"I am Adam Lanza's mother"

[beezley]

Lack of resources was not an issue in this case. The mother of AL (I can't even type his name) received 200,000$ in alimony/year.

So the argument about mental health funding being able to reduce this type of thing?? Mental health funding is lacking, we can all agree on that, but I don't think we can say that lack of ability to pay for services was likely the case.

Will rescind my previous generalizations, but agree with salpingo that mom in the post mentioned made herself appear perfect while putting a picture of her child associated with AL on the internet that went viral. That poor kid.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[digitlnoize]

I'm thinking more along the lines of funding for:

1. Research
2. Public service messages/campaigns
3. Encouraging physicians to become psychiatrists and to see Medicaid patients.

 

[nancysinatra]

Which is exactly the stigma that keeps families like this isolated and avoiding professional (OUR!) help.

I'm a bit disturbed at the "blame the parents" tone that's developing here...

I haven't caught up with the whole thread yet--but I probably contributed to that tone with my posts. However my gripe is only with the author of the blog article. Her son has not committed a mass murder and I just can't comprehend why she'd try to characterize him as one.

When it comes to real life situations with these mass murders, I feel terrible for the family members of the culprits. Imagine what it must be like to go through that. These are freak events, and it doesn't seem fair to blame anyone in particular most of the time.

 

[nancysinatra]

Making assumptions about a parent based on a blog post is sloppy. Basing assumptions on demographic data like the fact that she's a single mom with four kids is bad judgment. Was she a victim of domestic violence? Was she in an unloving marriage? Is she a widow? We don't know. So hearing make people make inferences based on that one data point is kinda scary.

Well, I think that when someone posts something in the media, that they can expect to be held accountable for what they've said, and for how they've said it. They face the same standard that professional journalists face. They are opening themselves up to scrutiny, and the vast majority of it is not going to be charitable.

I also do not think that readers who opine about an article are "making assumptions." In fact, I know nothing about the family behind the blog article. But I found the mother's attitude disturbing, and self-aggrandizing.

I have nothing against single moms, even--but I do have something against self proclaimed martyrs. I don't care what the topic is... There are very few actual martyrs in this world and most people who pose as martyrs are full of it. They can and should expect a less than warm reception from readers.

And to me, that was how she came across, as a self proclaimed martyr. If others disagree then if you would like to debate, at least offer some quotations and remarks that come from the text. Because it's the text of the article that offended me. For all I know this mother is completely different in real life--but if that's the case, then her writing needs some work in my opinion. Perhaps she could take some journalism classes and learn some techniques that will help her articulate whatever it is she means to convey.

But for now, I think she comes across as self-gloryfing, and I think she sold out her son. None of that implies an "assumption" nor is it meant as a broader remark about "mental illness. And my thoughts are just my personal thoughts--not "statements" I would make as a "psychiatrist." As a reader, though, I have every right to respond, and am under no obligation to admire the author.

And plus--the stuff you mention, like was she this or was she that--that was her job as an author to clarify. It isn't my job to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Similarly, when I send my CV to places, if there are any gaps in it, I will always assume that the readers will always assume I must have been in jail during that time. It's my job to prevent those assumptions from occurring. Same with authors of articles.

 

[MarcusD]

"I AM ADAM LANZA'S PSYCHIATRIST": A RESPONSE FROM THE MENTAL HEALTH TRENCHES TO "I AM ADAM LANZA'S MOTHER"


http://www.xojane.com/issues/a-resp...-adam-lanzas-psychiatrist?utm_medium=facebook


some more on the topic from the other side of the fence

 

[cbrons]

http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/12/20/parents-worry-their-child-could-be-next-adam-lanza/

 

[cbrons]

I haven't caught up with the whole thread yet--but I probably contributed to that tone with my posts. However my gripe is only with the author of the blog article. Her son has not committed a mass murder and I just can't comprehend why she'd try to characterize him as one.

When it comes to real life situations with these mass murders, I feel terrible for the family members of the culprits. Imagine what it must be like to go through that. These are freak events, and it doesn't seem fair to blame anyone in particular most of the time.

Right, I don't know why she did that. I didn't think it was courageous in the slightest. Maybe if she wrote it anonymously.

What they are likely to do, and what I disagree with, is try to now demonize everyone with psychiatric illness and restrict their rights further. Ever been in a mental hospital? = No firearms for you for life. Or perhaps even a registry for those with "mental illness" like that ***** from the NRA supposedly said today.

