To editorial@nytimes.com
Dear Editor:
I am responding to an Op-Ed article written by E. Fuller Torrey of TAC published on May 28, 2010
I would like to reply here refuting Torrey's erroneous claims and scare tactics presented by his TAC organization, which they are using in supporting Kendra's Law, and other similar oppressive and poorly constructed laws throughout America.
Some would seriously question who this law could target, and how effective the forced treatment paradigm really is in protecting the public and those labeled mentally unstable. A more intrusive government and further reaching laws have seldom produced in actual real world results the lofty achievements they to often loudly proclaim. In reading this bill I see a lot of bureaucracy, some disturbing overreaching details, and not much comment sense.
We are a nation of laws. Yet, forcing drug treatment, and to use obligatory compliance methods/threats runs completely counter productive to taking a more effective and humane therapeutic approach toward this already stigmatized, labeled, & ostracized segment of our population.
This poorly constructed law really does open the door to lots of abuses way beyond just a few and quite rare deemed potentially dangerous mentally compromised offenders, and does very little to truly protect both the public and those suffering in emotional turmoil.
This law was based on those rare incidences of violence under taken by those few individuals under extreme mental distress (even though in the actual “Kendra” case the perpetrator was actively seeking intervention and help on his own to no avail or success prior to becoming unraveled into a violent and psychotic state which ended with tragic consequences).
We are fooling ourselves into a false sense of security/safety when we use the "Fuller Torrey" brand of fear mongering as a basis to validate forced treatment measures being burdened upon populations that are least able to legally represent themselves and their wishes. All these measures only secure into the law consequences before we even have any proof or the conviction of any actual crime being committed.
If you carefully read the bill being presented for permanent status and further extending the parameters of this law, I believe you will find some disturbing conclusions and factors written in this bill that are not based in scientific/medical fact or reality. What you will find is more intrusion into the lives of those inflicted with emotional disorders. I believe you will also find in this law an overwhelming emphasis on a forced drugging modality and long term outside control/intrusion into the lives of citizens that are only guilty of the non-crime of being at one time or another in emotional crisis, and then labeled mentally unhygienic as stated in this bill's text structure.
I will offer just two of many examples here of why we should be questioning the very foundations this bill and law are built upon.
From psychiatrist and author Dr. Danial Carlat - Carlat Psychiatry
"few laypeople realize how little we actually know about the underpinnings of [psychiatric] disorders....In virtually all of the psychiatric disorders--including depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorders--the shadow of our ignorance overwhelm the few dim lights of our knowledge."
"Our diagnostic process is shallow and is based on an elaborate checklist of symptoms, leading us sometimes to over-diagnose patients with disorders of questionable validity, or, conversely, to miss the underlying problems in our rush to come up with a discrete diagnostic label that will be reimbursed by the insurance company. We tend to treat all psychological problems the same way--with a pill and a few words of encouragement. Because of this rote approach to treatment, patients are often misdiagnosed and medications are over prescribed. In the end, we misserve our patients, failing to offer them psychotherapies that are sometimes more effective than drugs"
"The resulting frenzy of psychiatric diagnoses has damaged the credibility of everyone in the field."
"We like to see ourselves as neuroscientists, rationally manipulating levels of neurotransmitters like serotonin in order to get patients better. But the fact is that we have no clear evidence that chemical imbalances are at the root of any mental disorder....we don't know if changing levels of serotonin [by prescribing Zoloft or Celexa, or any other drug] is the actual curative mechanism. Nonetheless, we give patients elaborate explanations of how the drugs work chemically. It makes us feel more scientific, and gives patients a feeling of confidence in us, but it's little more than made up neurobable."
"The fact is that psychopharmacology is primarily trial and error, a kind of muddling through different candidate medications...." depending upon which company's sales rep or which academic "Hired Gun" recently made a pitch for one or another drug. Indeed, "when our most esteemed colleagues have essentially joined the marketing teams, it makes it that much harder for us to practice our craft responsibly."
