Madigan: They didn’t flatter you with that lighting.

David Oaks: You’re looking so handsome! I had no idea. Your eyebrows are very sexy. (I’m completely sincere.)

“But critics worry …” That’s journalism-speak for “We don’t have any specific sources who say this, but we’ll generalize it so we have reason to focus on …”

… violence. That’s what they’re focusing on. Why am I not surprised?

So of all the things they could talk about related to Mad Pride — and related to mental health — this is what they’ve come up with: criminals and violent crime. Ugh. TV is so predictable and depressing.

Okay, so now we’re telling the story of a kid with hallucinations and delusions (the CIA, yadda yadda) who KILLS HIS MOTHER? Does the average American viewer understand how fucking rare this kind of thing is? That it’s not the necessary result of deciding not to take meds?

On to the withdrawal story: Clearly, the program wasn’t looking for a success story. This poor woman who decided to do the show so they could feed off her misery — I knew that’s what they wanted. Is she doing the withdrawal in conjunction with a doctor? Who the hell knows? The show doesn’t tell you. It hardly tells you her name. And …

Oh! There it is again: “Critics worry … ” (that she’s going to be “a time bomb” without her meds). Who are these critics worrying about this girl? Frank Rich? David Denby? I’d love to know.

“Violence is unpredictable with or without drugs.” Brilliant script.

Blurry homeless images. Madigan cello-ing. … This show is so bad, it’s like a joke. I guess it all goes back to what producer Ia Robinson told me, when we discussed my being on the show: She doesn’t have any friends or family who have mental problems, so the whole topic was like “walking on the moon.” Yes, that’s the phrase she used. The show should’ve been blasted out to Mars.

Except Joey P. He’s delightful and a voice of reason.

Psycho Donuts has taken donuts to the next demented level. We bid a fond farewell to the tired, round ring of lameness, and the drab, time-weathered environment of donut past. Psycho Donuts has taken the neighborhood donut and put it on medication, and given it shock treatment.

Psycho Donuts are very unique and, well, crazy. Our name comes with a commitment to not only be the craziest/fun donut experience you’ll ever have, but one of the most unique places in the South Bay (see blog).

Try our signature Smores Donut; or for something different, how about a Green Tea Donut? Even if you’re not certifiably insane yourself, you’ll still find a handful of donuts from the past.

As a donut lover, this is an issue close to my heart. I mean, a Green Tea Donut? Is that even legal? I’ll stick with Boston Kreme, thank you, and yes, I’ll spell it that way until I die.

But the “Nutcase” display case and the padded cell in the store don’t sit well with many mental health advocates, who fear the store is stigmatizing, especially the folks at NAMI’s StigmaNet. Yet to tell you the truth, the more I think about it, the less I care. Wait — don’t hate me. It’s just that there are so many other things that are more important, I think, and the fact that this, of all issues — a single store in a single town — is generating so much controversy, seems kind of limited to me.

For instance, I got some other mental-health-related news from some people via email while I was on vacation, and without blogging about it further, I’ll just give you the broad strokes (no attribution because I’m not sure if my tipsters want it):

Also in California, L.A.’s homeless lose out in settlement

Recent news quote: “The secretary of defense is required to have a plan in place by September 2013 to increase military and civilian mental health personnel available to our troops and their families.”

Antidepressant use doubles in US, study finds

N.J. psychiatric hospitals to release 300 patients under lawsuit settlement

Suicides rising in US military

American Medical Association study: Adults near WTC disaster still being diagnosed with asthma, PTSD

I could go on and on. Every day I see headlines I worry about, and get emails from people who are suffering right now. Those people don’t give a shit if there’s a “bipolar” donut (pictured). They just want to know: Is there anything that’s going to ever make me feel better? Can I survive this? Why can’t I get out of bed? Can you help me? Can anyone help?

Personal urgency and large-scale issues slap me in the face in a way this donuts thing just doesn’t. Yet the comments keep coming. I don’t know. Maybe I’m wrong.

