Interesting Thoughts from Reason on Guns, Violence and Mental Illness

[RicInOR]

The Truth About Mental Illness and Guns - Reason.com


My takeaway - never get psychological help.

That is completely wrong. But if the government pays for the sessions - they know about the sessions. Or, if the councilors have to report, due to the laws, then the government knows about the sessions. Even if the government doesn't get the specifics, they learn you sought out mental health care.

I get that mental health professionals have to reports if they believe harm (violence) is imminent.
But, we all go through things in our life, which we should talk to someone to work thru. No harm is going to happen.

Would this apply to such sessions as pre-marital counseling?
Would we send up a red flag if we asked if the counselor has to report that we are taking sessions?

Read More

 

[RicInOR]

This Mom Went To Her Doctor For Postpartum Depression—And Was Escorted To The ER By The Police

Mom seeks help.
Doctors office ( nurse practitioner ) calls cops.
Cops take her to ER
Social Worker ... has power to keep her for 72 hours, to take her baby, to ruin her life.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

With rulings , laws and reporting like those in the OP...I wonder just how many gun owners who need help , but aren't a danger to themselves and others will not seek the help they need...for fear of losing their right to keep and bear arms....

I understand the stigma of seeking mental health help* and the desire to keep people safe...but the must report everything attitude and the complete abiding by every law or rule without taking into account each individual and their actions and situation , isn't helpful either....
(*It is too bad that there is a stigma in first place...)
Andy

 

[Sgt Nambu]

That's depressing!

Be my last visit to that Dr. I can't imagine my doc reacting along those lines!

 

[Colts4me]

I am gonna confuse ya'll with my opinion. Government and psychiatrist want to treat mental problems but don't address the root causes. An example is crime, more jobs equals less crime but they give the jobs away then treat the crime. Mental health is effected by the way people have to live life with no choices so what choices they make are bad ones. The quality of life is greatly effected by government and not always in a good way, the can drive people crazy.

I will give another quick example. Gov pushes safety tips saying you must wear skin block in the sun or you will die of skin cancer. So you block the sun from your skin and you don't get the natural vitamin D you need which not only harms you but effects your mental well being. It's the unintended consequences of bad uninformed policies that cause mental illness in most cases, that's my opinion.

Now a word from our sponser

 

[Stomper]

Ronald Regan said it best, "Government IS the problem".

 

[ma96782]

Would this apply to such sessions as pre-marital counseling?

LOL..... in today's world (with the treatment one gets at a divorce) getting married is/should be a RED FLAG (about your mental state).

++++++++++++++


The US Constitution says what it says.*

But, there is this portion of the US that believes that.....



Yup.....and they vote.

Aloha, Mark

*But of course......the US Constitution can be changed.

 

[justcuz]

The commentary about the societal stigma applied to those who suffer from mental illness is right on and is horrific and greatly affects those suffering to the point it precludes them from seeking psychotherapy which exacerbates their problem(s) and puts an undue burden of their communities.
.
Well to provide a bit of clarification, mental health professionals are legally bound by both professional ethics and state statutes with a 'duty to warn' if a client presents an active threat against specific individual(s).
Within the profession this is known as the 'Tarasoff warning' based on the CA case law, while most statutes refer to it as the 'duty to warn.'

An example, a client tells the professional they killed someone, the professional has no ethical/statutory obligation to notify anybody. However, if the client is going to injure or kill say Maynard G. Kreps on the day after tomorrow, the professional is obligated to illicit specific information from the client to the extent possible then when the client departs, is mandated to attempt to notify Mr. Kreps directly if possible as well as law enforcement to intercede.

Additionally, professionals are statutorily mandated to report child and elder abuse.

Other clarifications, social workers have not normally been granted privilege to initiate 3 days holds on clients.

Finally, most professionals are well adept at assuring specific treatment records are extremely generalized, e.g., client reported feeling better, or a complained of being a little worse due to issues at home or work. Period!

As for professional's reporting a client's diagnosis to their work organizations, it could happen especially if the client is being seen using the organizational insurance then the initial diagnosis is provided to insurance company and in rare cases (normally by court order) is that information provided to the organization directly.

Speaking of professional's releasing client data, it can only be done by client release or court order. Remember the generalized comments in the records the again it is normally done on purpose to shield clients sensitive information.

Forgot, in regards to pre-marital counseling...records would reflect generalized statement: 'Pre-marital counseling'. Period!

