Since the Sandy Hook shootings, there seems to be a popular mantra that we need better and easier access to quality mental-health care. This is probably a true statement, and certainly I can't imagine very much harm accruing from making more resources available to people with mood disorders or other forms of mental illness, or even learning or behavioural problems, who need counselling and/or medication and/or help navigating the available web of services.
For parents in particular, figuring out where to go to get this kind of help for troubled kids can be confusing and difficult. In the U.S., a big barrier can be the limits of insurance coverage. Here, a major barrier lies in lengthy wait lists for appointments with psychiatrists and it is also not helpful that GPs act as gatekeepers for such specialists. You can't just call up a psychiatrist and make an appointment -- you need a referral first. It's not a huge hurdle, but when someone is debilitated by depression, even the smallest tasks can seem insurmountable, so adding one more layer between a suffering patient and help can be the difference between someone who gets treated and someone who doesn't.
And yet, it seems to me we may be avoiding a difficult truth in all our post-Sandy Hook hand-wringing: There are limits to what mental-health treatment can do.
The recent story about disturbing violent offender Kayla Bourque, and the court's requirement for her to receive three years of outpatient counselling as part of her release from jail, brings this to the fore. Her history paints a picture of someone with complex behavioural problems for which counselling seems an inadequate solution.
Bourque has been convicted of killing animals and causing unnecessary pain and suffering or injury to animals. Later, she was found guilty of possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose. She is said to have killed her own family's dog and cat. According to the B.C. Justice Ministry's corrections branch, which took the unusual step of issuing a public warning about Bourque upon her release, the young woman has also committed violent offenses against people.
Not creeped out yet? How about this?
The Canadian Press quotes Professor Rob Gordon of Simon Fraser University's criminology department, where Bourque took classes, as saying that Bourque had talked of her fantasies of killing a homeless person. Gordon also told CP that police who searched Bourque's dorm room found a "kill kit," which contained duct tape and other restraints.
It is no doubt for these reasons that a court saw fit to impose 46 conditions on Bourque as part of her release. For example, she is not permitted to have any weapons (knives are okay, but only if used to prepare food). And she is required to go to out-patient counselling for three years.
The idea that someone with problems as profound and deep-seated as Bourque's can be "cured" by dropping in for sessions at a clinic for a few years is pretty far-fetched. In fact, I'm not sure there's anyone out there who believes such a thing is possible.
Certainly the B.C. Justice Ministry doesn't; otherwise it wouldn't have felt the need to issue a public warning about Bourque's whereabouts, presumably so that people can take precautions around Bourque. And given Bourque's pattern and escalation of offenses, why should we think treatment can perform the miracle of instilling a conscience where a natural one seems to be lacking?
Don't get me wrong. I'd rather a person like Bourque be treated than not. But in cases like hers -- and perhaps Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza's (though we will have to learn more to judge for sure) -- it would be good to drop the pretense that the principal problem could be solved simply with "more and better mental-health care."
Bourque spent her formative first months as a Romanian orphan who no doubt endured the awful conditions and neglect that we now know were common in that country's institutions. It's an environment that has been shown to alter infants' brain and social development. It's also possible Bourque has genetic precursors that made her more vulnerable to the stresses of that trauma. Whatever the case, in some sense, it would seem (from the outside at least) that the damage has been done. And the part we ought to own up to is that there may simply be no realistic way of reducing people like Bourque's risk of committing a violent offense to a reasonably low level.
In no way does that mean we should stop trying. Reducing Bourque's risk of offending by any amount would be better than not reducing it at all. And providing her with any relief from whatever painful feelings she may suffer would be better than providing her with none. But it's about time we in the public started grappling with the difficulty those in the mental health and corrections professions have long been wrestling with: There is a sizable class of people who 1) do not currently fit the criteria for forcible commitment to an inpatient facility, but 2) are also not mentally healthy and are not going to get that way through conventional outpatient treatment, regardless of how accessible it may be.
