Targeting those with mental illness in the gun reform debate misses the point--dangerously

First posted on March 26, 2018. The relevant links have been updated with more current studies and articles; unfortunately the message of the original post was able to be re-posted largely unedited.

In the wake of the powerful and moving March for our Lives, I find cause to share this post again. The Parkland students are icons and largely above reproach. They have, in a shockingly short period, endured an attack that took their friends from them, and immediately used that to mobilize a generation against gun violence. Their platform is all about common sense gun laws--respecting the 2nd amendment while making a large-scale gun attack like the one they lived through more difficult to achieve. The young people at the front of this movement are inspiring, and I am proud to stand with them.

Except.

A little over a month ago, I called out the conversation on gun violence for scapegoating those with mental illness. I highlighted ugly words from our president, and from NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch. Because I want to illustrate the prevasiveness of ignorance on the topic I addressed in my previous post, I want to take time to call out the spectacular and brave leaders of Parkland.

In the lead-up to this weekend's marches, The Guardian asked the Eagle Eye, the student newspaper of Marjory Stoneman Douglas, to write an editorial stating their position on gun control policy.¹ One of the Eagle Eye's policy change talking points was titled: "Change privacy laws to allow mental healthcare providers to communicate with law enforcement."

An organization in New York City is set up to respond to emergency calls related to mental health, but presently a vast majority of such calls still go to the police—a dangerous proposition for the person in the midst of a mental health episode. (photo from the Associated Press)

The current privacy laws already allow for mental health care professionals to share protected mental health care information with law enforcement, if the patient poses a threat to themselves or others. To then change the existing laws regarding this would presumably mean that law enforcement would be able to freely access information on the population suffering from mental illness, and act on that information. This sort of change would set the stage for the criminalization of mental illness in ways large and small, as outlined by this emotional Twitter thread.²

Once again, if you want to fix mental health as it relates to gun violence, you should start with fixing access to mental health providers and insurance, and you should start with fixing gun policies. I went deeply into that in my original post, which I encourage you to take the time to read or re-read.

Several additional articles for you highlight the lack of accessibility to mental health professionals in our country. I can say anecdotally that I've spent more than 8 months searching for a psychiatrist to write a prescription for my bipolar disorder after my therapist told me that was the next step in my treatment.

Don't change laws to allow for police to place those battling mental illness under surveillance. Change the laws to require insurance companies to cover those suffering from mental illness.³

I stand with the victims of the Parkland shooting, and I call for them to stand with me.

1. To clarify, I cannot confirm that the students who wrote the editorial in The Guardian are the same students who organized the March for our Lives protest. In their editorial, however, the writers state their plans to march.

2. This account that posted this thread has since been suspended.

3. As outlined in the article linked, while insurance companies are legally obligated to provide equal access to both mental and physical care, the insurance companies are permitted to set their own standards for what they will pay for. As you might imagine, this functionally leaves many people without care.