response to a disturbing and disappointing report from the GAO that exposed the lack of care provided to people with serious mental illness. In her testimony, SAMHSA director Pamela Hyde, an attorney, essentially admitted that she doesn’t believe serious mental illness exists, but rather that people move in and out of illness and recovery.

I’m not sure what the job qualifications are for someone who heads up a multi-billion dollar organization tasked with coordinating care for people with mental illness. But I’m pretty sure one of them should be actually believing that mental illness exists. What if the head of the Department of Health and Human Services was an antivaxxer whose response to the Disneyland measles outbreak was to tell parents to exercise their free choice and take their kids to measles parties? Would we let that person keep her job? To me, this analogy describes Ms. Hyde’s dangerous position on mental illness, or as she prefers to call it, “behavioral health.”

Make no mistake: we’re in a public health crisis with mental illness, one that is far more serious than the measles outbreak. We need our leaders to acknowledge the scope of this crisis and to take decisive action, now.

That same morning, as I watched the hearing, I received a desperate plea by email. The author has given me permission to share this story with you, though I will not share her name, because this is an ongoing situation. But her story puts a human face on the GAO report and the magnitude of the health crisis that parents of children with mental illness are experiencing.

I hope that Pamela Hyde and all the people who think that mental illness doesn't exist read this desperate parent's plea. I hope Ms. Hyde starts to understand how badly our mental healthcare system has failed children, families, and communities. And then I hope she drinks a smoothie, one of SAMHSA's recommended treatments for behavioral health—and quietly resigns.

A Mother's Story

This is so hard for me. I had hoped and prayed that my daughter’s illness could be handled in private, and I fiercely protected her privacy. I’ve made up all kinds of stories trying to cover up where she is and what she is doing. When something did come out publicly, I put a spin on it because I was worried about how stigma would affect her.

But now her illness has caused her to end up missing for nearly
five days. So now I must tell you what it’s like to live this nightmare every day.

And I want all of you, ESPECIALLY those of you who think you know exactly what you would do if you were me, to SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO ME!

Just shut up NOW! 

Now you may be wondering how we got here. Well, my daughter has been struggling for a long time. While her diagnosis, signs and symptoms as well as the details regarding her disappearance aren’t something  I will share, I will share the following: 

• Self-directed treatments. FAIL. 
• Forced hospitalizations. FAIL. 
• Voluntary hospitalizations. FAIL
• Conventional Treatment. Alternative Treatment. FAIL. FAIL.
• No meds. Too many meds. Right amount of meds. FAIL FAIL FAIL
• FAIL.

I let her go. I hung on. I told her what to do. I backed off. 

I got into her business. I gave her privacy.

I surrounded her with loved ones. I left her alone. 

I attached. I detached.

I encouraged her to get a job. I encouraged her to go on disability.

I went to work to keep myself occupied and give structure to my life, and then I had to quit my job in order to accommodate her illness. 

I spent every dime I had in the bank.  

I researched every illness that could induce such behavior. I took her to specialists.
I was even schooled on boundaries by her and her therapist. I was told that I needed to let HER decide everything. 

Did you know that a person in a state of full-blown psychosis gets to have a say in their treatment?

And did you know that an adult with severe mental illness can exclude everyone, including their caregivers from having access to information?

We were told that the only thing that would work was for her to be admitted to a full time residential facility. However, due to the public facility being booked and our inability to afford the expensive price tag for private care, we had no options except what our insurance would pay. So I confidently looked to our insurance company and trusted that they would pay for her recommended care. 

FAIL. Even though our coverage offers residential treatment, they only approve two to three days at a time. You get the authorization usually at the end of the third day. They normally decline and you have to appeal. And no matter what the doctor recommends, some pencil pushing bureaucrats at the insurance company get to decide whether or not your child is doing better and will approve or deny based on their decision, not the doctor’s. 

Offering residential looks good in the employee handbook, but doesn’t mean much when they can wiggle out of it when they don’t want to pay.

My daughter was doing quite well in her program until they refused to pay after two weeks. 

