Access to mental health care.

[Contrarian]

This is among the worst oversimplified encouragements of vigilantism I've ever come across. By using the metaphor of sheep in denial, it creates a negative connotation of weakness that would inspire most men reading it to say "oh no, that's not me--I'm definitely a sheep dog and I'm ready to be a wolf if I have to!!!" *squeezes off rounds in the air*. I imagine this will upset you because it's the origins of your signature but it's baffling to me that the one PA who is actually in psychiatry has been the last one to comment on the OP's intention and the title of the thread. At the same time, perhaps it's not so baffling because using these words as a manifesto creates a range restriction of behavior if one can only be 1 of 3 things and it's no secret which one you've chosen.

 

 

Ha..ha...

Not ONE bit of "Vigilantism" in that entire missive...

Apparently YOU missed the point... which was that there ARE people walking this planet who will not let evil triumph. There are THOUSANDS of folks who are NOT ok sitting and waiting to be victimized.

 

And it seems that your reading skillz are lacking cause I addressed BOTH of the OPs points in the very first post I made in THIS thread.

 

Also... had you considered that my experience and training in Psychiatry has actually reinforced my position....???

 

Naaaahh... your toooo busy going "baaaah" to consider that after actually seeing what some psychotic folks are capable of doing to themselves and others... that I may want to be prepared to immeadiately terminate that action should it occur.

 

Naaaahhh... Naaaahh... your toooo busy going "baaaah" to consider that I may have a collegue or two that has had psychotic and or addicted patient's waiting for them in the dark parking lot because they had them detained, didn't release them, or didn't give them those oxy's/percs/dilaudid...

 

Naaaahh... your toooo busy going "baaaah" to consider that I may even have a collegue with hemiplegia and now needs assistive devices to ambulate after being hit repeatedly in the head with a rock outside a restaurant by a psychotic patient that stalked her.

 

Naaaahh... your toooo busy going "baaaah" to consider that I'm NOT going to simply stand by and watch/let any of the above happen to anyone I care about... or to even a total stranger.

 

Its just NOT in my ingredients...

 

You NOT understanding that is ok... and doesn't "upset me"...

It simply identifies YOU as edible.

 

Funny thing is... everytime things got scary... YOU sought out the services of a sheepdog... and when it all goes to "hell in a hand basket"... again.... even YOU will be actively seeking the protection of a sheepdog.

 

[h=2]Sheepdog (Sheep-dawg,-dog) noun.[/h]From a very early age, sheepdogs are introduced to their flock to allow them to become familiar with those they are responsible for, to imprint. As they grow, the flock becomes accustomed to the sheepdog's presence and generally accepts it as one of their own, yet remains wary of its obvious differences. The flock recognizes that the sheepdog is more similar to the predators that they try to avoid than it is to them, but trust that it means them no harm. Throughout its life the sheepdog performs his or her duty and asks for nothing in return—its nose turned in to the breeze, its ears alert for the slightest sound. The sheepdog knows that its presence is usually a deterrent and may never have to lash out in anger, but when that day comes, he is prepared to fight to the death. He quite literally guards the flock, the whole flock, with his life. No harm shall come to any in his charge.

 

[Contrarian]

Funny.........

 

What we have here in America isn’t a gun problem, it’s an A$$hole problem. Everywhere you look there’s an a$$hole causing some type of discontent. It could be an a$$hole with a gun, or an A$$hole with a knife, or an a$$hole with a car bomb. However you cut it, it still an a$$hole at fault. What makes this problem worse is that there are A$$holes EVERYWHERE.

 

There are redneck A$$holes, Yankee A$$holes, Mid West A$$holes, Middle Eastern A$$holes, European A$$holes, pick a place, any place. I bet you money they’ve got A$$holes. And A$$holes affect everyone.

 

Now we could delve into the psycho-babble of why a$$holes exist but it’s really a pointless effort. They exist. Whether it be because their mommies didn’t beat their little pink butts when they were young or there is some great societal failure, the blame still falls firmly on the a$$hole and their inability to make a decision.

 

Before anyone starts running off at the mouth about banning guns or certain types of guns or slingshots or bear traps or ball bearings let’s concentrate on our a$$hole epidemic. If you see something say something. There should be an “A$$hole No Fly List”, an “Anti-$$hole Bill”, “A$$hole Anonymous” , hell, PBS could do an entire series on A$$holes and let a$$holes pay for it. We could do an “Anti A$$hole Campaign” and put up billboards…”Do you know an A$$hole? Does that A$$hole need help?” with an 800 number to call so we can get them into counseling. All of this talk and finger pointing has gotten out of control. It’s the gun owner’s fault, no it’s the anti-gun people at fault. Let’s just call like we see it. An A$$hole did what Aholes do. I, for one, have ZERO tolerance for A$$holes and so should you. If you want to ban something, ban them. They cause all the trouble.

 

 

 

Truth of perspective

 

I carry a gun. All the time, everywhere. Mostly out of habit. For 13 years I put one on every day. It was part of my uniform (or my “outfit” if you’re my daughter). It was just as much a part of me as my socks or my vest. It was my life, my lifeline, my security blanket, my spouse, my sibling, and my magic wand. It was an armrest, a nervous tick (unsnap, snap, unsnap, snap) and a peace maker. When I “retired” (read that as “left to run my business”) it was the one thing that I couldn’t let go of. I don’t have to carry one anymore. I’m not obligated or legally bound, but I feel naked without it.