And from Robert Whitaker award winning journalist and author - Mad In America - Robert Whitaker Blog
( The NY Times should as they say "Man Up" and at least review his newest book )
"Anatomy of an Epidemic"
"In this astonishing and startling book, award-winning science and history writer Robert Whitaker investigates a medical mystery: Why has the number of disabled mentally ill in the United States tripled over the past two decades? Every day, 1,100 adults and children are added to the government disability rolls because they have become newly disabled by mental illness, with this epidemic spreading most rapidly among our nation’s children. What is going on?
Anatomy of an Epidemic challenges readers to think through that question themselves. First, Whitaker investigates what is known today about the biological causes of mental disorders. Do psychiatric medications fix “chemical imbalances” in the brain, or do they, in fact, create them? Researchers spent decades studying that question, and by the late 1980s, they had their answer. Readers will be startled—and dismayed—to discover what was reported in the scientific journals.
Then comes the scientific query at the heart of this book: During the past fifty years, when investigators looked at how psychiatric drugs affected long-term outcomes, what did they find? Did they discover that the drugs help people stay well? Function better? Enjoy good physical health? Or did they find that these medications, for some paradoxical reason, increase the likelihood that people will become chronically ill, less able to function well, more prone to physical illness?
This is the first book to look at the merits of psychiatric medications through the prism of long-term results. Are long-term recovery rates higher for medicated or unmedicated schizophrenia patients? Does taking an antidepressant decrease or increase the risk that a depressed person will become disabled by the disorder? Do bipolar patients fare better today than they did forty years ago, or much worse? When the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) studied the long-term outcomes of children with ADHD, did they determine that stimulants provide any benefit?
By the end of this review of the outcomes literature, readers are certain to have a haunting question of their own: Why have the results from these long-term studies—all of which point to the same startling conclusion—been kept from the public?
In this compelling history, Whitaker also tells the personal stories of children and adults swept up in this epidemic. Finally, he reports on innovative programs of psychiatric care in Europe and the United States that are producing good long-term outcomes. Our nation has been hit by an epidemic of disabling mental illness, and yet, as Anatomy of an Epidemic reveals, the medical blueprints for curbing that epidemic have already been drawn up."
Whether you choose to agree or disagree with this law, we all should consider the far reaching ramifications of laws like this one, before pulling the permanent trigger on them.
I would hope the NY Times would want to offer a balanced approach, and allow other opinions to be expressed in their op-ed editorial columns regarding this issue.
Sincerely Yours,
Stan
________________________________________________________________________
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/opinion/01torrey.html?scp=1&sq=kendra%27s%20law&st=cse
New York Times
Make Kendra’s Law Permanent
By E. FULLER TORREY
Published: May 28, 2010
ELEVEN years ago, when the New York Legislature passed Kendra’s Law, few could have foretold what a resounding success it would be. At the time lawmakers were searching for a useful response to the tragic death of 32-year-old Kendra Webdale, who was pushed in front of a subway train in Manhattan by a stranger who had untreated schizophrenia. The law, initially intended for a trial period of five years, permits state judges to order closely monitored outpatient treatment for a small subset of seriously mentally ill people who have records of failing to take medication, and who have consequently been rehospitalized or jailed or have exhibited violent behavior.
In 2005, Kendra’s Law was extended for another five years. In all, more than 8,000 people have been treated under its provisions, and the results have been striking. A 2005 study of more than 2,700 people to whom the law was applied found that, after treatment, the rate of homelessness in the population fell by 74 percent, the number who needed to be rehospitalized dropped by 77 percent and the number arrested fell by 83 percent. And a study published this year found that people receiving treatment under Kendra’s Law were only one-fourth as likely to commit violent acts, had a reduced risk of suicide and were functioning better socially than members of a control group.
It’s hard to imagine a stronger argument for making the law permanent. And yet, as it comes up for renewal this month, the state Office of Mental Health is recommending only a five-year extension. Why the hesitation? Apparently, the Office of Mental Health is ambivalent about its star performer. In its latest five-year Statewide Comprehensive Plan for Mental Health Services, Kendra’s Law is not even mentioned, and the program it supports — assisted outpatient treatment — is referred to briefly only twice.
