My friend Kim sent out this statement to friends and media outlets yesterday in response to the Virginia Tech killings. Talking about things like the perpetrator's mental health is not an "excuse"; it's a vitally important key to the puzzle of violence. Excusing those who commit violence isn't the point---reducing occurrences of violence is.
Here is Kim's statement:
I want to extend my sympathy to forgotten victims of the VA Tech tragedy: Cho Seung-hui and his family.
Almost ten years ago to the day my brother committed suicide. Ravaged by mental illness, he was unable to make good decisions about his health care. Geographically distant from his family, evicted, homeless, unable to obtain appropriate care in a hospital emergency room or community clinic, possibly paranoid, possibly psychotic, he lost touch and disappeared in the city of Portland, Oregon. Months later he killed himself in a public place in an extremely violent manner.
At the time, my one comfort was that he had not hurt anyone but himself. The loss of my only brother, an intelligent, talented musician, was devastating, but I wasn’t able to bear the thought that in the tangled depths of his mental illness that he may have inflicted harm on others. I can’t imagine the grief of Cho Seung-hui’s family.
Our communities are failing to deal with mental illness. We are failing the families of those who suffer mental illness and we are failing to face what is increasingly becoming a public health problem. Every city in America has mentally ill homeless people wandering the streets--visible, but virtually ignored. Every town in America has trouble providing services to those who suffer mental illness and their families. It is a complex problem. We can’t ignore this problem any more. Incidents like the VA Tech shootings are not typical--thankfully most mentally ill people are not violent. But there is a deep terror that settles in when one sees a loved one fall through the cracks of society, sinking deeper and deeper into an unknown world.
The answers aren’t easy or obvious, but it is obvious that mental illness is terrorizing families and communities all over the country. When are we going to take this problem seriously?
-_
posted by Anonymous at
6:07 PM
6 Comments:
I also feel heartbroken for Cho's family. I don't know how they will recover from this. I feel that they are in a worse position than the parents of the slain students. Since Cho had not made any threats, legally there was nothing that could be done. Although his writing in his classes was sick, people like Stephen King and directors of horror movies have made millions off of stuff like Cho's. How do you tell the difference between a Stephen King and a Cho? We have the tension between individual liberty (not locking someone in a mental institution unduly) versus public safety. What IS sufficient evidence for locking someone away? Outside of his writing class, everyone just thought he was quiet. Sally
Sally, so interesting you mentioned King. I stumbled across this article a few days ago and pass it on for your collective review.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20036014,00.html
--dj
I read the article about Stephen King. The one thing that has surprised me about King is that he has continued his bloody stories, even after nearly being killed in an accident. I say this because so many people who experience violence, bad accidents, etc. say that they can't tolerate that stuff afterward. For example Craig Scott, the brother of Rachel Scott who was killed at Columbine, can't tolerate violence AT ALL. He can't go to movies with violence or watch violence on TV. I had hoped that Stephen King might have the same experience and turn his talent to other forms of fiction. Apparently not.
I agree with Kim that our society has not taken mental illness seriously enough. Undoubtedly the stigma attached to it has prevented many people from seeking help. The insurance companies have been slow to recognize it. Of course, the psychiatric community has geometrically expanded the list of diagnosed mental disorders, but the list is not universally agreed upon and is seen by many people as suspect (i.e., self-serving on the part of psychiatrists and drug companies).
I also agree with Kim when she says that the answers are not easy or obvious. Indeed, do we want to return to the days when people who were not an obvious danger to themselves or others could be institutionalized against their will? "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" comes to mind. The problem really is the difficulty in predicting violent behavior. A couple years ago, Cho was referred for counseling and then hospitalized. But after a brief stay, he was deemed by the professionals not to pose a danger to himself or others. Even with his withdrawn, antisocial personality and his disturbing fictional writings, who knew?
--Bob Cormier
Lynn, thank you for sharing Kim's statement which sensitively addresses this issue neglected by the media and those in search of an easy answer. Part of what makes this story so tragic to me is the students and teachers who attempted to help and were not able to; obviously, the kindness of strangers is not enough to help someone enmeshed in their own internal struggles but with the diminishing resources for mental health issues, that kindness is sometimes all that seems available.
I agree with the sadness at the fact that people DID try to call attention to Cho"s problem and did try to get him help. But sometimes trying isn"t enough. All the experts seem to agree that the mental health system in the US is way, way underfunded. Our neighbor Bob works as a therapist in the prison sytem and got a grant to increase substance abuse therapy during prison and to extend it after release as well. The inmates who received this much more intense therapy had a much lower recidivism rate than those who got the standard (low) rate of therapy. But then the grant money ran out, and that was that. --Lynn
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home