 

I will always have that “what if” in the back of mind. You see folks, I’m not going to get caught with my pants down. I’m not going to be the one who says “I could have done something”. I’m not wired that way. I’m not a badass or anything, I’m just a guy who refuses to be a victim, and more importantly, refuses to let anyone else be a victim if I can help it.

 

No superhero theatrics, no running in to save the day, just run of the mill American citizen. I’m THAT guy. I feel awkward if my wife walks on the “street” side of me. I still sit facing a door. I carry 500 pounds of groceries in my “off hand” so my “gun hand” is free. I don’t like people in my “bubble”. I still to this day talk to strangers in an interview stance. I know, I know, I need to relax right? But I won’t.

 

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m NOT the 5.11 from head to toe guy. I’m not the big watch and Oakleys dude, I’m a simple creature of habit. I shoot when I get the chance. I keep my guns clean and serviceable. I keep me clean and serviceable (most of the time). I do what I can to make other people safe. Not because I want to be any kind of hero, but because it’s what I’m supposed to do. Says who? Beats me. That’s just the way it is.

 

I carry a gun. Everywhere I go. I just do. I may not need it, but one day someone may need me to have it. That’s how I roll. I don’t want to be all self righteous about it. Call me what you want. Judge me for what I do, but I am what I am. Gun and all.

 

[CAdamsPAC]

Ha..ha...

Not ONE bit of "Vigilantism" in that entire missive...

Apparently YOU missed the point... which was that there ARE people walking this planet who will not let evil triumph. There are THOUSANDS of folks who are NOT ok sitting and waiting to be victimized.

 

And it seems that your reading skillz are lacking cause I addressed BOTH of the OPs points in the very first post I made in THIS thread.

 

Also... had you considered that my experience and training in Psychiatry has actually reinforced my position....???

 

Naaaahh... your toooo busy going "baaaah" to consider that after actually seeing what some psychotic folks are capable of doing to themselves and others... that I may want to be prepared to immeadiately terminate that action should it occur.

 

Naaaahhh... Naaaahh... your toooo busy going "baaaah" to consider that I may have a collegue or two that has had psychotic and or addicted patient's waiting for them in the dark parking lot because they had them detained, didn't release them, or didn't give them those oxy's/percs/dilaudid...

 

Naaaahh... your toooo busy going "baaaah" to consider that I may even have a collegue with hemiplegia and now needs assistive devices to ambulate after being hit repeatedly in the head with a rock outside a restaurant by a psychotic patient that stalked her.

 

Naaaahh... your toooo busy going "baaaah" to consider that I'm NOT going to simply stand by and watch/let any of the above happen to anyone I care about... or to even a total stranger.

 

Its just NOT in my ingredients...

 

You NOT understanding that is ok... and doesn't "upset me"...

It simply identifies YOU as edible.

 

Funny thing is... everytime things got scary... YOU sought out the services of a sheepdog... and when it all goes to "hell in a hand basket"... again.... even YOU will be actively seeking the protection of a sheepdog.

 

 

It's easier to complain about those who do than to become one and stand up to the problems. As long as the threat is there someone needs to be ready, if not you , then who? As an "Old Medical Soldier" I refer folks to Isaiah 6:8 and John 15:13.

[303909]

baaaaaaaah

heh

had a large post. Mostly good post. Probably too controversial for this forum and it's long-standing power dynamics and authoritarian personalities that cluster around military service. Glad I wrote it and saved it elsewhere though.

carry on

[rcdavis]

I am one of those authoritarian military types.

Amazing how those who have personally paid some price for the freedom of others have an attitude that, because it may not tend towards passivity, is construed as authoritarian.

 

Gun ownership is a RIGHT. Same as voting. Until liberals and pacifists give up their vote, I will keep my guns. If my kid had been in that school, I would have hoped and prayed that at least one teacher had been trained and was comfortable with a gun. I cannot think a law which would have prevented the assault. If the assault was going to happen, then an armed response is a rational thing. The other option is sheep being led to slaughter. Ever noticed that there has never been an assault at a gun show? A police station? An NRA convention? Or anyplace where armed resistance could be expected.?

 

What REALLY Bothers me is that, had there been a teacher in the school which HAD a gun, and took that nut out before he killed anywhere near the number of kids that he did kill, many here would want to have him or her arrested...

 

Carrying on...

