EDITORIAL: Misconceived mental health legislation

Nov. 22--When it comes to national legislation for mental health, there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and reforms that are too sweeping will only destabilize an already floundering system. Our congressmen and congresswomen should be aware of that. And they should listen to the voices of those whom legislation could affect, like the ones in last Sunday's front-page story in The Frederick News-Post.

In the case of U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy's Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act of 2015, which is meant to address the need for more mental health services nationwide, advocates locally are strenuously objecting: "[T]he act is wrongheaded and could even harm those it seeks to help, according to some people and experts working in the Frederick mental health community," News-Post reporter Patti Borda Mullins summed up.

"Peer therapy advocates, such as On Our Own of Frederick, fault the resolution for potentially restricting patient rights, associating violence with mental illnesses, and forcibly drugging patients, said Eric Wakefield, On Our Own's executive director," the story continues.

The momentum behind mental health legislation, Murphy's bill included, has grown following several high-profile shootings. The congressman's proposal has been a work in progress since the 2012 elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

"These last few months we could call the Bloody Summer of 2015" because of a string of mass shootings, Murphy said, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette earlier this month. "I know people want to find solutions to this," he said. "The pain is too great, the body count is always climbing and we cannot [accept] the status quo."

The problem is, opponents believe the bill does the exact opposite -- especially as it proposes to dismantle Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. For the individual, the legislation will frighten people away from treatment and rob them of privacy. Patients would have less say in their own treatment and families could become too involved, Wakefield told The News-Post.

"It gives [families of patients] the wrong kind of power," Wakefield said. "Families, properly educated and supported, can be a huge part of the solution. Without that, the families tend to perpetuate the problem."

Significantly, the mental health legislation will do little to reduce the number of shootings in the U.S.

"Most people who suffer from mental illness are not violent, and most violent acts are committed by people who are not mentally ill," Dr. Renee Binder, president of the American Psychiatric Association, told the Associated Press in July. Her comment -- which is worth reiterating, because our lawmakers don't seem to have inwardly digested the fact -- came in July, after John Russell Houser killed two people and wounded nine before killing himself at a Louisiana movie theater.

Houser had a history of mental health issues and, according to the AP, was at one point ordered by a judge to be involuntarily committed for psychiatric care.

While we're advocates of increased funding, support and services for the mentally ill in our community, it's time to uncouple that discussion from gun control. Reform to our mental health system -- and make no mistake, reform is badly needed -- should be based on the facts, not a bogeyman that stigmatizes sufferers and makes it harder to get the treatment they desperately need. And that's what Murphy's legislation appears to do.

As Democratic Rep. Joe Kennedy, of Massachusetts, puts it: "This bill makes it easier to involuntarily commit the mentally ill into a system unequipped to provide them with the treatment that they need."

In this field, reform must be handled gently so as not to do more harm than good.

___

(c)2015 The Frederick News-Post (Frederick, Md.)

Visit The Frederick News-Post (Frederick, Md.) at www.fredericknewspost.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.