 

[Brutus57]

They will pursue the all vets have been damaged by their experiences and they will turn neighbors, family, friends and enemies against your RTKBA at the whim and blink of an eye.l

Brutus Out

 

[ma96782]

Look at the new OR law and how it supposedly "deals" with the issue of "Mental Health and Deadly Weapons/Guns." This is from Aug. 2017

I've dealt with and seen the abuse of the system (during a child custody battle) that can be brought on by a "psychobubblegumfromhell." The Govt., Judges, and Law Makers have chosen the path to deny rights first. All in the name of, "Well the complainant said that it happened. So, I'm just acting in the interest of SAFETY."

RIGHTS. What's that? Note this if from: 2013

Aloha, Mark

 

[Gator Monroe]

Until the 2A / RTKBA purists can all agree that there are folks walking free among us that do not deserve 2A / RTKBA then it's an up hill schtruggle

 

[ma96782]

Until the 2A / RTKBA purists can all agree that there are folks walking free among us that do not deserve 2A / RTKBA then it's an up hill schtruggle

So, are you saying.....everyone is GUILTY, until proven innocent? RIGHTS are for only those that you say "deserve" them? Or maybe Hillary, Chucky, Feinstein or some political group should decide, who deserves certain rights?

I prefer to say that.....there are some evil people among us. If/when they are caught doing an illegal act (including attempt to commit)....then, the LAW needs to act.

A firearm does not (on it's own) get off the table.....load itself up.....and go down to a school yard and start shooting. There is someone behind the trigger.

Further more.....
In America......we don't punish an entire group, just because of a few bad actors. If that were true.....we could/would/shoiuld have laws against Muslims and their practice of their religious beliefs. Yup.....in order to prevent possible terrorist attacks and the stoning of women (for adultery). So, why is it acceptable, call it "reasonable and common sense".......to ban guns? Oh.....because, firearms could possibly be mis-used.

Will this work you you?
Until the FREEDOM OF RELIGION purists can all agree that there are folks walking free among us that do not deserve FREEDOM OF RELIGION then it's an up hill struggle.

Aloha, Mark

 

[clearconscience]

Yeah wasn't this a big issue when military suicides were really hitting the media after the first 5 years of the Iraq war?
There was a concensous that Vets weren't getting help for fear they would be labeled and have their rights taken away?

And now with this Vet in CA killing those three women at the VA center I'm sure the libs will be pushing hard to demonize them.

 

[Levetti]

The Truth About Mental Illness and Guns - Reason.com

Would this apply to such sessions as pre-marital counseling?
Would we send up a red flag if we asked if the counselor has to report that we are taking sessions?

HIPAA protects your confidentiality when it comes to any counseling services. Yes, your insurance company will know about you receiving counseling, but they are required to protect your confidential information as well. Confidentiality is a huge part of mental health/ substance abuse/marriage counseling because of the stigma associated with it. There won't be a red flag if you ask about reporting, but if there is any issues related to suicide, abuse, specific threats of violence, then other people will get involved quickly.

 

[Mikej]

We should apply the same criteria to automobiles. A couple of speeding tickets within a certain time. Texting and driving. School zone speeding should be only once. As should be reckless driving. Drivers licence GONE! Get caught driving, felony! All the anti's are so happy to use the drivers licence scenario for firearms ownership?

I don't know why I read this schnip. It just makes me angry. It's not like there's anything I can do about any of it!

 

[bbbass]

HIPAA protects your confidentiality when it comes to any counseling services. Yes, your insurance company will know about you receiving counseling, but they are required to protect your confidential information as well. Confidentiality is a huge part of mental health/ substance abuse/marriage counseling because of the stigma associated with it. There won't be a red flag if you ask about reporting, but if there is any issues related to suicide, abuse, specific threats of violence, then other people will get involved quickly.

I saw a VA counselor... had no idea that his case notes would wind up in my VA Health Record... found out when I demanded a copy for my disability hearing... Vets should not assume that those sessions are confidential... they are NOT!! Now I'm screwed.

BTW my doctor wants me to take Halogen, Thalidomide, Lithograph, and USSRs... ya think I should have firearms?

 

[RicInOR]

HIPAA protects your confidentiality when it comes to any counseling services.

No that is not fully correct.

but if there is any issues related to suicide, abuse, specific threats of violence, then other people will get involved quickly.

In the councilors opinion.

My friend is a councilor, MS degree, is a mandatory reporter. HIPAA does not preclude her from calling the cops.

