A Letter To The Editor 5-10-13

New Mental Health / 2nd Amendment Legislation?
Or, When does a person need to be prohibited from having access to guns? 

However new laws are written, it needs to be made clear to both the general public and the mental health providers that it is perfectly alright for anyone to seek help with mood and thought troubles at any time without risk that their counseling information will be shared with anyone, including law enforcement. Confidentiality should be paramount. No matter how many visits per year and at any level, as long as the patient is making the decision to seek advice and help, whether it is with or without medication, this information cannot be shared with anyone not specified by the patient in writing.

The trouble is, I don’t think anyone really knows where the laws stand on this subject at all, or how widely it varies from state to state.

However, as certain issues arise or are uncovered, and when certain medications become part of the program, the MHP (Mental Health Provider) must begin taking on a responsibility to the patient, his relatives/ housemates, and the general public that all remain in a reasonably safe condition. This has to involve direct discussions with the patient regarding his ownership and access to deadly items such as cars, bats, knives, guns, cliffs, and other common items and the patient’s feelings about all these in relationship to his condition. I would think it imperative that not discussing these things with the patient would be doing him a disservice.

At some point of mental instability, there will have to be a line drawn that would require a patient to have certain rights and/or privileges suspended until he becomes more stable. This is a highly judgmentalcriterion and must be approached with caution. This crossroad may arrive when the patient suspends all self-help and quitsor abusesmedication, suffers frequent depression, or rapid deterioration of any progress that had been made previously. This judgment call should be required to be made by a consensus of more than one MHP, and would most likely be at a point where the patient is admitted to a Mental Health Facility through a decision made by relatives/ housemates, and the MHP’s or even the patient. Under no circumstances shall this decision be made by someone outside the family and MHP community (meaning Law Enforcement or government officials).

This is a sensitive line to cross as far as the communication between the medical profession and law enforcement in regards to second amendment rights, the right to vote, and other rights that are really not clearly addressed, but need to be. Professionals from both sides need to build a strict set of criteria that must be met before this line is drawn. Once a person is judged to be past this point, mandatory care should be part of the program. It should be imperative that the patient be committed and treated for the mental illness and not just tossed back into society. Just as the bar should be high to commit a person to a mental health facility, it should be equally as high to be released, and this should include major measurable goals to be crossed and maintained, and solid responsibilities must be demonstrated for extended periods of time. Follow up maintenance visits need to be kept mandatory and permanent.
What do you think?