I know of a patient with severe OCD who was in an inpatient unit last year who has asked if he is okay to have firearms, given that he has never had a history of suicidality or homicidality (said individual is also professional student). If I was paranoid about guns but had to live next to someone who had a whole arsenal of them, I'd rather live next to this kid than your average person because I know he's a "safety freak" (his words). Is this going to now make the public think everyone with mental illness is a dangerous "ticking time bomb"?

Are teachers and parents going to start seeing us if their kid a little on the shy side or prefers reading than to socializing?: http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/12/20/parents-worry-their-child-could-be-next-adam-lanza/

Are we going to cave to the pressure of the average uneducated person in the general public who will blame every mass shooting on the field of psychiatry and psychology, and physicians and drugs in general? Are psychiatrists now going to have to submit everyone who ever seeks their help/advice to some registry like many do here in Illinois?

How about this one: Are patients on SSRIs (or perhaps other psychiatric medications) now going to have to be in a .gov database?

I can already see the politicians are going to do something stupid and ill-advised, at least on the mental health side of things.

 

[sunlioness]

Are psychiatrists now going to have to submit everyone who ever seeks their help/advice to some registry like many do here in Illinois?

What? I'm not aware of any such thing. Could you please explain what you mean?

 

[cbrons]

What? I'm not aware of any such thing. Could you please explain what you mean?

Yes. Here in Illinois, because of the Firearm Owners Identification Card system, mental health providers, and especially hospitals are required to report patients to a database. That way they cannot obtain firearms.

Now, for outpatient providers, they aren't required to report everyone, only those they deem dangerous. That isn't the problem.

The problem has to do with "inpatients." According to the law, mental hospitals have to report all patients, whether voluntary or involuntarily admitted. So you could have non-suicidal, non-homicidal patients being reported to this database. Some anecdotal reports of outpatient alcohol rehab program patients being reported as well.

The federal (NICS) program that the ATF checks when people purchase firearms in all 50 states only keeps inventory of patients involuntarily committed.

 

[sunlioness]

There's another thing I didn't learn when I started working here. I don't do any inpatient work here though. I think I miss Pennsylvania more by the day. I like my actual job and the people I work with, but I lack resources that I was used to having (like decent case management, an abundance of IOPs and community treatment teams), had to learn a new "dialect" (I can't "302" people anymore) and new relevant laws, and miss having hills.

Of course, I did only just get off the plane from a visit home and am going into two weeks of covering the consult service, so that probably explains a good deal of this sudden burst of nostalgia.

 

[nancysinatra]

Right, I don't know why she did that. I didn't think it was courageous in the slightest. Maybe if she wrote it anonymously.

What they are likely to do, and what I disagree with, is try to now demonize everyone with psychiatric illness and restrict their rights further. Ever been in a mental hospital? = No firearms for you for life. Or perhaps even a registry for those with "mental illness" like that ***** from the NRA supposedly said today.

I know of a patient with severe OCD who was in an inpatient unit last year who has asked if he is okay to have firearms, given that he has never had a history of suicidality or homicidality (said individual is also professional student). If I was paranoid about guns but had to live next to someone who had a whole arsenal of them, I'd rather live next to this kid than your average person because I know he's a "safety freak" (his words). Is this going to now make the public think everyone with mental illness is a dangerous "ticking time bomb"?

Are teachers and parents going to start seeing us if their kid a little on the shy side or prefers reading than to socializing?: http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/12/20/parents-worry-their-child-could-be-next-adam-lanza/

Are we going to cave to the pressure of the average uneducated person in the general public who will blame every mass shooting on the field of psychiatry and psychology, and physicians and drugs in general? Are psychiatrists now going to have to submit everyone who ever seeks their help/advice to some registry like many do here in Illinois?

How about this one: Are patients on SSRIs (or perhaps other psychiatric medications) now going to have to be in a .gov database?

I can already see the politicians are going to do something stupid and ill-advised, at least on the mental health side of things.

I agree it's scary to think about how we might get pressured by the uneducated general public. What people don't seem to get is that these murderers probably don't fall into one diagnostic category. Some might be psychotic, others antisocial. A lot of, probably most, antisocial people never see a psychiatrist and would never even be referred. So they won't be on the "list."

That's another reason that article bugged me--the author assumed that all the previous mass murderers were just like her son. But how would she know that? Some of them must have been pretty smooth to evade detection while planning their crimes. Her son didn't sound like a smooth criminal at all.