Have we learned from Virginia Tech?

This past weekend, a documentary aired about a mentally ill man in New Mexico who went on a killing spree. While there were symptoms and treatment preceding the event, it still transpired. Relatives and commentators blamed the mental health system.

Days after the airing of the show, a Virginia Tech student killed over 30 people on the campus. The mental health system, among other things, was blamed.

The symptoms were as plain as day, starting with the stalking of a couple women. Apparently, he imposed himself repeatedly with annoying and disturbing messages, which is a red flag. The stalker psychosis usually follows the steps of infatuation (often, one way), obsession and then hostility.

While he spoke with few people, his writings were his rants. They reflected anger and violence. These people are frequently enraged by things; usually things that they imagine to be true or that just don’t bother normal people very much. They also dwell upon violence and/or weapons.

All the signs were there that he was a ticking bomb. At several junctures, he was referred or ordered into therapy. So, the mental health system did fail?

The mental health system can only do what funding, law and the client permits. These factors do not facilitate enforced resident care of every one who presents symptoms.

It is estimated that one person in five is diagnosable at any given time. This isn’t to say that 20% of us are dangerous. That would be a small portion of that.

The remainder corresponds somewhat to medical ailments. Some people have chronic illnesses, and others can “catch” something, as when a traumatic event triggers clinical depression or other problems. Sufferers do not admit to a mental illness and submit to treatment the way they would with another disease. And, for some reason, we do not fund treatment on a par with medical illnesses. This is true on the government subsidized side, but is even worse when it comes to insurance.

We are limited as to what we can do to impose treatment upon someone. In most cases, we have no more right to require someone to go to treatment or be hospitalized for a psychosis than we do for a heart condition. And, if we did, there are scarce facilities for it, and they are dwindling.

The mentally ill often avoid treatment, or submit and “walk though the motions.” Being dysfunctional, they frequently do not even perceive that their behavior and thoughts are vastly different from the vast majority of “normal” people.”

Until the day comes when there is funding, facilities and authority to address the mentally ill, do what you can on your own. Learn to recognize the signs (obsessions, outbursts, hostility, excessive reclusion or attention seeking, delusions, etc.). You can tell the difference between chronic symptoms and someone having that bad day.

If you are close to someone, you may be able to sell the benefits of getting treatment. If not, avoid confrontation or even contact. Do not argue with the mentally ill. Facts and logic mean nothing to them. They have their own reality and you’re not going to change that.

Document any hostile actions or communications you receive from them and notify the proper people about it. If they refer to others, pass it along. They should be made aware that they are targeted and what they’re dealing with.

Just as many people suffer allergies, a multitude suffers mental illness. They are all around you, so do what you can.

The person you are in the best position to help is yourself. If you can see that you are above average on the curves of depression, anger, frustration, conflicts, etc., seek help. There’s a better life available to you, but you have to make the decision to get it.

Side Effects of the Web

As if there wasn’t already more mental illness than we’re willing to fund the treatment for, new branches on the tree are sprouting. These are created, fed or facilitated (depending upon your point of view) by the internet.

Extensive studies have not pinned down a lot of the aspects. Aside from the ethereal nature of the subject, factors include recency, fast growth and lack of funding for studies.

One burgeoning area we’re seeing in the waiting room is internet addiction. Symptoms include frequent checking of email, staying on longer than planned, camping on the net when you should be doing your job or housework, using the web to escape or block out disturbing aspects of your life, anxiety when away from the web/relief when you log on, loss of sleep due to late night log-ons, unsuccessful attempts to cut back time or to stay away from certain sites, relationship neglect due to time on the web, great number of web sites/chat rooms per log-on and defensiveness/denial about time you spend on the internet. Almost all web users will relate to some of these. Five or more indicate you could have a serious problem.

The major subgroups of addicts include chat rooms, virtual relationships, pornography, gambling, games, shopping/auctions, and compulsive surfing. There’s diversity of opinion on whether the internet creates these problems or exacerbates existing illness. The relative anonymity can alleviate inhibitions and allow true tendencies to run freer than interpersonal contact.