Perhaps state mental health officials are responding to critics who consider the law politically incorrect because it mandates psychiatric treatment by court order, supposedly violating the patients’ freedom to choose or forgo treatment. But these are people whose illness interferes with their ability to understand that they are sick and need medication. They do not have the choice to live freely and comfortably, but only to be homeless, in jail or in a psychiatric hospital.
The people who could be treated under Kendra’s Law account for only one in 10 seriously ill psychiatric patients. But when these people are untreated, they also make up one-third of the homeless population, and at least 16 percent of the jail and prison population. These people are ubiquitous in city parks, public libraries and train stations. And a small percentage become dangerous, even homicidal.
The law has been a model of success, not only in New York but also in 44 other states that now have similar laws (including, most recently, New Jersey and Maine). Unfortunately, these laws are too rarely used. California, for example, has passed an equivalent to Kendra’s Law known as Laura’s Law, but has not enforced it. If it had, it might have prevented 36-year-old John Patrick Bedell from wandering the country last March, taking orders from his psychotic brain, despite his family’s frantic attempts to get treatment for him. Mr. Bedell ultimately shot two security guards at the Pentagon, and was shot and killed by the officers he injured.
Kendra’s Law saves lives. By keeping patients on medication, it also saves money that might otherwise be spent on rehospitalization, prosecution and incarceration. New York should take lasting advantage of both benefits by making the law permanent.




8 comments:
It grants judges the authority to issue orders that require people who meet certain criteria to take psychiatric drugs, regularly undergo psychiatric treatment, or both. Failure to comply could result in commitment for up to 72 hours.
ANYONE who has been in this situation themselves, or with a loved one--knows the mental health court is all inclusive.
In one place, while patients are strapped to gurneys, some w attorneys and some not---either way they are sent back to the psych ward for 14 days, and after that 90 days or more.
Only option afterdischarge is to be d/c with a document that states mandatory compliance.
Do anything to screw up and you are sent right back to the locked wards.
Torrey is a self-appointed authority on SZ based on his sister and her cat.
I saw him speak in person and he is a complete evil person. I have never felt that evil presence in my life, before then, and he touted the cat poop virus theory and how HALDOL would prevent SZ and BP because the antipsychotic is according to him, and anti-viral agent.
When I asked him if he knew why it was anti viral he said he did not know.
He believes cats from Egyptian days are the culprits as are all cats for omitting this airborne toxin into the world, and he wished out loud that he had his sister's cat's brain in his brain collection.
He is part of the Stanley research foundation and he was also part of a criminal investigation for illegally taking dead people's brains from King co WA for his collection.
He has other motives than 'keeping people safe' from 'crazies' off or on or seeking treatment.
In his lecture he called himself 'delusional' countless times.
http://www.recoveryxchange.org/downloads/Kendra%27s%20Law%20Testimony.pdf
Kendra’s Law Hearing
Following is part of the testimony delivered by David Gonzalez of the Recovery x-Change at the April 8th,
Assembly Public Hearing on Kendra's Law in New York City that was co-chaired by Assembly Mental Health
Committee Chairman Peter Rivera and Codes Committee Chair Joseph Lentol.
Kendra’s Law (4/8/05)
According to OMH’s Final Report on Kendra’s Law, 63% of people being court-mandated under
Kendra’s Law are identified as Black and Hispanic (OMH Final Report on Kendra’s Law 3/1/05).
The OMH Report opens up with the following introduction: “Kendra’s Law was named in
memory of Kendra Webdale, a young woman who died in January, 1999 after being pushed in
front of a New York City subway train by Andrew Goldstein, a man with a history of mental
illness and hospitalizations.”