I contacted dozens of therapeutic communities, farms, and other residential settings from across the country. But the cost of care averaged $10,000 per month. I don’t have that kind of money. 
And all those famous programs you read about, you know, the ones with the slick ads? Try $2,000 per DAY! And they don’t take insurance.

But even if we could afford it, these care facilities won’t take my daughter if she doesn’t want to be there.
And I could NOT make her. I considered conservatorship, but the private facility where she was going would not accept her with it. Like many private facilities, they will only accept a patient who is going there willingly.  

Her so-called "rights" as a patient with mental illness assure her the opportunity to even live homeless if she chooses, no matter how sick she is. Hey, it’s her "choice"!

So last September, with no other options available, I brought her home. 

I hoped and prayed that things were going to continue to get better for her. I watched for signs. Then last week, she started showing signs of decompensation. I had started the process of getting her back to the doctor when it all came crashing down. 

And then she took off for five days. Today she is back safe and in a hospital, but what will happen next is anyone’s guess.

The bottom line is that like many people with severe mental illness, my daughter needs full-time,and if necessary, court ordered residential medical care. You can love your child, but the family isn’t enough when they need constant supervision. And you can allow them certain freedoms, but when they are too ill to make decisions, you need support in forcing them to get care.

I believe full time supervision would have prevented this downturn.

And as much as I believe that Assisted Outpatient Treatment needs to be an option for people with mental illness who are able to remain in their communities, I don’t think in her case that it would work. I was already told that a first request for it would more than likely denied, especially since she had recently agreed to go to therapy and follow protocol. 

My daughter is a highly gifted young woman with a world of opportunities waiting for her, but sadly, thanks to this mental illness, she is now disabled.

For years I have tried to figure out what went wrong. I have analyzed nearly every interaction and I cannot figure it all out. 

And I can sit here all day, with all the other caregivers who live this nightmare daily and blame myself and try to figure out what I could have done differently.

But I can’t figure it out.

I do know that I have loved this girl from the moment of conception, and I cannot fully express to you how bad my heart hurts over this.

But I just can’t save her. I really tried. Our whole family did. 

But nothing works except residential care. 

And I’m hoping that we can access that care for her before it’s too late.

Sins of the Mother

A child's death by suicide is every mother's worst nightmare.

Why Blaming Nancy Lanza for Adam’s Illness Is Easy (and Why We Need to Stop)

“Mom, I don’t want to be anymore.” My son, four years old, his eyes swollen and red from sobbing, burrowed his white duck-fuzz head against my chest.

I froze. “What do you mean?” I asked gently. “Everything is okay now. The nightmare is over.”

He looked up at me. “I want to be a zero,” he replied. “I don’t want to be anymore. I want to be a zero.”

Nothing in the parenting books or classes about preschool behavior prepares you for this: your young child’s desire to end his own life. True, “Michael’s” nightmares were getting worse, and he sometimes sleepwalked. Days could be even tougher: Michael would throw tantrums that lasted for hours and left us both exhausted. I didn’t know what to do.

As he grew older, his suicidal thoughts became more frequent and more detailed. He threatened to kill himself several times a week. Though I normalized many things about my son’s unpredictable and sometimes violent behavior, I never got over the suicide threats. They still haunt me.

For this reason, I followed Brittney Maynard’s tragic life-ending choice with a different perspective than many people. While I respect her struggle and her wish to end it (I too have lost a loved one to cancer), I know many other young people who are diagnosed with a serious, life-threatening illness who repeatedly express a desire to end their own lives. My son was one of them.

So was Adam Lanza.

Now a new report from Connecticut’s Office of the Child Advocate details the many ways the system failed Adam, and the children he killed at Newtown in December 2012.  One significant finding: Adam was “completely untreated in the years before the shooting and did not receive sustained, effective services during critical periods of his life.”