What do we do with such people? Adjust inpatient commitment standards to make them more flexible? Wait for the first encounter with the justice system, then pile on the court-ordered conditions, as the court has in Bourque's case, to try to cover all the bases of danger? There's no easy answer. But even acknowledging that fact -- rather than robotically demanding "more and better" mental-health care -- might be a good start.
Follow Marni Soupcoff on Twitter: www.twitter.com/soupcoff
The way to fix problems like these is to not have them happen in the first place. Every child should be raised with love and encouragement and guidance. Unfortunately, that is a fairy tale.
Social Workers handled on average 50-80 cases at a time. If they are lucky they are able to deal with the emergencies within a 12 hour day. Very few actually have time to see or assist the ones that are just getting by.
As to the manner in which Health Care operates, the author should be aware that the overall availability of health care services have been stagnant or slightly increasing while the number of cases have been skyrocketing. In California, the only place tracks new visits for autism on an annual basis, saw an increase from less than 1 per day in 1985 to more than 8 new cases per day in 1995. Last time I saw the figures, the number of cases has exploded to nearly 20 per day. And that's just Autism.
In most cases the system is so overwhelmed by the case load that it is up to the families to learn how to locate the services, determine what is appropriate to assist the person, negotiate with professionals, fight with the politicians and bureaucrats, and take care of the loved one who can require constant supervision. Many carers require mental health services because of exhaustion and fatigue.
The author is correct. The system isn't working. It isn't working because there aren't enough services and the strategy is wrong. Washing her hands isn't going to work either.
-------------------------------
Let's change the thought process for a second.
For certain types of Cancer there is no or little chance of survival. The here's no easy answer. But even acknowledging that fact -- rather than robotically demanding "more and better" cancer care -- might be a good start.
---------------------------------------------
OK, Stupid Rant Finished
What the author seems to be arguing, without actually coming out with it, is that we should just stop paying for people who are mentally ill because we can fix them. Save the tax dollars and forget about them because we can't do anything about it
What an asinine argument. School districts have 0.5 days per school per month for psychiatric services. And since there is a need to specialize in each of these conditions, there are many psychiatrists that need to consulted. That means schools, on average are visited by the psychiatrist once every 2 years.
Part 2 follows
They apparently didn't, since no counselors, therapists or psychologists seem to be stepping forward with information about him. His mom seems to have thought it was important to teach him to handle guns instead.
A person that kills and tortures for fun is a serious danger to society even if it is an animal. I would not let her out in public for the next 10 years without an approved sponsor. I bet the condition are the important point in this case.
Edward T Hall wrote in his book, Beyond Culture, about a group of psychologists in an experiment done by a Dr Rosenhan described in "On Being Sane in Insane Places" (1973): "In all cases, [pretending to hear] voices was sufficient cause for admission. Once inside, regardless of their behaviour, Rosenhan and his group were judged insane and treated accordingly. The mere fact that they were patients in...a mental institution was enough to distort every perception of the hospital staff." (Beyond Culture, p. 138).
we are hurting and are naturally seeking answers to these perplexing issues, but i think part of the problem that is under-appreciated is the unvoiced and unexamined cultural expectations of the very institutions we turn to. this uncritical, simplistic expectation is compounded by our unreasonable demands for instantaneous gratification (as a society).
i'd call for a royal commission on the current state of our mental health infrastructure and practices, but...we cannot reasonably expect much.
In a word? NO.
For whatever reason, she is most likely a psychopath, incapable of feeling remorse or having any empathy for other people. It probably has, as the author notes, its origins in her formative years in a Romanian orphanage. Many children were severely damaged on many levels by being abandoned and subsequently "warehoused" due to draconian laws on birth control and abortion.
At best, she may be taught to mimic acceptable behaviour, but I am not terribly sanguine about her chances. The problem is, as other posters have noted, is that there is no legal recourse available.
And that's the other problem. We've already seen what can happen; witness the psychotic who beheaded the man on the Greyhound bus, or the schizophrenic who pushed a woman to her death on the subway tracks in Toronto. Both of the perpetrators were off their meds and there was no legal way (before they committed their crimes) to compel them to do so.
It may take decades or even longer but just keep at it.