[303909]

The trouble with an authoritarian personality is that the preoccupation with power, control and exerting both over others leaves no room for anything else. It's why this discussion is pointless. I don't think anyone has even mentioned taking away the Second Amendment or gun control but the saber rattling commenced anyway because confrontation is not only expected but celebrated. In fact, everyone else has left the topic because the binary "you're with me or against me" lifestyle of the authoritarian leaves the vast majority with only one option. This is a philosophical problem that centers around how citizens think a society ought to function and as such, it will be messy, nuanced and extremely unpleasant for an authoritarian because there are no wolves, sheep, sheep dogs, targets to take out or chains of command to operate within. So, like everybody else, I'm stepping out to let a majority permit the crickets to chirp while more vicarious "if only I woulda been there" violent fantasies of armed civilian engagement roll in

[CAdamsPAC]

The trouble with an authoritarian personality is that the preoccupation with power, control and exerting both over others leaves no room for anything else. It's why this discussion is pointless. I don't think anyone has even mentioned taking away the Second Amendment or gun control but the saber rattling commenced anyway because confrontation is not only expected but celebrated. In fact, everyone else has left the topic because the binary "you're with me or against me" lifestyle of the authoritarian leaves the vast majority with only one option. This is a philosophical problem that centers around how citizens think a society ought to function and as such, it will be messy, nuanced and extremely unpleasant for an authoritarian because there are no wolves, sheep, sheep dogs, targets to take out or chains of command to operate within. So, like everybody else, I'm stepping out to let a majority permit the crickets to chirp while more vicarious "if only I would been there" violent fantasies of armed civilian engagement roll in

 

Yep, you'll do well as a PA when you are called out on an issue and you don't agree with the athoritarian/surgeon,chain of command / practice physicians approach

you'll walk away from their fantasies. Yep you've got it all figured out, if you can't have it your way you won't play. Good luck, Ha!

[Contrarian]

Anti-gun loon pop quiz

 

a) How many US citizens bought a new automatic weapon last year?

b) How many murders have been committed with an automatic weapon in the US in the past 50 years?

c) Which weapon can fire the most projectiles in 3 seconds. AR15 "assault rifle" or Shotgun

.

.

.

a) ZERO

b) ZERO

c) Shotgun

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

Chuck Norris is an assault weapon! BAN CHUCK NORRIS!!

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

oh my god ban ASSAULT WEAPONS! what are Assault weapons? If I assault you with a knife that makes the knife an Assault weapon!, If I have a Black belt in Karate and punch you in the face My fist is classified a Assault weapon! people really need to wake up! IT"S NOT THE GUN IT'S THE PSYCHOTIC PERSON BEHIND THE GUN!!

[Contrarian]

Another entry today...

 

 

I am Adam Lanza’s psychiatrist.

 

“I am sharing this story because I am Adam Lanza's mother. I am Dylan Klebold's and Eric Harris's mother. I am James Holmes's mother. I am Jared Loughner's mother. I am Seung-Hui Cho's mother. And these boys -- and their mothers -- need help. In the wake of another horrific national tragedy, it's easy to talk about guns. But it's time to talk about mental illness.”

 

These are the words that spread across the Internet written by Boise mother Liza Long describing the challenge of grappling with her exceptionally gifted -- and exceptionally aggressive -- teenage son. Long gave a voice to the complicated "risk" burden that lies on parents, doctors and community to identify these potential dangers before it’s too late.

 

Or as in the case of the “Dark Knight” shootings, to prevent another mother from wearily confirming over the phone after being informed her 24-year-old son could be the culprit of mass homicide: “You have the right person.”

 

As Long wrote incisively in her essay about her 13-year-old, “I live with a son who is mentally ill. I love my son. But he terrifies me."

 

I know what challenges she faces, because -- in the words of Long -- I am Adam Lanza’s psychiatrist. I am Dylan Klebold’s and Eric Harris’s psychiatrist. I am James Holmes’s psychiatrist. I am Seung-Hui Cho’s psychiatrist. And it is absolutely time to talk about mental illness.

 

Parents like Long definitively do not cause these types of mental illnesses that morph into violence. More often than not, the desire is there for the best treatment possible. Unfortunately, my chosen field of psychiatry has a lot of limitations.

In terms of the relationship between mental illness and violence, here is the little we do know.

 

According to APA Council on Law and Psychiatry (Access to Firearms by People With Mental Illness: Resource Document, Arlington, Va., American Psychiatric Association, 2009), "The 'absolute risk' message is that the vast majority of people with mental illness in the community are not violent. The 'relative risk' message is that people with serious mental illness are, indeed, somewhat more likely to commit violent acts than people who are not mentally ill. And the 'attributable risk' message is that violence is a societal problem caused largely by other things besides mental illness (ready availability of guns, for example)."

 

I have had patients who have believed they were “chosen” to carry out a mission or who started to speak of the devil being present in the form of human beings. But are they violent? Do they need to be locked up? At what point do I inform the authorities when no specific plans to commit violence are mentioned to me, but the words start to become more terror-inducing. “Enemies” are mentioned. “Hate” punctuates every other word. Conscience can appear strikingly absent or little, if at all. Behavior is erratic -- but does not pose a technical threat.

 

I have had patients that are ticking time bombs.

 

I know the responsibility that lies upon me. When there is a sense that a patient is near breaking. When it is missed, I spend the rest of my life second-guessing myself and wondering what I may not have seen. It happens. Too often.

It is fair to say that pretty much everyone is enraged at my profession right about now. This is what happens when the time bomb is not caught, not stopped, not prevented.

 

We as psychiatrists need to find a way to catch our troubled sons -- the next Adam Lanza -- in the moment when he changes from chronically dangerous (that dreaded sense of ticking time bomb) to acutely dangerous (when the violence amps up to meeting the criteria for commitment to a hospital).

 

Because this boy was missed. That moment is now gone, and we as a nation are grieving with the consequences of the failure.

 

The only move left is for me to ask for help. And that’s exactly what I am doing.