One of the biggest challenges I’ve had in the 10 years I’ve been writing on the subject of mental illness is the evolving use of language around disabilities. Sometimes I’ve been relieved by change; other times I’ve been frustrated. I recently had the opportunity to start thinking about this again because I accidentally let a writer use the phrase “wheelchair-bound” in an article I edited. Afterward, the subject of the article objected, and I felt terrible. I wasn’t hip to that particular change, but in the future I won’t use it again.

Often, the lack of a consensus stymies writers and members of the media. In my case, I’m sort of okay if you call me “bipolar,” but there are many other people who think that’s terrible — and that you should only say “person with bipolar disorder” or “person who has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder.” As a writer concerned with rhythm and clarity, I have to object to the latter for myself. Yes, I’ve been diagnosed that way, but given that I concur with the diagnosis, I’m comfortable saying “I have bipolar disorder.” A lot of people object to “a person who suffers from bipolar disorder,” but I remember just a couple years ago when that was absolutely the most appropriate language.

One thing I feel we’ve mostly agreed upon: To call a person schizophrenic is really out of date. As in: “I think he’s schizophrenic.” In clinical contexts that emphasize recovery, people definitely say, “I think he has schizophrenia,” if not something more progressive, like the examples above. There’s something historically uncomfortable about the word “schizophrenic” that hasn’t yet accrued to “bipolar,” if only because the illness (oops) only recently shifted from “manic-depression.”

And now to that oops — some people no longer like to say “mental illness.” Some prefer “brain disorders” but others like to go in the opposite direction and say, well, I’m not even sure anymore. Because I subscribe to some of the horrors that many people rail against (like that my symptoms are part of an illness; that medication can work; that not all of the DSM-IV isn’t balderdash), my language may, at times, be less People First-ian than that of others.

For example, I wear two hearing aids and have been, for some years … hearing-impaired? Suffering from hearing loss … ? Partially deaf .. ? (I am not, however, Deaf. That I know for sure.) My friend and I talk about this sometimes because she is partially deaf (with much more impairment than I have) and has been so since childhood. But even she doesn’t know what the hell to call it. If she meets someone who’s like a bit more deaf than she is (but not Deaf), she doesn’t know what to say to contextualize herself. It’s so weird.

Maybe because I was a translation scholar, I love this kind of discussion. I’d be interested to hear (but talk loud! Heh.) what you all think of People First language, in all its permutations.

[Button (that I should really get for public situations) available here.]

Location: Memorial Hall
Date: May 30, 2009
Distance: 5 K
Check-in: 7:30 am
Start Time: 9:00 am

For more information about this event, please contact:

Neen Davis
neendave@aol.com
Phone: 215.886-0350

You may also contact:
Greater Philadelphia NAMIWalk | CCaruso@NAMI.org
Phone: 215.886-0350 | Fax: 215.886-6974

Family Team Chair: Neen Davis
610.584-8464 | neendave@aol.com

Honorary Chair: Joseph A. Rogers, Chief Advocacy Officer, Mental Health Assn of SEPA
215.751-1800 | jrogers@mhasp.org

Business Team Chair: Bob Waters

What made me angry is that I know plenty of incompetent drivers who shouldn’t be on the road, and they don’t suffer from mental illness. I also know drivers who have severe mental illnesses who acquit themselves quite admirably on the roadways (myself included). It’s a violation, in my opinion, of a person’s civil rights to prevent them from applying to get a license.

One woman who did get approval was empowered by it. She failed the permit test again and again, but it never ceased to be a goal, which fit in with the messages given by the community health center: Make sure the clients set goals for themselves; it gives them hope. Perhaps it was an unrealistic goal for her. I don’t think she’ll ever drive. But it was the trying that mattered, and if she ever gets behind the wheel, I hope she drives far away into the sunset with a great song on the radio. Just for fun.

A Guy, a Car: Beyond Schizophrenia by Ronald Pies M.D.

Melissa Huckaby is charged with murdering and raping Sandra Cantu, a little girl in her care. In an interview with Good Morning America, her ex-husband is asked, insistently, about his ex-wife’s mental health. Check out the video of the interview here.

I know it’s valid to ask about her mental state, but the way it’s done in this instance makes me uncomfortable. I notice the Australian coverage of the case doesn’t mention the possibility of mental illness, which is nice, considering she hasn’t even been proven guilty yet.