In fact, if you read the summary of Adam’s early life, it looks like my son’s (and many other children’s) path. Adam had developmental challenges in early childhood. I’m sure at least one person told Nancy, “He’s just a boy,” or “He’ll grow out of it.” School personnel identified social/emotional challenges that became more apparent after fourth grade. I’m sure that’s when they started suggesting that Nancy home school her son, ostensibly for his own good, but actually to prevent disruptions in the learning environment. He was initially evaluated by a costly outside expert (Yale), with a recommendation for a comprehensive treatment plan of the type, no doubt, that bankrupts even moderately wealthy families like the Lanzas. In this respect, my son differs from Adam: we never had access to that kind of resource until my blog about Newtown went viral.

Where my son’s path diverged from Adam’s is at age 13, when my son was finally diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Since that diagnosis and treatment began, my son has not had any violent behavioral outbursts or suicidal thoughts. He is back in a mainstream high school, doing well in all his classes, writing a sequel to his first novel (tentatively entitled The Demigods from Outer Space), and starting a chess club.

But here’s the thing: I don’t attribute my son’s remarkable progress to anything special about my parenting. I was lucky, period. I got a diagnosis for him, and medications that work. And most importantly, I was able to intervene before my son turned 18, despite the many wrong turns we took in the baffling and fragmented mental health care maze early on.

When I tell people—including media professionals—that parents cannot help their sick children after the age of 18, many of them are surprised. After all, if your 20-year old son was in a car accident and suffered a traumatic brain injury, you would be right there by his side, communicating with his healthcare team, and likely even making decisions about his care if he lacked the capacity to do so.

When your child has a serious mental illness and is over the age of 18, it doesn’t work like that. Serious mental illness is classified as “behavioral health,” and in most cases, people who have behavioral health problems have the right to refuse treatment.   The very public spectacle of Amanda Bynes’s breakdown has introduced many people to this terrible parental conundrum for the first time.

Unlike me, Nancy Lanza was incredibly unlucky. Yet the Child Advocate report, in the time-honored tradition as old as Eve of blaming the mother, concludes that Nancy “enabled” her son and was perhaps in denial of the seriousness of his illness.

I completely understand how that can happen to a parent who has tried, many times, to get services, and failed. I completely understand how that can happen to a mother who is raising a potentially violent son on her own, without support. And I can completely understand how that can happen to a parent in a society that stigmatizes mental illness and medication, that insists on treating mental illness as a “choice” rather than as a disorder.

Through the years, bit by bit, Nancy normalized Adam’s extremely abnormal behavior. In fact, what seems very bizarre to outsiders becomes “normal” for many families who are struggling with mental illness. This concept is difficult to understand unless you have actually lived it. But if you are living it, I know you’re nodding your head in agreement right now.

High profile murder-suicides like Columbine or Newtown bring attention to the problem of mental illness. Yet two years after Newtown, we still don’t have solutions for children and families. And two years later, both this most recent report and the media are still blaming the mother.

What will it take? How many more families will suffer from tragedies because we lack effective treatments?

Mental health professionals tell us that suicide is preventable. But if numbers are not decreasing, it’s clear we need better solutions, beginning with earlier diagnosis and intervention for children who suffer. That’s one area where I agree completely with the Connecticut Child Advocate report.  A child’s death by suicide is every mother’s worst nightmare. Though Nancy Lanza paid the ultimate price when she couldn’t get help for her son, at least she was spared this: she didn’t live to see her child kill— or die by suicide.

Commit or Complete?

Why we need to choose our words more carefully when we talk about suicide

credit: TreatmentbeforeTragedy.org

On August 12, 2014, as the tragic news of Robin Williams’s death spread like a contagion through my Twitter feed, I realized something: you could tell how old people were by the movie lines they quoted in response. For me, it was Dead Poet’s Society, that iconic struggle of life (and death), and the Walt Whitman line, “That the powerful play goes on, and you may contribute a verse.” Or a whole stanza, when you’re an epic figure like Robin Williams.