 

1) The US Congress: Please create better laws to ensure the ticking time bomb is caught before it is too late. Make it much easier for a family to get a potentially dangerous person into mandated treatment. This means less paperwork, too. We need to support parents and mental health professionals.

 

2) The US Justice Department: It’s time we enacted a Health Law Court. Have doctors serve as judges and streamline legal proceedings for tough medical and psychiatric cases. Go to commongood.org for ideas on how this can be done.

 

3) Health Insurance Companies: Man up. My main complaint is with you. You make it so hard to keep people in the hospital when they need to be there, and it’s even harder to keep them in intensive outpatient services. Please create protocols for difficult cases and loosen the purse strings for extremely troubled individuals –- before it’s too late.

 

4) Network TV: Please create some exciting television that is actually educational about mental illness. Or least give us a “Gossip Girl” who takes her medication and sees her psychiatrist regularly. Less stigma, better health.

 

5) Drug Companies: You are always trying to ply me with coffee and doughnuts. I have trust issues with you. Don’t want anything, thanks.

 

6) The Hollywood PR Machine: Please find the mental health community a really attractive celebrity to get the US mental health system some money. I am glad that George Clooney and Angelina Jolie are doing so much for Africa, but can we borrow one of them please?

 

7) High School Students: Tell the popular kids to stop being such dicks to the odd kids or the ones they don’t understand.

 

8) Community Psychiatry Health Researchers: You have kick-a$$ and innovative ideas for how to reform the system. Could one of you put on a sequin dress and walk a red carpet please? We need to get you more money.

 

Me? I will keep trying to do my job. But I want to be better equipped the next time the risk appears before me. Because these young men need help. We all do.

 

[rev ronin]

The trouble with an authoritarian personality is that the preoccupation with power, control and exerting both over others leaves no room for anything else.

 

I agree. I have no problem at all with people who choose not to own guns, just with when they want to exert power and control over me that I begin to take issue with their efforts.

[303909]

Yep, you'll do well as a PA when you are called out on an issue and you don't agree with the athoritarian/surgeon,chain of command / practice physicians approach

you'll walk away from their fantasies. Yep you've got it all figured out, if you can't have it your way you won't play. Good luck, Ha!

I think there is some confusion between using "authoritarian" as slang for an overbearing superior and an "authoritarian personality" as a trait. Before anyone bristles, I am not implying that every word here is applicable to the folks in this thread:

 

"Adorno, et al. (1950) viewed the authoritarian personality as having a strict superego that controls a weak ego unable to cope with strong id impulses. The resulting intrapsychic conflicts cause personal insecurities, resulting in that person’s superego to adhere to externally imposed conventional norms (conventionalism), and to the authorities who impose these norms (authoritarian submission). The ego-defense mechanism of projection occurs as indicated when that person avoids self-reference of the anxiety producing id impulse, by displaying them onto “inferior” minority groups in the given culture (projectivity), with associated beliefs that are highly evaluative (power and toughness), and rigid (stereotypy). Additionally, there is a cynical view of mankind and a need for power and toughness resulting from the anxieties produced by perceived lapses in society’s conventional norms (destructiveness and cynicism). Other characteristics of this personality type are a general tendency to focus upon those who violate conventional values and act harshly towards them (authoritarian aggression), a general opposition to subjective or imaginative tendencies (anti-intraception), a tendency to believe in mystic determination (superstition), and finally, an exaggerated concern with promiscuity.

Alfred Adler provided another perspective, linking the "will to power over others" as a central neurotic trait, usually emerging as aggressive over-compensation for felt and dreaded feelings of inferiority and insignificance. According to this view, the authoritarian needs to maintain control and prove superiority over others is rooted in a worldview populated by enemies and empty of equality, empathy, and mutual benefit."

That's why I chose to step out of the conversation on the path that it was going because the discourse will play out like clockwork and get me banned or the thread heavily moderated. I'll leave the supervising physician scenario alone because I think it was based on a misunderstanding.

[Contrarian]

The trouble with an authoritarian personality is that the preoccupation with power, control and exerting both over others leaves no room for anything else.

 

Yep... so true...

 

I agree. I have no problem at all with people who choose not to own guns, just with when they want to exert power and control over me that I begin to take issue with their efforts.

 

Yep...

I have no desire to MAKE folks own or carry a firearm...

[303909]

Alright

No changes are made to the accessibility, production or use of firearms save for a tax levied on both the firearm and the ammunition to exclusively fund the expansion and coverage of child/adolescent inpatient and outpatient psychiatric services first and adult services next.

Go

[Contrarian]

Hmmm...............

 

[Antonius, D., Fuchs, L., Herbert, F., Kwon, J., Fried, J. L., Burton, P. R. S., Straka, T., Levin, Z., Caligor, E. & Malaspina, D. (2010). Psychiatric assessment of aggressive patients. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(3), 253-259.