For instance, chat room addicts are associated with low self-esteem, social isolation, impulse control problems, risk taking and/or other schizotypy. They post a much higher than average number of messages on a good number of sites. But, the symptoms they present are also associated with mental illnesses that manifest themselves without benefit of the internet.

Another area on the rise is cyberstalking. This breaks down into those who stalk people they know and those who target people they don’t know (e.g. celebrities or people encountered on the web). Related behavior is cyber-slander and cyber-bullying.

Stalkers of strangers tend to hang on longer and escalate. Those of known people usually fizzle out, except where a serious pathology prolongs their obsession.

This segment has drawn a lot of attention, perhaps because of the victim aspect. Legislation has been proposed, law firms have developed and marketed specialties, and victim assistance organizations have emerged. Hopefully, funding of studies and treatments isn’t far down the road.

Whether the problems above are created by the web or just augmented is somewhat academic. The point is that they are on the rise. Lives are being ruined by the addictions (not just those of the addicts, but those of people associated with them). The web facilitates the deviant intents and behavior of the stalkers, slanderers and bullies, adding to that pool.

If you exhibit the symptoms of the addict, free yourself from the control of the web. More than that, the addiction isn't the problem. It's the underlying pathology you need to deal with. Seek professional help. You are far from alone, so there is no stigma in your illness. Only in not having the courage to face it.

If you’re the victim of a stalker, slanderer or bully, go to the support web sites. They have numerous resources you can access and good advice fro dealing with these individuals. If you are on the other end, you are undoubtedly leading a troubled life. Get professional help and alleviate your suffering.

And, when your county mental health levy comes up for a vote, support it. It is much cheaper to fund treatment than repetitive encounters with the criminal justice system.

Imus in the mourning

I have never been an Imus fan. To me, the star of the show was the producer, or whoever booked some decent guests. But, Imus’ poisonous personality eclipsed that attraction for me. I am empathetic with the pathology that causes that, but it doesn’t mean I will subject myself to it. Imus was not among my pre-set radio buttons.

Obviously, he drew a large audience. So do some of the other inane forms of entertainment that pander to the lower common denominators. I’m not in favor of lowering the bar to make a buck. Imus’ stock in trade was non-stop vitriol regarding prominent people. What air is to most people, vitriol is to losers. They perversely see everyone else’s accomplishments and delights as a reflection on their own shortcomings, and anguish over it. Vitriol offers little solace to them, just addiction. And Imus was a major dealer.

So, what did Imus do that was so wrong? We’ve all heard those words emanate from any number of entertainers. Where did he cross the line?

This was not prejudice, which almost everyone has a touch of and therefore can tolerate some stereotyping. This was personal slander, which right-thinking people universally find completely odious. It was targeted at specific individuals and had no basis in evidence. That’s what we find so despicable.

Some enjoy the smearing of activists and government figures (especially those who themselves attempt absolutely nothing to advance society). But, this was not aimed at some politicians. This was targeted at innocents. This crossed the line.

In some ways, it’s similar to a local radio sports broadcaster who took a similar tack and was eventually fired when enough was enough. Except, this was national.

I differentiate this from the Dennis Millers of the world, whose rants are based in fact and are done with healthy humor, not sick malice. That’s satire, not garbage.

This is not a freedom-of-speech issue. That amendment wasn’t intended to protect slander. And, the right-to-speech isn’t the right-to-have-a-radio-show.

When you turn on the lights, the cockroaches scatter. Sponsors canceled their advertising. Networks canceled the broadcasts. Former guests distanced themselves. None of them had any idea what Imus has been about over the past three decades? Please.

The silver linings? The public has sent a message. It’s time to put out the garbage. A little late, but a good message. The victimized women will come out vindicated and stronger, and possibly cash in on the notoriety.

And, I don’t have to listen to Imus promotions.