One feature shared by Newtown gunman Adam Lanza and mass-shooters at Virginia Tech, Aurora and Tucson is mental illness. Thus, as officials reconsider gun laws, they must also contemplate modifications about how America treats people with these ailments.
Of course, the majority of those with brain sicknesses do not cause bloodshed. Extraordinary occurrences on the scale of Sandy Hook can unfairly cast a pejorative light upon these individuals as a group. Part of the overall effort here must include heightened public awareness that diminishes such stigmas. We also have to make a bet that national handling of all mentally unsound people will also help catch extreme cases like Lanza.
If America is serious about making improvements in this, then legislators must protect funding for psychiatric clinics. Economically, we’re in an age of necessary reductions. But decreasing these payments could mean potentially violent patients slip through without proper attention necessary for beneficial treatment.
Instead, politicians should strengthen the system. One intriguing idea, based on Florida’s Baker Act, would mandate that residents who check into a clinic for drug addiction or mental health issues must stay for several days. Otherwise, patients might not receive full evaluation and helpful aid.
Perhaps the optimal method to enhance mental-health services is increased interaction among medical offices and schools and other local institutions.
Lanza and many of his gunman peers have similar back-stories. Teachers and classmates recall them as mentally ill. Had an ongoing relationship existed between school and community clinic, maybe medical and psychiatric professionals could have noticed and treated these cases long before they turned violent.
Municipalities should prioritize these health care services in their schools. The earlier intervention occurs, the better.
Comments are not available on this story. Read more about why we allow commenting on some stories and not on others.
We believe it's important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It's a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less