 

Excerpt: "Among clinicians, violence toward psychiatrists is common and is an important issue (10–12); more than a third of psychiatrists have been assaulted by a patient at least once (10, 13). The risk of violent victimization is greater in clinicians with less experience (11). Reports estimate that 72% to 96% of psychiatric residents have been verbally threatened (12, 14–16), and 36% to 56% have experienced physical assaults (12, 14–18).... Clinicians are often reluctant to diagnose and treat aggressive and assaultive features in adolescents and young adults with psychiatric problems, instead focusing treatment on other axis I mental disorders in the hope that this will also reduce aggressive behavior. Interventions and treatment of violent psychiatric patients may be further hampered by the assumption that violent psychiatric patients belong to a homogeneous group, whereas there are actually several subgroups of violence-prone patients whose behavior is rooted in dissimilar underlying mechanisms. This oversight is unfortunate given that proper risk assessment of violence characteristics can guide differential treatment and management considerations and help in the prevention of assaultive behavior in patients determined to be potentially violent. Another concern is that unclear or nonexistent reporting policies or feelings of self-reproach may prevent residents and clinicians from reporting assaultive behavior. This limits our understanding of the prevalence of violence by psychiatric patients and prevents us from providing the resources necessary to address the problem.

 

Abrams, K. M., & Robinson, G. E. (2011). Stalking by patients: Doctors' experiences in a Canadian urban area.Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 199(10), 738-743.

 

Excerpt: "Of the 1190 physicians who responded, 14.9% reported having been stalked. Although both male and female patients were stalkers, their motives and stalking behaviors were dissimilar. Psychiatrists, surgeons, and OB/GYNs reported the highest rates of being stalked. Both male and female physicians are at an increased risk of being stalked by patients who may feel loving feelings or anger and resentment."

 

Kavanagh, A., & Watters, L. (2010). Consultant psychiatrists' experience of workplace violence—A national survey. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, 27(2), 77-81.

 

Excerpt: "Ninety per cent of respondents had been the victim of verbal aggression/intimidation/threatening behaviour while 55% had been physically assaulted. The majority of incidents involved male patients aged between 21-40 years with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. Nearly 66% of incidents of physical violence occurred during a relapse of illness. The perpetrator had a history of violence in approximately half of all reported incidents. Physical assaults tended to occur more commonly in inpatient settings (63.7%). Incident reporting occurred more often in physical assaults with 66% reported informally to colleagues and 20% reported to An Garda Siochana (police force of Ireland). Eighty-nine (56%) consultants described feeling 'safe' at work. Less than 50% reported the provision of standard safety equipment in the workplace and nearly half of respondents had not attended any safety training courses since their appointment. Longer experience working as a consultant psychiatrist did not appear to have an impact on reducing the rate of assaults. In addition, those who attended safety training courses did not report a reduced rate of physical assaults."

 

Kaplan, Arline. (2008). "Violent Attacks by Patients: Prevention and Self-Protection." Psychiatric Times, vol. 25, #7.

 

Excerpt: “During their training, up to 65% of psychiatry residents are physically assaulted by patients.... In a 2003 survey of employees of the University of Rochester Medical Center's inpatient and outpatient services, 40% of responding physicians, 3% of psychologists, and 57% of registered nurses said patients had assaulted them.....

 

In outpatient settings, a survey found that 32 of 92 psychiatrists (35%) reported serious assaults by patients (knife or gun used) and 59 respondents (64%) reported less serious assaults.....

 

Additional guidelines offered by Appelbaum [Paul Appelbaum, MD, professor of psychiatry and director of the Division of Psychiatry, Law, and Ethics at Columbia University] include ensuring that you have a means of egress from the office if a patient gets out of control and removing from your office heavy objects that could be thrown or used as weapons....

 

Many clinicians have been injured because they thought that they could deal with an uncomfortable or dangerous situation without help from security staff or without consulting about the patient with a more experienced colleague. Do not try to ‘talk down’ an agitated patient without adequate physical safety precautions, Reid [William H. Reid, MD, MPH, clinical professor of psychiatry at the University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio] warned, adding that psychiatrists and psychologists make poor negotiators with agitated, threatening, or intoxicated people. He also cautioned men not to rely on their size and strength, ‘since even big, strong, young males can be severely injured or killed by psychotic or intoxicated patients, by patients who attack suddenly or from hiding, or by patients who wield weapons.’”

 

In 2001, Gary Arthur and Joel Brende, professors emeritus at Georgia State University and Mercer University School of Medicine, respectively, found striking evidence of workplace safety concerns for mental healthcare providers: Of the 1,131 therapists who responded to his survey, 14 had been shot at, 6 knifed, 209 shoved, and 87 hit by objects thrown at them by patients.

 

Much More Here

.................................................................................................................................

 

 

It sounded like the sort of murder a screenwriter might concoct: respected psychologist from New York Dr. Kathryn Faughey is hacked to death by cleaver-wielding patient.

The New York Daily News reported that Faughey was attacked "during a therapy session." The attack on the therapist was ferocious. A law enforcement source told the Daily News that Dr. Faughey's killer "bent two knives - the cleaver and a 9-inch blade with a camouflage handle" during the attack.

Dr. Kathryn Faughey's colleague tried to help, but therapist Kent Shinbach ended up with severe injuries of his own. He was hospitalized in critical condition.

 

 

A 71-year-old psychiatrist was shot and killed Friday by a 62-year-old patient who then killed herself in the doctor’s home in an upscale section of Fairfax County ...

 

A man distraught about his mother's health shot and wounded a doctor at Baltimore's prestigious Johns Hopkins Hospital on Thursday...