The implication here is obvious. The question of violence and mental illness is as old as
psychiatry itself. What most people don’t know is that Kendra’s Law is merely the culmination of
old policies and old laws, which have been re-packaged under a new name. (None Dare Call it
Treason, John A. Stormer, Chapter IX, Mental Health, 1964; the Tragedy of Sane People Who Get
Put Away, Albert Q. Maisel, Reader’s Digest, February 1962)
At one time these laws were passed - allegedly - to protect “the mentally-ill” from themselves,
today they are passed - allegedly - to protect society from “the mentally-ill.” All of which, by the
way, have never worked. Which is why we are sitting here today!
The reason why these laws had to be repackaged was because the constitutional rights of the
person made it difficult to apply them. So in order to eliminate this roadblock, the advocates of
forced treatment latched onto Kendra Webdale’s tragedy to convince the public that this was not
an isolated incident, but the beginning of a terrifying new wave of crime - knowing full well that
fear and emotion all too often override reason and rationale.
Allow me to quote a Daily News editorial released that very same year:
“In our newfound complacency, we have forgotten a particular kind of violence to which we are
still prey. The violence of the mentally-ill.” (New York Daily News, 11/19/99)
Ironically, in 1999 - the very same year Kendra’s Law was passed - the Surgeon General’s Report
on Mental Health concluded that minorities:
• have less access to, and availability of, mental health services
• and are less likely to receive mental health services when needed
These findings were confirmed and validated in the Final Report of the President’s New Freedom
Commission Report on Mental Health in 2003 (Achieving the Promise, July 2003).
So since the main thrust of Kendra’s Law is to force people into treatment, regardless of whether
or not they have a history of violence - which is borne out by the fact that 85% of people being
court-mandated have no history of violence - is it any wonder that minorities who “have less
access to… and are less likely to receive mental health services” are the victims of this law?
The most widely publicized figure is that “1,000 murders a year are committed by Americans with
severe mental illnesses.” And although this figure is not supported by any figures from the Bureau
of Justice or culled from any studies conducted by impartial researchers – this self-admitted
calculation made by the leading advocate of forced treatment (E. Fuller Torrey) is accepted as fact
by the American public.
In contrast, according to a 1998 study by the MacArthur Foundation, individuals with mental
illness are no more violent than the general public unless they’re abusing drugs and alcohol,
(which applies across the board, whether an individual has a history of mental illness or not).
Once again, this finding was affirmed in 2003 in the Executive Summary of the President’s New
Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which states that:
“61% of Americans think that people with schizophrenia are likely to be dangerous to others.
However, in reality, these individuals are rarely violent. If they are violent, the violence is usually
tied to substance abuse.”
Am I saying that individuals with mental illness don’t commit acts of violence? Absolutely not!
To even suggest such a thing would be disingenuous and dishonest.
Am I saying is that individuals with mental illness are no more violent than the general public?
Yes! That’s exactly what I’m saying!!!
In fact, in August of 2003, Nicholas Regush, former producer of ABC's Nightline and World
News Tonight with Peter Jennings, queried in his online column, Second Opinion:
"Where is the science that supports the need to use coercion so often when it comes to the
treatment of patients, as opposed to, say, offering a wide range of community-based services? In
all my research on violence for a book published several years ago, I had not seen one credible
study showing that society has more to fear from patients labeled "mentally ill" than other people
in the community. For example, there has never been any appropriate follow-up of patients that
has determined whether the absence of treatment leads to violence. The very foundation of forced
treatment is ideology and fear-mongering and not science."
Interestingly enough, nowhere throughout their 23-page report on Kendra’s Law does NAMI
quote any independent research. They openly admit that their research is based solely on
discussions with a selected group of 20 families and 40 local NAMI leaders. They make no
attempt to conceal their bias and their report is full of lead-in statements such as “OUR research
found… and “WE found overwhelming evidence…
So the real question is: “If it is true that individuals with a history of mental illness are no more
violent than the general public, could this tragedy have been prevented?”
To find the answer to this question I ask you to consider the words of Andrew Goldstein himself
the day he was arrested, when asked by a reporter why he did it. His response to the reporter was:
“Do you think I can get some help now?”
Were his actions driven by a “mental illness” as the advocates of forced treatment would have us
believe, or were they driven by the frustration of being turned away everywhere he went asking
for help?
