John Oliver on the Mental Health System

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

OldPsychDoc

Senior Curmudgeon
Moderator Emeritus
15+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2004
Messages
6,366
Reaction score
4,298
If you haven't seen this yet, it is quite honestly the best and truest mass media explanation of the current state of mental health in America that I have ever heard. Hopefully folks will listen...

Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
I logged on to start this exact thread, but OldPsychDoc beat me to it.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I agree with a lot of the gist of what he's saying, but I have a hard time believing that <5% of the perpetrators of gun violence wouldn't fall under the umbrella of anti-social personality disorder... it would also be more informative if the statistics re: prisons identified the breakdown of diagnoses... is this people with schizophrenia, or substance use and anti-social personality disorder? Are we talking lots of addicts in jail for possession, people with psychotic disorders in jail for public disturbance or people who happen to use substances and murder people? I guess my point is that I don't love when either side throws around impressive sounding numbers from studies that they don't really understand fully to make a "point." Also, the "half of people killed by police" thing may be misleading if it includes anti-social folks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
antisocial personality disorder is not a mental illness. it's not even a personality disorder! (which is to say none of the criteria have anything to do with personality). please also remember many people with psychosis and mood disorders or substance use disorders may engage in antisocial behavior as a part of their disorder but are not ASPD.

typically when we are talking about mental illness in this kind of setting we are talking about major mental illness. Major mental illness include MDD, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia syndromes, delusional disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and PTSD.

He was citing some violence statistics from this paper: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

Yes, people far too many people with serious mental illness (not simply antisocial personalities) end up in the criminal justice system. this is not even including people with personality disorders who tend to do very poorly in these systems often mutilating themselves in extremely awful ways
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
If you want to say OK, it's mental illness, but it's personality disorders so it doesn't really count, I would respond by saying:

1) This goes back to John Oliver's first point that even doctors have stigmas about mental health. It would probably take ages to understand why the mental health system is the way it is, but it's clear that personality disorders are not commonly diagnosed and are disliked by psychiatrists. Maybe this is because there isn't training in treating these disorders or maybe it's because the etiology of personality disorders is childhood development which means recognition of it would require a psychoanalytic viewpoint rather than a biological disease model. Either way, who is there that is knowledgable in treating personality disorders? Psychiatrists are not set up most often to treat them, and psychologists often aren't trained to treat them even if they have the time to.

2) If personality disorders are the problem in shootings, then the deeper problems lie in society more generally, potentially with families and with poor governance that does not support families' wellbeing.

So, maybe it's not just access to mental health care that's a problem, but the quality of the mental health care and the knowledge, abilities, and attitudes of practitioners. And maybe the family model of society is deteriorating.

I know the counter-argument is that people with personality disorders don't seek treatment or don't want to hear that they have a personality disorder. That might be true for all I know at a statistical level. At an anecdotal level, I know two people with BPD both of whom were medicated for years and whose doctors had a tentative diagnosis of BPD but wouldn't give it to them and both found out about the diagnosis after being discharged and getting their records. Neither had a "freakout" or whatever else it is the psychiatrist was worried would happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
who said personality disorders don't count? I said antisocial personality disorder isn't a mental illness. it isn't. and it's not a personality disorder either. which I already said. Look at the criteria and you should see why the idea of this as a personality disorder let alone illness should raise some eyebrows:

(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others
(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

the criteria including things like "failure to conform to social norms" and ending up being arrested or "assaults" essentially invalidates the criteria for looking at its association with criminality and violence because you are essentially building it into the criteria. also the whole category of personality disorders are contentious. they are supposed to be stable over time but the reliability and validity of personality disorder diagnoses is extremely low. You follow people up and they no longer meet criteria. yet these disorders are supposed be stable and enduring. It is clear they are not. Many personality disorder experts suggest we shift with thinking about personality functioning instead of personality disorder, which would look at a persons' level of personality functioning at a given time rather than making assumptions not borne out by the evidence that this is reflective of a more stable pattern.