 

A Filipino female doctor on Monday was killed by one of her own patients in Las Vegas, Nevada...

 

Sniper Kills Abortion Doctor Near Buffalo. ...

 

The Las Vegas doctor who was shot by his own patient remains in serious condition...

 

Alabama hospital gunman shoots cop and 2 workers

 

A gunman who was armed with two semiautomatic handguns opened fire in the lobby of the psychiatric clinic at the University of Pittsburgh...

 

The Doctor was shot fatally three times in the back last Wednesday in the parking lot of a clinic where he worked here, and Mr. Griffin told the police that he pulled the trigger. Two months ago, Mr. Griffin showed up on the fringe of an extreme anti-abortion group here led by a lay minister named John Burt. Mr. Burt, a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, has taken pains to distance himself from Mr. Griffin. He did not know much about the newcomer to his group, he said. "I'm like the general who sends out the orders to the troops," Mr. Burt said Friday. "I can't control it if one goes bad. I can't be responsible." 'Two Speeding Trains'

 

Tense moments for patients and staff at an east Fort Worth medical clinic, after a gunman enters the building...

 

Police were called to a health clinic in Fort Worth after reports of a gunman...

 

Dr. Mark Lawrence, a psychiatrist who was killed by a patient in a murder-suicide Friday, was remembered by his colleagues as a gifted psychiatrist...

 

A patient at a Massachusetts General Hospital bipolar clinic stabbed his psychiatrist during a treatment session yesterday afternoon, and was then shot dead by an off-duty security guard, in a frantic scene that a colleague later described as “every psychiatrist’s worst nightmare.’’

 

Dr. Astrid Desrosiers, a 49-year-old instructor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, the mother of grown children, and a celebrated doctor in the city’s Haitian community, was in stable condition at MGH and recovering from her wounds, relatives, colleagues, and hospital officials said

 

[rev ronin]

Alright

No changes are made to the accessibility, production or use of firearms save for a tax levied on both the firearm and the ammunition to exclusively fund the expansion and coverage of child/adolescent inpatient and outpatient psychiatric services first and adult services next.

Go

No changes are made to the first amendment save for a tax levied on media portrayals, journalism or entertainment, of the murder of innocent civilians, exclusively to fund the expansion and coverage of child/adolescent inpatient and outpatient psychiatric services first and adult services next.

Any better or worse than yours? Why?

[crystaltide]

No changes are made to the first amendment save for a tax levied on media portrayals, journalism or entertainment, of the murder of innocent civilians, exclusively to fund the expansion and coverage of child/adolescent inpatient and outpatient psychiatric services first and adult services next.

Any better or worse than yours? Why?

 

Out of curiosity, and perhaps also to fuel the debate further, how do you guys feel about the taxes and minimum prices on alcohol (also represented in an amendment, though not as a right)?

[303909]

No changes are made to the first amendment save for a tax levied on media portrayals, journalism or entertainment, of the murder of innocent civilians, exclusively to fund the expansion and coverage of child/adolescent inpatient and outpatient psychiatric services first and adult services next.

Any better or worse than yours? Why?

How do you tax media portrayals, entertainment or journalism? If it's a TeleTubbies DVD, it's OK but Pulp Fiction gets taxed? News producers have to submit an IRS audit at the end of the year counting how many times they covered violent stories? I know it's popular among gun enthusiasts to blame video games, media and movies but both empirical and anecdotal evidence fails to support it. The easiest thing to see is that the rest of the world is consuming just as much of those "products" yet "only in America" keeps skipping on like a broken record. A Call Of Duty disk was never found at the scene of any mass shooting. Shell casings and spent clips were. The whole point of emphasizing children and adolescents in this tax was prevention. The snippets Contrarian provided are scary because, yes, the mentally ill are far less likely to commit violence than the public perceives. However, if you work in psychiatry, you are "concentrating the outliers" so your relative risk is much higher. The problem is that, by the time an adult seeks mental health services, the mold has been cast in a lot of ways. Recovery is certainly possible but so many things have worked against them; not the least of which is the neurological damage that comes from years of untreated psychosis, depression or anxiety. This is not true for children. Expanded services for kids would increase intervention and maximize recovery outcomes.

 

If you want all the freedom and the power uncontrolled gun and ammunition confers, accept just a small part of the responsibility. It would be for a good cause anyway.

[rcdavis]

?......

 

If you want all the freedom and the power uncontrolled gun and ammunition confers, accept just a small part of the responsibility. It would be for a good cause anyway.

what part of the 2nd amendment allows for a tax?

This isn't a passing phase we are talking about, it's a RIGHT.

Rights do have consequences, which sometimes are difficult.

Voting is a RIGHT.

TAXING THE VOTER ( indeed, most liberals feel that even asking for a photo I'd) is wrong.

 

Not all rights are unfettered ( yelling fire in a theater), but their existence supersedes any governmental attempts to change them without significant difficulty. Prohibition ( which sought to control a substance not included as a right, and which certainly ruins more lives than the use of guns ever will), failed miserably.. But felt good to do in the emotion of the time.

 

Gun ownership is NOT a medical risk. Nor should is be a "vital sign".

 

I hate to say this, knowing that I will offend sensibilities here, but the problem is the existence of evil.