One of the things that struck me the most about the OMH report is that while the report suggests
significant positive outcomes from Kendra’s Law, it totally fails to demonstrate what produced
those significant positive outcomes – better access to services or court-mandated orders?
A three-year study at Bellevue Hospital compared the impact of providing an enhanced service
package, with and without the use of mandated services, and found no difference in the rates of
improved outcomes - suggesting that people do better when they are receiving better services, not
because they are forced to accept them.
Allow me to conclude by pointing out the following quotes from two people who asked that their
feelings about Kendra’s Law be shared at this hearing. One of these people is a person who is
court-mandated and the other is a provider who oversees court-mandated individuals:
Court-mandated individual:
“The AOT order states two things. 1. That I am a danger to self or others. And 2. That I would be
unable to survive in the community independently. Neither of these statements is true, but there is
no way to prove that. There was no evidence that I was violent but my future has been ruined.”
(Sidebar: in a criminal court of law, the defendant is “innocent until proven guilty,” in a mental
health court of law, the defendant is guilty until proven innocent.” DG)
Provider overseeing court-mandated individuals:
“AOT robs individuals of their self-determination and creates an atmosphere of distrust between
the consumer and the provider. It sets the providers against the very people they serve.”
In closing, I’d like to suggest that the solution to this problem is to keep the enhanced services
portion of this law and to remove any form of coercion. The forced treatment aspect of this law is
merely a diversionary tactic intended to deflect attention away from what started this problem in
the first place, a fragmented mental health system. This fact is reflected throughout the whole
report from the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health which calls for a major
overhauling of the entire mental health system in the United States.
Is it merely a coincidence that this commission was called the President’s New Freedom
Commission? And that their report was titled “Achieving the Promise.”
Does Kendra’s Law truly achieve this promise?
For those that wish to know what is really behind the "Treatment Advocacy Center" (AKA Jaffe/Fuller Torrey/Stanley Foundation) and their true dark intentions; it's not @ all rocket science to read beyond the rhetoric and see these modern day eugenics faithful for what they really are.
That other tarnished wacko cult used so often to vilify any detractors of the drug based mental health paradigm; even Scientology as bizarre, crazy, and outlandish as it appears, may actually pale in comparison to the TAC organization.
The fear mongering and purposeful denial of human rights they present society as a propaganda machine and drug lobbying organization are staggering to grasp. 46 States in America have succumb to unjust laws that TAC promote by using fear based and dangerous propagandized messages spouted off with great vigilance in main stream newspapers and media outlets across the nation.
The evidence:
http://bipolarsoupkitchen-stephany.blogspot.com/2009/03/stanley-medical-research-institute.html
I hope people read that article and the links within, because it really explains the Torrey --TAC mindset behind Kendra's Law.
Imagine, Torrey telling me in person he believes Haldol is an anti viral agent---that can prevent SZ based on his airborne cat poop theory. I asked him how he knew it was an anti-viral drug and he said "I don't know".
It's an antipsychotic...and one that he has plans for implanting under the skin that can last ONE YEAR in someone's body...perfect for an out patient setting for forced medicating laws such as Kendra's Law.
It's plain evil, and frankly that's how I felt when I heard the man speak in person, I did not walk I ran to the car to get the hell out of there after the NAMI promoted event.
This is great initiative taken that doing reply back to the NY times editor.
BTW I've just remembered this article about Stanley Research and Torrey harvesting brains illegally in WA state.
"That year the county collected a record amount of money for brains from Stanley $203,908."
King Co no longer does brain harvesting sales, I believe.
So, Torrey, the Seattle NAMI king of SZ BS, harvested brains from people with mental health labels, and often got the brains without permission...I don't know what's worse in that story.
1. Fuller Torrey collecting brains
2. Targeting people w mental health labels for their brains after they are dead.
3. The King County coronors office has always and still is, in the same hallway, of MENTAL HEALTH COURT.
No wonder mental health court gave me the creeps.
Post a Comment