As
many of us have discussed in our blogs for this week, a catastrophe occurred on
Thursday, October 1, at Umpqua Community College in
Oregon. A shooter opened fire on the students and staff of the college killing
9. This tragic event has demonstrated, however, how during tumultuous times,
Congress responds. To this event, Congress has responded in two ways: firstly,
discussion regarding mental health legislation is beginning to resurface and
secondly, gun control has become a hot topic in the American political debate.
For this post, I would like to focus on the possibility of
mental health legislation. Currently, the government spends about 5 billion
dollars annually on mental health related programs—this money pays for 112
programs spread across 8 federal agencies. However, these programs are not
evaluated for effectiveness, and this money could certainly be spent towards
higher quality, more effective mental health initiatives.
This is not a new idea.
The question of mental health legislation has been circulating in
congress for some time, as society is becoming more comfortable with treating
mental problems as what they are: illnesses. Nonetheless, governmental
dysfunction surrounding this issue (as described above) has lead to an
estimated 40% of people in the US who have serious mental illnesses to go
without proper care. And, often if they do get care at all, they are getting
that care in prison.
So the question becomes, how do we form a system where people
get the care they need, so as to not danger themselves or anyone else, before
they end up in prison? What is important to note—I think—is that Americans have
called on congress to answer that question.
Some sort of bill is in the works regarding mental health
issues—a bipartisan bill which would involve making it easier for families to
care with loved ones who have mental illness, the creation of an “Assistant
Secretary of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorders” to guide mental
healthy policy, and an increased number of hospital beds for those with acute
mental disorders. This bill has been on its way for a while, but it is
hypothesized that the recent tragedy in Oregon could give it the impetus (and
show Americans it’s necessity) for it to succeed.
The questions I have regarding these recent events are first,
what moves the government (congress, more specifically) to act, and what does
this say about the American political atmosphere?
I think that in moments of crisis, Americans citizens look
toward their government for guidance and change. This is why when I browsed CNN
yesterday and saw that Obama had made a statement regarding the incident and
his plans for gun control legislation, I was not surprised. It is expected that
the government respond to issues of great importance. I think this is a good
sign. The American people still—despite sentiments of dysfunction and
corruption—look to the government in times of horror and need. However, I then
ask, when does an issue become of great importance? The answer to this question
is what worries me more. It seems that mental health legislation—despite facts
of its current dysfunctional misuse of government funds towards largely
ineffective initiatives—is not enough to rally the people and the troops (A.K.A
congress) behind this issue. It takes a tragedy, something that seems close to
our own lives, to get the people to look for their government for change, and
it takes the people looking toward their government, for the government to act.
This dynamic, although it may get things done today, does not last until
tomorrow. We need to foster a mindset among the American people that action in
congress does not necessitate a disaster: that the government is not only here
to help us when tragedy strikes, but on an every day basis, to improve our
daily lives in big ways. I think that if this mindset were more prevalent the
dysfunction in Congress would dissipate—when the people demand things from
Congress, it seems like they answer the call. However, feelings of government
dysfunction and the futility of the common citizen prevent people from
demanding things from their government.
I think if the American people step up to the political plate,
Congress will follow suit.
1 comment:
Emily, I think you have a great point about bringing mental illness into the picture. However, I believe that mental illness has a different role than what I believe you are suggesting and that lies within background checks. Congress should close loopholes that allow felons, perpetrators of domestic abuse, or people with a history of dangerous mental illness to purchase weapons (which is where I think your point of having some type of guide to mental healthy policy or just a greater understanding of mental illnesses comes into point). According to a Guardian article, current federal law includes several loopholes which gun dealers can use to make legal sales without carrying out the due diligence of a background check on the person buying a gun (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/03/oregon-shooting-aftermath-eight-ways-to-stop-gun-massacres-in-the-us). This past Friday, Connecticut senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy proposed a law that would close this loophole – but others remain (Guardian article). And since Republicans took control of the House and Senate in 2014, nothing is bound to happen regarding legislation for background checks. I think this is due to representatives paying attention to their constituents back home. Most Republicans that are not voting for increased background check live in districts and state that have a high number of citizens that have purchased guns. Representatives are also concerned about re-elections.
As a public health major, I am interested in the health of the community as a whole and not concerned about the health of an individual (which I believe associating mental illness and gun control focuses on). I think it is important to point out that there has been a federally funded ban for research into gun violence. Unfortunately, gun violence is the number one cause of death for young adults. Yet organizations like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot research gun violence due to the 1996 budget amendment. Gun violence is a major public health issue as well as a political issue, yet politicians have prevented public health officials from researching this. So while I think it is important to introduce mental health legislation, I think the first step is allowing the CDC to conduct research on gun violence so they can find a link, if any, to mental illnesses.
Post a Comment