 

This was an act of evil, pure and simple. And, since we live in a universe with certain symmetry, if you accept the existence of evil, then there has to be a countering existence of goodness.

 

We have removed the idea of a universal good from our school, our governance, our lives. And now, when faced with unmitigated evil, are left groping for the how's and whys.and reduce the argument into an anthromorfication of an inanimate object (guns) into a responsible entity.

 

We assume evil to be irrational, it is not. It chooses its actions carefully. And almost always avoids responsibility. There are evil people in the world. Perhaps we should ferret them out, and remove them from our presence. Anyone who has worked in an ED knows these people. These are not the simple ODD, PS, anger management issued patients.. These are the 7 year old who stands up one moment, and without provocation fractures is pet dog's back with his foot, then sits down again to watch tv. These people do not deserve freedom. Remove them, treat them humanely, but rationally: separate them.

 

Perhaps a better medical screening question, rather than " do you have a gun in your home", would be: "is their anyone at home that you are afraid will harm you or kill you?"

 

And then deal with that person.

 

Guns are an easy target. The real problem is ourselves. We have lost our moral compass, and backbone.

 

And every once in a awhile , are slapped in the face with the obscenity of the unchecked evil we have been tolerating, in The name of tolerance and diversity.

 

It is no surprise that sandy brook happened. What is surprising is our assumption that, if we remove EVERY gun in the nation, it will not happen again. It will.

 

Because we have not yet admitted the real problem.

 

 

davis

[Guest Paula]

I agree rcdavis about evil, except for one thing. If we remove all the evil people in the world, there will be no one left. Some of us are "less" evil than others, or so we think.

[CAdamsPAC]

what part of the 2nd amendment allows for a tax?

This isn't a passing phase we are talking about, it's a RIGHT.

Rights do have consequences, which sometimes are difficult.

Voting is a RIGHT.

TAXING THE VOTER ( indeed, most liberals feel that even asking for a photo I'd) is wrong.

 

Not all rights are unfettered ( yelling fire in a theater), but their existence supersedes any governmental attempts to change them without significant difficulty. Prohibition ( which sought to control a substance not included as a right, and which certainly ruins more lives than the use of guns ever will), failed miserably.. But felt good to do in the emotion of the time.

 

Gun ownership is NOT a medical risk. Nor should is be a "vital sign".

 

I hate to say this, knowing that I will offend sensibilities here, but the problem is the existence of evil.

 

This was an act of evil, pure and simple. And, since we live in a universe with certain symmetry, if you accept the existence of evil, then there has to be a countering existence of goodness.

 

We have removed the idea of a universal good from our school, our governance, our lives. And now, when faced with unmitigated evil, are left groping for the how's and whys.and reduce the argument into an anthromorfication of an inanimate object (guns) into a responsible entity.

 

We assume evil to be irrational, it is not. It chooses its actions carefully. And almost always avoids responsibility. There are evil people in the world. Perhaps we should ferret them out, and remove them from our presence. Anyone who has worked in an ED knows these people. These are not the simple ODD, PS, anger management issued patients.. These are the 7 year old who stands up one moment, and without provocation fractures is pet dog's back with his foot, then sits down again to watch tv. These people do not deserve freedom. Remove them, treat them humanely, but rationally: separate them.

 

Perhaps a better medical screening question, rather than " do you have a gun in your home", would be: "is their anyone at home that you are afraid will harm you or kill you?"

 

And then deal with that person.

 

Guns are an easy target. The real problem is ourselves. We have lost our moral compass, and backbone.

 

And every once in a awhile , are slapped in the face with the obscenity of the unchecked evil we have been tolerating, in The name of tolerance and diversity.

 

It is no surprise that sandy brook happened. What is surprising is our assumption that, if we remove EVERY gun in the nation, it will not happen again. It will.

 

Because we have not yet admitted the real problem.

 

 

davis

 

RC we early boomers recall when the idea of good versus evil was part of the public discourse in school ,along with antisocial behavior being considered as unacceptable not that you were doing your own thing. The thought that one had an obligation to society not the other way around was the standard. Again I find myself in complete agreement with your comments.

[Contrarian]

... Your Entire Post...

 

+100

 

"10 ring"...!!!

 

Bravo Zulu

[CAdamsPAC]

KUHNER: Why the left hates guns

 

A

 

Liberals have declared war on gun rights. Following the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., gun-control zealots have seized on the murder of 20 children and 6 adults to push their longtime goal of rolling back the Second Amendment. The bodies of the victims were not even cold before the progressive blogosphere was blaming the National Rifle Association for the atrocity.

 

President Obama is calling for sweeping new gun restrictions, including restoring the assault-weapons ban and limiting ammunition in magazines. MSNBC host Ed Schultz seeks the outright “confiscation of guns.” CNN’s Piers Morgan wants America to adopt Great Britain’s rigid gun laws. Ultimately, the left’s argument boils down to one seminal belief: The primary cause for our epidemic of mass shootings lies in technology — the wide availability of firearms. Restrict access to guns, liberals claim, and violence will be curbed significantly.

 

This is not only false, but blatant propaganda. The Sandy Hook shooter, Adam Lanza, was severely mentally ill. His mother, Nancy Lanza, who also was butchered by her son, proved unable to find appropriate treatment. Instead, according to press accounts, she kept him isolated in a windowless basement for long hours each day, where he played violent video games. No one is willing to confront this painful truth: Our culture’s obsession with video games, especially those that glorify mass killing, senseless brutality and bloodlust, is desensitizing our youth.