My next thought, though, was of David Foster Wallace. I took his 2008 suicide pretty hard. Foster Wallace was one of those authors with whom I had an intellectual affair of sorts—when I read Infinite Jest, I felt like he was speaking to me in a code that only he and I could understand. So of course, upon learning that Robin Williams’s heroic struggle with lifelong depression had ended, I thought of Foster Wallace’s description of why people who suffer from a choice-stealing brain disease sometimes end their own lives:

“The so-called ‘psychotically depressed’ person who tries to kill herself doesn’t do so out of quote ‘hopelessness’ or any abstract conviction that life’s assets and debits do not square. And surely not because death seems suddenly appealing. The person in whom Its invisible agony reaches a certain unendurable level will kill herself the same way a trapped person will eventually jump from the window of a burning high-rise.”

I felt the exact same sadness upon learning of Robin Williams’s untimely exit from this world that I would have felt if I had learned that his struggle with cancer or any other disease had ended. But not everyone saw it that way. If you didn’t read Matt Walsh’s tone-deaf diatribe describing suicide as a choice, don’t. But if you did, see how his words read when the word “depression” is replaced with “cancer,” and you’ll have some idea of how hard it still is to talk about mental illness.

Also, incidents like this give us an opportunity to talk about cancer, and we certainly should.  Only we shouldn’t turn the subject into a purely cold, clinical matter. “Chemical imbalances,” people say. “A man is cancerous because of his brain chemicals, and for no other reason.” 

No, we are more than our brains and bigger than our bodies. Cancer is a mental affliction, yes, but also spiritual. That isn’t to say that a cancerous person is evil or weak, just that his cancer is deeper and more profound than a simple matter of disproportioned brain chemicals. And before I’m accused of being someone who “doesn’t understand,” let me assure you that I have struggled with this my entire life.

Like Matt Walsh, like many people, I have had my own struggles with depression. David Foster Wallace’s description of suicide resonates with me so strongly because late one night, in the throes of despair at the end of my marriage, overwhelmed by a loss of faith, I thought I was at the top of a burning building, and I thought I would have to jump. In that moment of agony, I truly believed there was no other way, that the world would be a better place without me.

And in that moment, by chance or by grace, one of my children woke up and came to me, like an angel, and said, “I love you,” and cuddled in my arms, his head snuggled just below my chin, like he did as a baby. I’m probably remembering this quote wrong, but I think the Greek dramatist Sophocles said something like “Children are the anchors that hold a mother to life.” In that moment, anchored to life by my sweet child, I knew I could—and would—escape the burning building and live.

But unlike Matt Walsh, I do not begin to presume that my ability to survive serious thoughts of suicide was in any way due to something special about me. I’m not strong or brave or unselfish; I was lucky. And I had an incredibly happy childhood, which makes up for a whole host of ignominies later in life. Very few people in this world are as fortunate as I am, and I give thanks for what I have every single day.

Words have power. And words are our only way to move beyond the solipsistic existence of our own minds and into shared community with others. Yet the existential conundrum of life is that we are all, ultimately, alone. As Andrew Solomon noted in his poignant tribute to Williams, “The Crime of Loneliness,”

“A great hope gets crushed every time someone reminds us that happiness can be neither assumed nor earned; that we are all prisoners of our own flawed brains; that the ultimate aloneness in each of us is, finally, inviolable.” 

Which brings me to language, that mechanism of hope that sometimes allows us to escape the prison of our own minds. Here’s the thing: the word “commit” and the word “suicide” don’t belong together. They just don't.

In certain contexts—career, relationships, goals—the word “commit” has positive connotations. My friend Heidi Reeder’s book Commit to Win, for example, outlines strategies to succeed in work and life by harnessing the power of positive commitment. I think we would all agree that this kind of commitment—a choice to focus on the people and things that matter most to us—is good.

But in mental illness, the word “commit,” in both its active (e.g., “to commit suicide”) and passive (e.g., “to be committed to an institution”) forms, has damaging connotations that falsely convey a sense of choice where too often no meaningful choice exists. People don’t “commit” suicide. They die by suicide, or they complete suicide (too often after more than one attempt).