btw I have a special interest in severe personality disorder and forensic psychotherapy, but at the current time antisocial personality disorder does not belong in the traditional mental health system unless there is co-existing major mental disorder. This could be a moving target, there is some evidence that mentalization based treatment may be helpful for people with antisocial personality disorder. but this cannot be delivered to these individuals within a standard mental health setting. We need more community forensic programs in this country. Psychiatrists have been advocating for the psychoanalytic treatment of criminals for a long time, Karl Menninger wrote The Crime of Punishment which was impassioned plea against punitive approaches to criminality and instead focusing on rehabilitation. For Menninger and his ilk, it was was psychoanalytic approach that would heal these unfortunate souls and society (I'm going to talk a little bit about this at the IPS meeting this week...), but it was an abject failure. Some countries, particularly the UK still pay for intensive psychoanalytic treatment of extremely violent or sexually violent criminals but there isn't great evidence to support this. Incidentally, in the UK there is also a subspecialty of forensic psychotherapy, which is focusses on the psychoanalytic treatment of these violent individuals with severe personality disorders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
who said personality disorders don't count? I said antisocial personality disorder isn't a mental illness. it isn't. and it's not a personality disorder either. which I already said. Look at the criteria and you should see why the idea of this as a personality disorder let alone illness should raise some eyebrows:

(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest
(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure
(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead
(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others
(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
(7) lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

the criteria including things like "failure to conform to social norms" and ending up being arrested or "assaults" essentially invalidates the criteria for looking at its association with criminality and violence because you are essentially building it into the criteria. also the whole category of personality disorders are contentious. they are supposed to be stable over time but the reliability and validity of personality disorder diagnoses is extremely low. You follow people up and they no longer meet criteria. yet these disorders are supposed be stable and enduring. It is clear they are not. Many personality disorder experts suggest we shift with thinking about personality functioning instead of personality disorder, which would look at a persons' level of personality functioning at a given time rather than making assumptions not borne out by the evidence that this is reflective of a more stable pattern.

btw I have a special interest in severe personality disorder and forensic psychotherapy, but at the current time antisocial personality disorder does not belong in the traditional mental health system unless there is co-existing major mental disorder. This could be a moving target, there is some evidence that mentalization based treatment may be helpful for people with antisocial personality disorder. but this cannot be delivered to these individuals within a standard mental health setting. We need more community forensic programs in this country. Psychiatrists have been advocating for the psychoanalytic treatment of criminals for a long time, Karl Menninger wrote The Crime of Punishment which was impassioned plea against punitive approaches to criminality and instead focusing on rehabilitation. For Menninger and his ilk, it was was psychoanalytic approach that would heal these unfortunate souls and society (I'm going to talk a little bit about this at the IPS meeting this week...), but it was an abject failure. Some countries, particularly the UK still pay for intensive psychoanalytic treatment of extremely violent or sexually violent criminals but there isn't great evidence to support this. Incidentally, in the UK there is also a subspecialty of forensic psychotherapy, which is focusses on the psychoanalytic treatment of these violent individuals with severe personality disorders.
I was responding to @downwithDTB at the same time as you. I didn't see your response until after I had posted. I inferred that @downwithDTB was saying personality disorders don't count in that it seemed he/she was saying that many of the people identified with a mental illness that commit crimes have ASPD. It seemed like he/she was disclaiming that as not really counting as a mental illness.

I can see what you are saying about the diagnosis following the flow of a person's actions rather than being inherent to a person's nature. It seems that could be true of a variety of mental illnesses though, that like non-psychiatric diseases, are triggered by various events throughout life. For example, let's assume that a psychoanalytic basis for mental illness is valid. Would it be no more logical for a stressful life event to trigger unresolved childhood issues with authority for example than a virus to trigger an underlying autoimmune disease?

I didn't realize there was a uniqueness to ASPD compared with other personality disorders, but I am interested in that idea.

I am also for humane treatment of everyone, including people who are in prisons. There must be a place for everyone in society or the people who are left out will not only suffer but cause suffering for everyone else as well.

I think part of the solution toward lowering violence is to go after lower-hanging fruit. There are forms of violence that are so familiar to us we can't see them--and one of those are the very abject conditions in prisons. Eliminating the death penalty is one way we could change our culture. I have my own opinions about other ways we are still the wild west and should temper ourselves, but I'll save those as they would derail the conversation. My general point would be that making the familiar strange as to try to see it more objectively is important.
 
