This is one of those articles that got lost in the shuffle, as it was originally brought to my attention earlier in the month. A friend and I got into a discussion concerning the how's and why's with my conclusion being an over zealous agent assuming more than should have; she does have a book out, and there is a record of the 2012 call placed by her mother to 911. In my mind I was/am thinking that someone assumed a bit too much (her 3 prior trips being uneventful) based on a faulty notion concerning mental illness and physical disabilities. Although her self report that they cited her diagnosis of "clinical depression" is a bit disconcerting:
He cited the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 212, which denies entry to people who have had a physical or mental disorder that may pose a “threat to the property, safety or welfare’’ of themselves or others.
The agent gave her a signed document which stated that “system checks’’ had found she “had a medical episode in June 2012’’ and that because of the “mental illness episode’’ she would need a medical evaluation before being accepted.
The difficulty for me personally, "who exactly is defining what a 'mental disorder' is?" For those more outside the box, they would go one step further, " In a police state, a mental disorder can be any pattern of thought that the government thinks is not accepted by the state. Today they may use conventional definitions to discriminate against those with episodes of mental distress, but tomorrow they will expand that definition to include any pattern of thought conducive to being an enemy of the state."
At the time of my original discussion I stated that this incident would bare watching to see what if anything would develop; since that time I have not come across any "new" news.
But, back to the highlighted article, there is an issue that the author of points out that needs to be discussed:
Much more troubling, however, is the notion that information about a person’s depression, no matter how legitimately obtained, might have any bearing on her ability to visit the United States.
People in treatment for mental illnesses do not have a higher rate of violence than people without mental illnesses. Furthermore, depression affects one in 10 American adults, according to estimates from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Pillorying depression is regressive, a swoop back into a period when any sign of mental illness was the basis for social exclusion.
This is the "faulty" notion I was referring to above, that those of us with a mental illness are "prone to violence." In actuality the exact opposite is true, people with a mental illness are more likely to be the victims, rather than the perpetrators of violence. Numerous studies indicate that people living with mental health conditions are no more likely to engage in violent behavior than the general population.
Regretfully this "myth" is one the is perpetrated and kept alive by popular culture as Aaron Levin wrote an article entitled, “Violence and Mental Illness: Media Keep Myths Alive”. The example given in that article, the hockey mask as a symbol of dangerousness and insanity.
What it boils down to is this mental illness has been shown to be a poor predictor of violence, 80 to 90 percent of people with mental illness never commit violent acts. But the policy is there, and whether the border agent was being over zealous or not, it is a policy that needs to be changed. Further stigmatizing a person with a mental illness, will not solve the problem. If anything it will make matters worse as many will internalize their illness for fear of being shunned (or worse, refrain from seeking treatment that could make a significant beneficial impact on their lives) in order to avoid what happened to Richardson.
Shameful Profiling of the Mentally Ill - NYTimes.com
No comments:
Post a Comment