 

Adam Lanza was a deranged individual who spent countless hours in a virtual reality slaughtering imaginary human beings. He also lacked necessary medical treatment — including medication. His life was a combustible mix, ready to blow at any moment. The results were predictable and ominous: Someone was going to get hurt. The only question was who — and how many.

 

The massacres at Columbine High School in Colorado; Virginia Tech; Tucson, Ariz.; Aurora, Colo.; and Sandy Hook all had one thing in common: The perpetrators suffered from serious mental illness. The recent rash of mass shootings has nothing to do with guns. Rather, it is our society’s refusal to involuntarily institutionalize the violently mentally ill. Since the 1970s, liberals — in the name of “civil rights” — have succeeded in opening up the doors of psychiatric hospitals and releasing psychologically disturbed patients. This has allowed mentally unstable individuals to roam our streets. The consequences have been disastrous — soaring homelessness, rampant poverty, rising crime and an explosion in random murderous atrocities.

 

The schools, malls and movie theaters where these crimes took place had something else in common: They were gun-free zones. If banning firearms was the solution, those places should have been safe havens. They weren’t. The reason is obvious. Gun-free zones prevent law-abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves, leaving them defenseless against ruthless gunmen. The principal and teachers at Sandy Hook stood helpless as Lanza shot them in cold blood. They were like sheep led to the slaughter.

 

Norway has some of the strictest gun laws in the world. That did not stop a madman in 2011 from massacring nearly 80 people — many of them children — at a summer camp outside Oslo. To think gun control can prevent mass violence is a leftist utopian fantasy. Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people in Oklahoma City in 1995 using a fertilizer-based truck bomb. The worst school atrocity occurred in Michigan in 1927 when 38 children, ages 7 to 11, along with seven adults were murdered. The weapons that were used: three primitive homemade explosives. Evil is a fundamental reality of life. It cannot be legislated away. It must be faced down and defeated.

 

This is why the only policy answer to the wave of mass shootings is not fewer guns, but more guns. In particular, gun-free zones should be dismantled at schools. It’s time that education budgets incorporate the hiring of security personnel — say, two guards per school — who would be armed and trained to use deadly force against any future potential shooter. Ideally, they would be ex-military, who possess experience in dealing with surprise attacks and volatile situations. Just the fact that schools would be known to have armed agents protecting students and staff would significantly deter gun violence.

 

Yet the Democratic left is determined to repeal the Second Amendment. Why? The answer is simple: An armed citizenry is pivotal to a self-governing republic. Our founders enshrined gun rights not because they were bloodthirsty hicks who celebrated a culture of dueling, revenge and honor. Instead, they understood that pervasive gun ownership is a bulwark against excessive state coercive power. A self-reliant people — as opposed to one subservient to rulers — must be capable of defending themselves and their families from dangerous predators. Gun rights are essential to our system of limited government and individual liberty.

 

For liberals, this is precisely the problem with the Second Amendment. Their aim is to erect a Scandinavian-style social democracy — a North American Sweden. The structure standing in their way is the Constitution. This is why the progressive left has been relentlessly assaulting our Judeo-Christian heritage and constitutional republic. It must vilify — and discredit — our founding principles in order to pave the way for its collectivist revolution. Nothing is more quintessentially American than our gun culture. Secular leftists hate guns because they loathe America. And they will stop at nothing — including exploiting the bodies of dead children — to achieve their radical, anti-American and anti-gun agenda.

 

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist and editorial writer at The Washington Times. He is also the host of “The Kuhner Report” on AM-680 WRKO (http://www.wrko.com) from 6-9 a.m. and 11 a.m.-noon EST in Boston.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/20/why-the-left-hates-guns/#ixzz2FfAwWS2S

Follow us: @washtimes on Twitterrmed citizens a bulwark against state power

[Hemegroup]

 

 

Not sure that's the answer ... anyhow, Mr. Kuhner there is on the extreme side. No ones taking anyone's guns away ... so they won't be able to buy assault weapons, cry me a river. Anyone who speaks in such dichotomy (right vs left) needs to be taken with a grain of salt. This isn't some childhood 'Us against Them' game. This issue doesn't call for histrionics; move rationally.

[Guest JMPA]

Both Stalin and Hitler disarmed the people before committing mass genocide.

[physasst]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]1018[/ATTACH]

 

 

Not sure that's the answer ... anyhow, Mr. Kuhner there is on the extreme side. No ones taking anyone's guns away ... so they won't be able to buy assault weapons, cry me a river. Anyone who speaks in such dichotomy (right vs left) needs to be taken with a grain of salt. This isn't some childhood 'Us against Them' game. This issue doesn't call for histrionics; move rationally.

 

Yeah, I don't think there is much to say besides Mr Kuhner is an idiot.....This was a great article in Business Insider....

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/shooting-gun-laws-2012-12

 

GO USA!! What a joke. I know that many on here feel strongly about this, but many of us also feel strongly about gun control. So, we aren't going to change each others minds....for me?

 

I just donated a nice chunk of money to the Brady Campaign PAC.....there's nothing really left to say.