@splik et al., I was not trying to debate the validity of personality disorders as mental illness... Rather I was pointing out that the paper that you pointed to points to many other papers with varying definitions of "mental illness." For example, if you read the commonly cited paper on how people with mental illness are victims of violence you will see that it includes personality disorders and there is no specific exclusion of aspd. Whether or not we agree that it's a mental illness, you are right that its definition in the DSM makes it basically a catch all for people who a society that uses a jail system would probably have in jail. The study showing that only 5% of gun violence is committed by people with mental illness uses very different methods (questionable retrospective review of published diagnoses). My point was that that particular review has an agenda and the factoids that it quotes aren't specifically for the "major mental illnesses" listed above and don't use consistent definitions. We can argue all day about whether aspd is a mental illness or what should be done when a person is persistently and untreatably violent... or how to handle criminalization of drugs... Etc. But I'm pointing out that maybe stating that a high % of people in jails can fit a DSM diagnosis isn't all that surprising... But stating that only 5% of people who comit gun violence have a DSM diagnosis is (and probably just reflects that no one wrote down aspd in their chart yet).
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Miniver Cheevy
Hyatt H. Waggoner

Miniver is the archetypal frustrated romantic idealist, born in the wrong time for idealism. He is close enough to being Robinson himself so that Robinson can smile at him and let the pathos remain unspoken.
Yeah, I don't see it with this kid. Maturity and entitlement is more of a problem with him.
 

Sadly "Democrat-run" and "liberal" when it comes to public health and mental health policy have a weak correlation.

May I present local example A:
Former-White-House-Chief-of-Staff-Rahm-Emanuel-laughs.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Sadly "Democrat-run" and "liberal" when it comes to public health and mental health policy have a weak correlation.

May I present local example A:
Former-White-House-Chief-of-Staff-Rahm-Emanuel-laughs.jpg

A single example doesn't prove a trend. Look at the map, and you'll see that the correlation is pretty clear in general, with just a few exceptions. Illinois's failure is related to their budget crisis and the old school Chicago political machine, not their political preferences. In general, the states with better grades are in the Northeast, the West Coast, and the upper Midwest (more liberal states). The states with bad grades are the South/Southeast (except for VA and OK), the Plains, and UT/NV/ID (more conservative states).

Look at this map of red/blue states:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...rage_Margins_of_Presidential_Victory).svg.png

And this map of mental health grades by state:
http://www2.nami.org/gtsTemplate09.cfm?Section=Grading_the_States_2009

They match up quite well, with a few exceptions.
 
I wonder what explains Oklahoma as an outlier. It's very red and is one of only 6 states to get a B. It doesn't share the geography or much of anything else with the other "B" states.
 
A single example doesn't prove a trend. Look at the map, and you'll see that the correlation is pretty clear in general, with just a few exceptions. Illinois's failure is related to their budget crisis and the old school Chicago political machine, not their political preferences. In general, the states with better grades are in the Northeast, the West Coast, and the upper Midwest (more liberal states). The states with bad grades are the South/Southeast (except for VA and OK), the Plains, and UT/NV/ID (more conservative states).

Look at this map of red/blue states:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/Red_and_Blue_States_Map_(Average_Margins_of_Presidential_Victory).svg/959px-Red_and_Blue_States_Map_(Average_Margins_of_Presidential_Victory).svg.png

And this map of mental health grades by state:
http://www2.nami.org/gtsTemplate09.cfm?Section=Grading_the_States_2009

They match up quite well, with a few exceptions.

Oh I know, but as I said, my point is that the trendline is far frin perfect. And some powerful people in the Democratic party have taken a giant sh-t on mental health resources. Pat Quinn vs Bruce Rauner last year was a battle of which elements of mental health funding was going to get f-cked.

It's a reminder to actually look at the policies and decisions of politicians and to of course get involved in primaries.
 
Oh I know, but as I said, my point is that the trendline is far frin perfect. And some powerful people in the Democratic party have taken a giant sh-t on mental health resources. Pat Quinn vs Bruce Rauner last year was a battle of which elements of mental health funding was going to get f-cked.

It's a reminder to actually look at the policies and decisions of politicians and to of course get involved in primaries.
No trendline is perfect - that's why we call it a "trend" rather than a specific policy or fact. It's obvious that liberal states will be more friendly to things like abortion and gay marriage, since those are actual liberal policy points. The mental health thing is more of a "trend," since the party doesn't take as concrete of a stance on that issue.
 
No trendline is perfect - that's why we call it a "trend" rather than a specific policy or fact. It's obvious that liberal states will be more friendly to things like abortion and gay marriage, since those are actual liberal policy points. The mental health thing is more of a "trend," since the party doesn't take as concrete of a stance on that issue.

trust me. My post is NOT a defense of conservative politicians in the slightest.
 
Top