Perhaps I’m being overly sensitive, but I resent the persistent connection between violence and mental illness that’s played up in the press. I mean, there’s a whole article here about why the insanity plea in this case probably won’t work. It begins:

The fact that the woman charged with killing Sandra Cantu was recently mentally evaluated through the San Joaquin court system raises the question of whether she might use an insanity defense if the case goes to trial.

Emphasis mine, because this kind of speculation is ridiculous! It’s followed up by:

“She might be extraordinarily mentally ill but still legally responsible for the crime,” said Loyola University criminal law professor Laurie Levenson.

Or she might frickin’ not be. WE DON’T KNOW YET. All this article — and coverage like it — does is foster the linkage between mental illness and crime. And the funny thing? Here’s all we know for sure: Her family may have said that she might have been depressed after her divorce.

Eff you, media world. I’m sick of it.

Isn’t that horrible? What’s (possibly) worse is that because I worked in the mental health field, I was expected to be able to handle things. I took the bag out of his hands and pulled the folded body out and lay it down on the floor. I knew I was supposed to be grossed out, so I pretended to swoon. But I wasn’t grossed out. I felt nothing. And I was ashamed to feel nothing.

Prior to that? I dreamt I was watching a TV special about rehabilitating serial killers.

Dark nights, my friends.

ARLINGTON, Va. – (Business Wire) People with untreated severe mental illnesses may pose a greater risk to the future of America’s public libraries than does the invention of the Internet, according to a new survey released in the March/April edition of American Libraries, the journal of the American Library Association.

I needn’t tell you who authored the study. That’s right: TAC. The stats TAC offers in the study are:

Other findings include:

• 28 percent say they have witnessed someone with a psychiatric disorder assault a staff member;
• 58 percent report more library patrons who appear to have serious psychiatric disorders now than when they first started working in the library;
• 61 percent say library patrons with psychiatric disorders utilize a disproportionate amount of staff time; and,
• 66 percent say they have needed to change library rules because of patrons with mental illnesses.

There are so many problems with these stats, it’s hard to know where to begin. First of all, there’s that word “appear.” Are library employees qualified to determine who has serious psychiatric disorders? I doubt it. I suspect they wouldn’t identify me as one of those people, but I’m guessing every disheveled person gets tarred with that brush, no matter the issue. And let’s not forget the classicism and racism that makes such observations inherently problematic. If a black guy in dirty clothes comes into a library and spends a lot of time on the web, is he going to be seen as the same as a white woman in clean clothes (like me)? Who’s more likely to be called “crazy,” despite whatever behaviors?

Even assuming that people with psych disorders do use the library — which I know is true, particularly when their situation coincides with poverty — why can’t they? So what if they have odd behaviors? Are they any less entitled to access the resources? People with disabilities have a right to be accommodated.

TAC’s ostensible point is that:

“Our nation’s libraries are turning into daytime shelters for people with severe mental illness who need to be in treatment. The fact that libraries remain a safe haven from violence and life on the streets for people with mental illness is a sad commentary. Doing so devalues human life and the importance of libraries in our communities.”

But the study isn’t about sympathizing with people with mental illness. It’s about making them look like freaks.

The librarians surveyed reported very serious problems in dealing with patrons with mental illness, including, “two librarians murdered by a mentally-ill patron in the early ’90s,” according the study. Others reported being punched, having chairs thrown, and stalking.

The librarians were frank in their comments about dealing with people with mental illness. Included were such statements as:

“Many, many library customers don’t come downtown to our central library because they are afraid of these customers…They perceived the library to be a dangerous place and another homeless shelter and it has really lessened our stature in the community and is disheartening to our staff.”

“Other patrons are often frightened by strange behavior…They tend to hold onto their children more tightly and leave more quickly than they might have planned.”

“A number of patrons have told us they will not be back because of unpleasant encounters they feel are unsafe.”

As Joe points out, where is StigmaBusters on this? Hey, NAMI, get some balls. This is unacceptable.

[This image is of Mudd Library at my alma mater, Oberlin College. It was the awesomest library I've ever lived in. Thank God they let me in.]