Dr. Thomas Joiner has made it his life’s work to understand why mental illness sometimes leads to death by suicide; he notes that the rarity of suicide notes suggests how profoundly alone and unable to communicate people who take their own lives feel at the end of their existence:

“To say that persons who die by suicide are lonely at the time of their deaths is a massive understatement. Loneliness, combined with alienation, isolation, rejection, and ostracism, is a better approximation. Still, it does not fully capture the suicidal person’s state of mind. In fact, I believe it is impossible to articulate the phenomenon, because it is so beyond ordinary experience. Notes are rare because most decedents feel alienated to the point that communication through a note seems pointless or does not occur to them at all." 

Much has been written about mental illness and stigma. I myself have said that “it’s time to talk about mental illness.” But as Dr. Joiner observes in his 2010 book, Myths about Suicide, “Talk about suicide is not cheap.” With suicide, the stakes are very real.

There are therapeutic treatments for mental illness, just like there are therapeutic treatments for cancer. But with both diseases, not everyone survives. Robin Williams’s death was a tragedy, but it also gave us an opportunity to speak up, to share our stories, and to demand better treatments, earlier interventions, and evidence-based care for brain disease. We need Treatment before Tragedy.

The words we use to describe suicide—and mental illness—matter. They shape our very understanding of the disease, and how we treat the people who have it, including ourselves and our loved ones.

As William Stafford, himself a venerable member of the Dead Poet’s Society, wrote (far better than I could, and with words I think Robin Williams would appreciate):

"And so I appeal to a voice, to something shadowy,
a remote important region in all who talk:
though we could fool each other, we should consider--
lest the parade of our mutual life get lost in the dark.

For it is important that awake people be awake,
or a breaking line may discourage them back to sleep;
the signals we give—yes or no, or maybe—
should be clear: the darkness around us is deep."

The Great Divide

Hendric Stattmann"The Grand Canyon"

Two bills in Congress, both designed to improve mental healthcare, reveal a growing rift in the mental health community

Like many parents of children with mental illness, I have spent much of my life feeling isolated. At social events or the morning water cooler, while other parents share their children’s accomplishments—“Mary got elected to Student Council! John got the MVP award for his soccer team!”—I am usually silent. It’s hard to brag about how your child was able to plead his misdemeanor battery charge down to a mere juvenile beyond control status offense, or how he was the star patient in his psychiatric ward last weekend, even though both are arguably notable accomplishments.



When I finally spoke out about the struggles my family faced, I found an instant new community of friends, mothers like me who had become vocal advocates for their children’s care. But I also discovered that not every mental health advocate supports the same goals I do. This rift in the very advocacy community that should be supporting parents like me and kids like my son has been growing for a while. The divide has widened even further after the tectonic tragedy in Santa Barbara, when a young man whose parents had sought treatment for his mental illness for years took his own life—and the lives of six other people.

At its center is a disagreement about serious mental illness—schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression—and the best ways to care for this vulnerable population. That disagreement is evident in the contrast between two proposed bills that both seek to remedy America’s broken mental health care system. To my mind, the biggest difference between the two bills is this: one treats people with serious mental illness. The other does not.



One of the most controversial features of Representative Murphy’s HR3717, the “Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act,” is its Assisted Outpatient Treatment requirements, which the opposition has labeled “forced treatment.” Yet even Representative Barber, the author of the second bill, acknowledged on Monday’s Diane Rehm Show that “involuntary treatment is necessary from time to time.” And many of the provisions in HR 3717, including a revision of HIPAA laws, might have stopped Jared Loughner before he shot Rep. Barber in Tucson.



Dr. John Grohol and others like him are worried about “arbitrary distinctions” in mental illness he says HR 3717 creates. I agree with Dr. Grohol’s point that all mental illness can be crippling or even deadly, just as a cold, if left untreated, can lead to fatal pneumonia. But I also think we do need distinctions in mental health, just as we have them in physical health. The current focus on behavior rather than organic brain disease is the real challenge in making sure that people with serious mental illness get the medical care that they need. As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, “Oh SAMHSA, Where Art Thou?” there is no readily apparent or useful information for me, as a parent of a child with serious mental illness, on SAMHSA’s home page. And this is the government agency tasked with providing resources to people with mental illness!



