Skip to main content

mental health mondays :: a bill is due

don't look now, but america's infamously ineffective congress may be on the verge of getting something done. something important.

rep. tim murphy [a republican, no less and also the only psychiatrist in congress] has paired with texas democrat eddie bernice johnson [a psychiatric nurse] to put forward the helping families in mental health crisis act, meant to bring about serious reforms in the way that the american health industry deals with the mentally ill [h.r.-2646]. at the same time, senator bill cassidy [r-la] and senator chris murphy [d-ct] have introduced a bill in the senate [s. 1945] called the mental health reform act of 2015.

this is actually a second kick at the crazy can for murphy #1 and johnson, whose earlier bill was heavily criticised by those involved in the psychiatric care industry. this time around, reactions have been better. mental health america, a century-old not for profit group, has offered their cautious support for murphy-johnson, labelling it "a good start".  they've also offered qualified support for the senate bill, although they do note that there is an important difference between the two in terms of the funding to be allocated to helping those with mental health issues. [side note :: the murphy-cassidy bill is cosponsored by susan m. collins r-me, al franken d-mn, debbie stabenow d-mi and david vitter r-la]

another not for profit group, the treatment advocacy centre has given enthusiastic support to murphy-johnson, but does not appear to have taken an official position on murphy-cassidy.

this recap from the american psychiatric association gives a summary of the key points in murphy johnson. if you're feeling hardcore, you can read the complete text of the bill here. and then if you really want to dive in, you can also read the full text of the senate bill here. after all that, i have nothing else to offer you.

well, almost nothing.

one of the more controversial aspects of the bill is that it makes it easier for friends and family to force treatment on someone they believe is sick. that's a godsend for people who have lost someone they loved because they felt powerless to intervene, but for others it's a very scary pathway to stripping the mentally ill of their rights, especially since the bill is at best vague about the legal recourse of those who feel they've been unfairly sequestered.

the important thing is that there is actual legislation on the table. the even more important thing is that it's the first legislation that moves towards getting the mentally ill out of prison and into hospitals, making sure that there are enough hospitals available to care for patients and working on solutions that allow patients to remain in their communities or in their homes while receiving treatment.

we've talked about what other countries are doing to address the issue of mental health treatment and chances are this won't be the last time there's a post about these two pieces of legislation. but for now, it's a miracle: the least effective congress in history may be the one that pushes through meaningful, long overdue reform on a very complicated issue.

p.s. :: if you don't recognise the image at the top of this post, it is from the iconic schoolhouse rock "i'm just a bill" [watch it here!], which is still the source of 90% of my knowledge about the american legislative process. the rest comes from the simpsons treatment of the original

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …