About those mental health provisions...

[mjb99]

Something has been gnawing at me since the President rolled out his selection of executive orders. Most gun owners seem pretty OK with the whole bit of strengthening mental health checks, etc, and in principle it makes good sense. HOWEVER...

I have had some passing familiarity with people suffering with mental health issues, and one thing I am aware of is the Diagnostic and Statistics Manual - the DSM. This is the standard reference work for all sorts of mental health professionals. In a completely unrelated context I saw some comments about the brand-new addition, DSM-5. People noted (jokingly) that so many things are covered in the new DSM that most people would be considered nuts. Hmmm...

Considering the long-ball game that Obama et al are playing, laying the groundwork for a much more authoritarian government, could this be something of a Trojan Horse? If most people, or at least someone in most households has "mental issues", then the groundwork is laid for sweeping restrictions on gun ownership. Maybe I picked up a new tinfoil hat without being aware of it, but this sure seems plausible to me.

Any mental health professionals with some thoughts on this?

 

[SanJoseScott]

Perhaps we should check the upcoming reprint of the DSM in particluar the new update #23 where it advised mental health professionals to ask about firearm ownership and if the patient responds that he is a firearm owner he is probably suffering from "Secondamendment syndrome" and should be detained and put through intesive therapy with notification to local authorities who will santize his living environment.

 

[HeyJoe]

with what is being discussed nationally and what has already been passed in NY State regarding changes in reporting by mental health professionals including rn's and social workers being able to report someone as in their opinion being a threat to themselves or others and being put on a state registry thereby having their ccw's revoked and their guns seized without due process in a court of law, in my opinion in this current climate you would have to be crazy to talk to a mental health professsional about anything.

 

[mjb99]

Just to clarify - I am NOT saying DSM-5 is a Trojan Horse, but rather the Executive Orders that went out today along with possible future (and seemingly good) legislation could be.

 

[Moonman]

A Very STICKY WICKET INDEED, as the British might say.

Maybe even Devious beyond comprehension.

Could be Intentional you know!

 

[akrawc2]

I do not put anything past these guys!

 

[dwpmusic]

I'm definitely not a mental health professional and prior to this post I'd never even heard of a DSM, not to mention a DSM-5. I did Google DSM-5 and read an article by Dr Allen Frances, Professor Emeritus, Duke University. It is terribly scary.

 

[tford46292]

I am a second year graduate student in the Counseling program at Cal State, Sacramento. Most Licensed health care providers are required to use the DSM for diagnosis on their patients, whether or not they agree with that particular mental health perspective, in order to receive payment for services provided through insurance companies. Some sort of diagnosis must be given to justify insurance compensation, an axis 1 adjustment disorder fits practically any type of life difficulties a person may be seeking treatment for. With obamacare ruling the land a DSM diagnosis will be mandatory, if providers want to get paid by insurance companies.
P.S. my teachers and peers would have no ethical problem removing guns from law abiding citizens.

 

[mjb99]

Thanks, tford. That is precisely my concern. People can see mental health professionals for all sorts of good - and very often minor - reasons to get help while going through a rough patch in life. The danger I see here is government bureaucrats abusing the information gathered by the health care system. They can use it to create a (thin) pretext for placing all sorts of sanctions on people - including taking away guns.

This is the ultimate danger of Obamacare: the government is now in a place to gather information on every citizen, and will also have tremendous leverage on each citizen. They literally will hold people's lives in their hands!

As mentioned in another thread, Obama and Co. may well have backed down on some of the things they hoped to do right away, but I fear they are succeeding in patiently laying the groundwork for their vision of the future. I don't care for that future, so I find things like this to be alarming!

 

[WR Moore]

I was in grad school a good many years ago. One of my Psych profs was on the committe (or whatever they termed it) that developed the psych evaluation for prospective armed security officers under a new state law.

In one of the classes he made several comments about the evaluation process. One was that the assumption was made that high verbal facility equated with an increased ability to find and execute non-violent conflict resolution and that this was a good thing. He disagreed with the base assumption (HVF=etc), and explained in detail why the presumption was BS.

The other item of interest involved a "what would you do" scenario involving the cantidate being in the parking lot of a supermarket, hearing a gunshot inside the store and then observing an armed individual exit the store. After a couple of years, they realized that there was an unforseen issue with life experience. Those without experience with violence viewed the question as a value judgement on whether lethal force was necessary (as did the psych profs-and no, it wasn't). Those with experience with violence (ie, military/police) regarded the question as "can I make the shot". This resulted in unspecified corrective action.

 

[HotRoderX]

The more I have thought about it the more I think the health provisions where him trying to sooth a raging bull. I also think the added "security for schools was him trying to sooth a upset public". Its been proven messing with 2A rights is a quick way to get your party thrown out of office. Americans like there firearms plain and simple. I really think him and Biden wanted more but congress said NO. I don't think it was just republicans but democrats also. I also don't think a AWB is going to go very far either are a mag ban. Special with midterm elections right around the corner. Once the midterm elections are over if democrats win then yea all bets are off. I also don't think we need to rest its obvious at least to me the writing to our senators and state reps has payed off in spades.

 

[Moonman]

MEDICAL INFORMATION AVAILABILITY can be Very Dangerous.

Diseases might PREVENT you from gaining Employment, Insurance, and Loans.

Mental Health evaluations could be FOREVER DENYING YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

Think Not! Just look at the conflicting court testimony of Psychologists and Psychiatrists and even your doctor.

They all or any could be an ANTI, and you have a permanent problem. YOU COULD BE A DONE DEAL.

YOUR Personal Medical information should be highly protected.

LOOK AT THE KOOKS, who just unilaterally OUT things, for whatever reasons.

 

[WuzzFuzz]

Back when I applied to become a LEO, there were two hospitals close by. The one hospital I first went to, to have a vasectomy performed. It went OK.

From that hospital I walked across the street to the other hospital to have my Phyc evaluation done. I did walk a bit stiff.

As I walked into the office for the Phyc evaluation, the Dr. asked what was wrong with me.

I said I had just had a vasectomy done

His reply........Then you can't be all that crazy....


I passed


True story..


But now the question would arise...Have I ever had a Phyc evaluation?


WuzzFuzz

 

[Moonman]

WasFuzz,

And the only answer to the PSYC exam, WOULD BE TO CHECK "YES" or "NO" box on a form.

Next up, Lying on a form would be and is grounds for dismissal.

See how nicely everything fits together.

 

[Comrad]

Just watch a couple ads on TV for the dozens of the latest medications to "ask your doctor about". Almost without exception the laundry list of side effects include psychiatric problems, thoughts of suicide and rage. With the heavy marketing of these medications I have to believe millions of people are taking them mainly because they asked for them and the doctors running a business with the drug companies running a business are all too happy to prescribe them whether you need them or not.
I'm not that smart, can anybody else see a problem here?

 

[Simmer down]

I am a mental health professional and I wince when I hear phrases thrown around without any clear definition. I don't worry about any conspriracy but I do worry that some loosely-worded law can cause unintentional problems. 10-15% of us will have some sort of mental health issue in our lives. That doesn't mean 10-15% of us are likely to go on a killing spree. Mental health issues aren't inherently dangerous or bad. Grief due to loss is normal, not some freakish response requiring lock-up.

We don't any need more labels that falsely try to predict the future. We already have criminal records that are abused to bar people from jobs, housing, and other things due to a snapshot of a past action, sometimes decades ago.

There isn't a simple, single approach to stop the possbility of these tragedies from ever happening again and for law makers to think they can database this issue away mocks the real problem and may create others.

 

[Comrad]

What ever happened to HIPAA? Guess a little rewrite is in order there.

 

[Simmer down]

What ever happened to HIPAA? Guess a little rewrite is in order there.

The exec order I read said something like changes will be made to keep HIPPA from barring needed info. That's a problem to me. HIPPA is in place to block willy-nilly record peeking. I don't trust most law makers or govt agencies to think out how this sort of access can have unintended negative effects.

And again, how will listing the 10-15% of us who have used our mental health benefits reduce violence, gun or otherwise?

 

[Buffalohunter60]

It all depends on how information is to be used. I am a vet and do not draw compensation for PTSD but I can see where those that do....may be in danger of losing their right to a firearm.....even though it does not mean they are a threat to society.....next, we could have to pass a test to see if we are fit to have a license to have a firearm...that could be abused.....lots to beware of.

 

[mjb99]

And again, how will listing the 10-15% of us who have used our mental health benefits reduce violence, gun or otherwise?

It won't. The problem is that many politicians honestly don't get this. Others are simply using it as a pretext to gain more power.

I think one of the big problems that can lead to tragedies like the one in CT is that laws and bureaucracies deal with non-issues like people getting grief counseling, and in the meantime people pleading for intervention for people - and especially minors - who are clearly exhibiting dangerous, violent tendencies, cannot get help until something really bad happens.

I know people who have PLEADED with the state to institutionalize a clearly dangerous teen, and until a serious enough crime was committed, nothing was done. These people lived in fear, and could very well have made the papers in a bad way if the cookie had crumbled a bit differently.

I am not in favor of institutionalizing people willy-nilly, but our current situation is a mess. There are other Adam Lanza's out there, and there is ar this time precious little that can be done to intervene BEFORE something really horrible happens - whether to one person or 26.