As I read the opposition’s often vitriolic attacks on mothers like G.G. Burns, a friend of mine who shared her family’s painful story with Diane Rehm yesterday, I’m reminded more of religion than science. We have this very human tendency to rely on our own belief systems about the mind, and especially about our ability to choose and to be accountable for our choices, rather than looking at the choice-stealing reality of brain disease. G.G., in talking about her efforts to get treatment for her son, told a harsh truth: “We are forced to watch our loved ones die with their rights on. Without help, there is no hope.”



The comments section of Diane’s show demonstrates the wide variety of challenges parents continue to face, and why so many of us are still afraid to share our stories. We have the mental illness deniers, the Mad in America anti-medication crowd, the folks who blame our bad parenting, the consumers who think that everyone with mental illness can seek treatment and recover like they did, and the E.F. Torrey haters (and boy, are they an angry bunch! They should try some SAMHSA sponsored yoga!).

Still, I think that a robust discussion about HR3717 is a good thing. Task-oriented conflict can ensure that the end result—fixing our broken mental healthcare system—is the best it can possibly be. And certainly the experiences of people who have experienced involuntary commitment need to be carefully considered (see this powerful essay at "The System is Broken," for example ). I wish Diane Rehm had included the voices of people with serious mental illness on her show.

But when we rely on our belief systems about what mental illness is (or isn’t), when we retreat to our anecdotal or lived experiences rather than considering other points of view, it can be too easy for the dialogue to devolve into person-centered attacks rather than focusing on productive, inclusive solutions. We don’t have time for any more of that kind of talk. The consequences of inaction on mental illness are unacceptable. We cannot continue to treat serious mental illness in prison, or to ignore it on the streets. That’s why I support HR 3717.

Oh SAMHSA, Where Art Thou?

Forced treatment already exists. It's called prison.

What did Newtown mean, if we can’t get help for children and families in mental health crisis?

I have a confession to make. Until about a year ago, I had no idea what SAMHSA was. I had never even heard of it. My son has struggled with serious behavioral issues for more than nine years, which we now know are caused by his bipolar disorder. We were working with a small army of social workers, counselors, school personnel, psychiatrists, therapists—and I was well-versed in a small textbook of acronyms like IEP, SMI, ADHD, ODD, ADA, etc. But not one time was SAMHSA or any of its programs ever mentioned to me as a resource.

I’m going to assume that you’re like me, that you also have no idea what SAMHSA is or what it stands for. It’s the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and it’s important because it gives out a ton of grant money—they have requested $3.6 billion for next year—to community organizations, many of which I also personally support with my own time and money. According to the agency’s own website, “Congress established the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in 1992 to make substance use and mental disorder information, services, and research more accessible.”

Well, to put it bluntly, if that’s its mission, SAMHSA sucks.

A New Kind of Stigma

One of SAMHSA’s top priorities is the elimination of stigma that surrounds mental illness. And that’s important, because stigma harms children and families. DJ Jaffe of mentalillnesspolicy.org recently argued that stigma does not exist—that prejudice and discrimination are the real problem. I disagree with him on the first point, but could not agree more fervently with the second.

You don’t have to go any farther than the SAMHSA webpage to see an example of prejudice and discrimination against people with serious mental illness. Look around. Can you find anything—even the littlest thing—that talks about SMI? The message I get from SAMHSA is this: “Behavioral health is essential to health. Prevention Works. People Recover. Treatment is effective.”

I wish this were always true. For people with serious mental illness, people like my son, too often it’s not.

Pretty words, no substance

SAMHSA, the very organization tasked with serving children who have mental illness and their families, creates stigma by refusing to talk about—let alone provide solutions for—the inconvenient truths that plague too many of us: violence, prison, homelessness, fear. In fact, in its focus on “behavioral health” and “recovery,” I would propose that SAMHSA actually creates its own pernicious, subversive form of stigmatization within the very community that is supposed to be supporting people with mental illness.

