Experts debate violence and mental illness
Full Story
| Topics: legal, recovery, research, treatment programs, violence
With events like Virginia Tech indelibly linked to someone suffering from a psychiatric disorder, the question of how much violence is caused by people with a mental illness continues to draw public concern.
In February, the entire issue of Psychiatric Services was devoted to essays, research and debate. Editor Howard Goldman's thoughtful introduction to the issue notes:
how do the horrible, extreme events predetermine policy and opinion when their incidence is small in proportion to the attention they receive? And how are research findings disseminated? How do the numbers inform policy?
In March, two of the issue's authors were joined by a mental health advocate to carry the discussion further at a meeting of health journalists in Washington in a panel titled, "Violence and Mental Illness: How Strong is the Link?" Excerpts from the live event, recorded by MIWatch.org., are linked below.
Opening the session, Jeffrey Swanson, Ph.D., a professor at Duke University School of Medicine, explained how to interpret statistics, along with the difficulty of predicting behavior. Swanson writes in Psychiatric Services: “Experts in violence risk management are largely grappling, like climatologists, with inconvenient truths: that mental health professionals cannot predict an individual’s violent behavior much better than chance.” To view Swanson's discussion at the AHCJ conference, click.
Harvey Rosenthal, executive director of New York's premier consumer advocacy organization, NYAPRS, spoke from a rounded background as an administrator of programs, an employee in psychiatric settings, and a person who has experienced bipolar symptoms. Rosenthal argued that an overemphasis on violence has skewed public perceptions, and that services and programs that actively engage people in a recovery process have received far too little public notice. To view Rosenthal's discussion at the AHCJ conference, click.There were many points of agreement, especially the need for reliable and available community services. But at times it seemed the participants were talking past one another, and the issue which inflames the most passions, involuntary outpatient commitment, got little attention.