Say you go thru your employers assistance program to get counseling for depression - say you just had a baby. That would be a very normal thing. But the councilor you get might ask if there are guns in the house, because they are doing that (even general doctors ask that) depression + gun = ??? to the councilor that might equal you being a danger to your self.




Apparently there are some in the profession (spectrum) who are covered by full confidentiality, but I don't have a clear understanding of how you would know who they are.

 

[justcuz]

first, the social stigma from having a label of mental illness applied to an individual is quite powerful, unless of course the individual wears it as a badge of honour to their perceived advantage.

further, mental health treatment has degradated in this county since LBJ's funding switch from Fed to State level of the operation of the MH institutes.

HIPAA protects your confidentiality when it comes to any counseling services. Yes, your insurance company will know about you receiving counseling, but they are required to protect your confidential information as well. Confidentiality is a huge part of mental health/ substance abuse/marriage counseling because of the stigma associated with it. There won't be a red flag if you ask about reporting, but if there is any issues related to suicide, abuse, specific threats of violence, then other people will get involved quickly.

While HIPPA has specific confidentiality policies, employee's who utilize their organizational insurance will find, the organization is provided generalized, e.g., treatment time and in some cases psychotropic medicines prescribed to the employees based on organizational security issues.

As for protection of an individual's confidentiality, a FL judge just released Cruz's school mental health records, which just astounds me of the the judicial abuse:

" A judge ordered the release of a state investigation into allegations of abuse and neglect in the home of Nikolas Cruz, accused of killing 17 people in last week's mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.

"If there were shortcomings," Broward Circuit Court Judge Charles Greene said Monday, "the public has the right to know."

The report would normally be kept confidential, but Greene said Cruz by "his own actions" waived that right to privacy. The State Attorney's Office did not object to the records' release.

"This case has been publicized not just throughout the state or throughout the country," Greene said of the massive public interest, "but throughout the world."

https://www.naplesnews.com/story/ne...vice-records-nikolas-cruz-released/352712002/

my only comment is a very emphatic WTF is this judicial idiot thinking?

 

[ZigZagZeke]

So, are you saying.....everyone is GUILTY, until proven innocent? RIGHTS are for only those that you say "deserve" them? Or maybe Hillary, Chucky, Feinstein or some political group should decide, who deserves certain rights?

I prefer to say that.....there are some evil people among us. If/when they are caught doing an illegal act (including attempt to commit)....then, the LAW needs to act.

A firearm does not (on it's own) get off the table.....load itself up.....and go down to a school yard and start shooting. There is someone behind the trigger.

Further more.....
In America......we don't punish an entire group, just because of a few bad actors. If that were true.....we could/would/shoiuld have laws against Muslims and their practice of their religious beliefs. Yup.....in order to prevent possible terrorist attacks and the stoning of women (for adultery). So, why is it acceptable, call it "reasonable and common sense".......to ban guns? Oh.....because, firearms could possibly be mis-used.

Will this work you you?
Until the FREEDOM OF RELIGION purists can all agree that there are folks walking free among us that do not deserve FREEDOM OF RELIGION then it's an up hill struggle.

Aloha, Mark

Gator is right (did I just say that?) as far as he goes, but he doesn't go far enough. There are people walking our streets that should not be allowed to ARMED OR NOT! There are dangerously crazy people being ineffectively supervised and medicated by untrained and overworked family members, with an occasional visit with a therapist. These people would have been scooped up by law enforcement or referred by family members for involuntary commitment 50 years ago (and 50 years ago we did not have mass shooters). They would have been examined by a team of psychiatrists and given a hearing before a judge, with an attorney present. The results of the hearing would be commitment for treatment or release (sometimes to the criminal justice system). Today they become mass shooters.

I am not talking about vets with PTSD or people with mild depression. I'm talking about people who hear voices telling them to kill celebrities. I'm talking about the guy who runs naked down the street with a meat cleaver chasing his wife because he believes she is the devil. I'm talking about the guy who is arrested multiple times for physical assault on total strangers because they are trying to control his mind. These guys are easy to spot. Grant everyone due process and I'm fine with the police or family members being able to initiate the process I've described. I've seen it work.

 

[ZigZagZeke]

And in the example in the OP there was a clerical error that went uncorrected. This would have been corrected if the person in question had gotten a hearing before a judge with her lawyer present. We can't design a system based on assumed malfunctions of that system.