Behavioral health implies choice. So does recovery. SAMHSA promotes a consumer model, where people with behavioral problems choose to get help and recover. The problem is that this approach does not reflect reality. For many people who suffer from Serious Mental Illness—schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or major depression—choice is not an option.

Forced Treatment Already Exists. It’s Called Prison.

Why does this matter? Because right now, Representative Tim Murphy has proposed legislation that would overhaul our nation’s broken mental health system, providing much needed treatment to people with serious mental illness and restoring accountability to SAMHSA, an organization that has suffered from a massive dose of mission creep. HR 3717, the “Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act,” was drafted after extensive consultation with parents like me, consumers of mental health care, law enforcement professionals, and other stakeholders in this increasingly serious mental health crisis that has created an environment where mass shootings or stabbings barely make the news anymore.

But community organizations are out in full force against the bill. I know this, because as I mentioned, I volunteer for many organizations, and I am on their mailing lists. The primary rallying cry against the bill seems to be the idea of “forced treatment,” or treating people against their will. Here’s an example of the type of language they are using:

[HR 3717] is intentionally designed to make it sound benign and to gloss over the potential harm and many rights violations. For example, 'increase access to mental health treatment,' in many instances, means increased force. Empowering 'family members' means taking away privacy protections and rights to confidentiality for adults in mental health services. Expanding 'access to evidence-based treatments,' means eliminating access to alternatives that don't have the funds to become 'evidence-based.' Advancing 'medical research' means severely reducing funds to other groups and organizations, including the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). 

Oh, I get it. You can’t show any measurable outcomes for your education or anti-stigma or peer support program, and you are afraid you’ll lose your funding.

As a response, Democrats are rumored to be presenting their own mental health bill this week, eliminating the provisions of Murphy’s bill which would have helped families in mental health crisis the most. What I want to say to these probably well-meaning representatives is this: forced treatment for people with mental illness already exists. It’s called prison. E.F. Torrey, the mental health industry’s Cassandra, issued a clear-eyed warning about treating serious mental illness in jail back in 1993, and today, the problem is even larger.  

What Murphy’s bill actually calls for is Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT), and it’s a proven way to keep people out of jail and off the streets. In drafting HR 3717, Rep.Murphy, a child psychologist, did his homework. He talked to those of us who are living this nightmare. He knows what we need to prevent another tragedy like what happened to Creigh Deeds, or to countless other families. I want to ask those representatives who are not supporting Murphy: what did Newtown mean, if we can’t get help for children and families in mental health crisis?

I’m Okay, You’re Okay

The thing is, I also agree with SAMHSA. For neurotypical people like me, behavioral health is incredibly important to overall health and quality of life. I know this firsthand. Like most Americans, I have personally experienced bouts of situational depression. My senior year of college, I broke off an engagement. My father was dying of cancer. I could not experience any joy or imagine any meaning to life. I became passively suicidal and began to control the only thing I felt I could control: my daily intake of food.

Fortunately, my wonderful roommates intervened and got me help. I learned to overcome my negative thoughts, to exercise, to practice yoga. I developed resilience. I am grateful to the therapists, and yes, to the Zoloft, that got me through that dark period in my life. The tools I learned have proved invaluable to me as I have faced even greater challenges throughout my life. And I return to therapy whenever I need an objective third party to help me realistically assess my situational challenges. I guess you could say I’m in recovery.

This kind of thing doesn’t work for my son who has bipolar disorder. Not at all. The recovery model doesn’t work all that well for a subset of the population who suffer from addiction, either, as Philip Seymour Hoffman’s tragic death demonstrated.

In “The Lie of Focusing on Those with Serious Mental Illness,” Dr. John Grohol argued that we should treat all mental illness equally.  I respectfully disagree. We need to provide help and hope to families in crisis, before the next Newtown, before the next (insert location of most recent mass shooting). Our current system of forced treatment—prison—or no treatment—homelessness—must end.