When the Hospital Fires the Bullet
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
It wasn't the first time the hospital has killed a patient using the same technique. In the subsequent years I have spent a lot of time thinking about why he died and the indifference of those around him when he was most vulnerable. Law enforcement refused to investigate mostly on the grounds that he was insane and there was nothing anyone could do.
He had three kids and a wife who was a social worker. She was later fired as the state of Wisconsin decided social services where no longer a priority.
I've come to the conclusion that most of us would rather ignore the problem of mental illness rather than solve it. It's more convenient to kill the ill than treat them and society simply looks the other way.
I am given hope that his son is now a leading neuroscience Ph.D. Candidate at UC Davis. He has vowed to not let his father's death be in vain.
FWIW, I anticipate (hope) that addressing the needs of the mentally ill will be the next big civil rights movement, at least in the USA. Mostly due to increased awareness, for better or worse, thru social mediums.
Just like with homosexuality before, I had no empathy because I couldn't relate. But then when you discover that its your friend, your family, your loved ones who is affected, I learned "Oh, they're just people, just like me." And then someone shares their story, like you just did, and I learn "Oh, it's not just me and mine."
So I thank you for sharing. All the best.
I think this is extremely dangerous.
Has anybody else made this observation? Is there anything that could be done to change this?
I guess it gets even worse in the private sector - you may get a person without the needed background or training to resolve the situation in the optimal way.
Source -- My personal everyday experience.
NPR did a piece on this case last night. They emphasized that there are standard procedures for dealing with mentally unstable patients in a hospital setting, and the cops weren't trained in those procedures. They ended up escalating the situation.
They also interviewed a hospital security guard, who said the shooting was ridiculous. He said "We don't carry guns. We get hit all the time. We just deal with it."
That wasn't the police approach. One got hit, so they responded like they would on the street and deployed tasers, then lethal force, and followed up with felony charges.
Another issue was that the family asked for a mental health evaluation of the patient. Standard procedure is to immediately provide that upon request. Instead the hospital ignored it. Had they done a proper evaluation, the patient would have been moved to an area where they used regular security instead of police.
As of now the hospital is at risk of losing federal funding, if it doesn't reform its policies to the satisfaction of federal investigators, including better training for the cops and further restriction of their areas of operation.
It's stupid that we now have this idea of competing hospitals. It's a competition to the most efficient lowest common denominator cost wise yet maximalized cash cow.
Seriously. Stay healthy. Stay away from doctors. Stay away from hospitals. (Family full of doctors who always say this.)
Those people you have observed, did you know them before they went into that line of work? Were they more likely than your other, less aggressive/superior-feeling/authority-seeking acquaintances, to go into that line of work?
I'm not saying your hypothesis is not true (there may be something in it) but there is danger that (i) we mistake the cause for the outcome, and/or (ii) judge people's personality based solely on the way they behave whilst doing their job.
But I'm aware that those are just anecdotes that just accidentally might fit a plausible narrative...
If relatively low-paid, relatively unprotected hospital workers are "tough" enough to deal with difficult and dangerous hospital patients without using violence, why aren't the police? Unfortunately our laws have made it too easy for police to use violence against people in difficult situations where others in the exact same situation could not or would not use violence. These laws even go so far as to protect police who use absolutely brutal violence to injure or kill individuals who really just need medical care, such as Kelly Thomas [2].
[1]: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/579/m...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Kelly_Thomas#Incident
All is well (I guess the patient recovered), but I'm not sure she'd call herself "tough enough to deal with dangerous patients without using violence"!
It's not about "being above the law", either, it's about the criminal being better protected by the law, in this instance, than the victim. The policeman likely told her the truth - that no action taken against this guy based on her reported threat is going to deter him from fulfilling it, likely the reverse, so she better be careful.
We used to have sanitariums, now we (non-experts) say it's cheaper/better to just release them into the public. Then get all surprised and pissy when things go wrong.
We've regressed.
Hospital is not a good choice for most people with mental illness. Even people with severe illness, such as psychosis, benefit from good quality community treatment where possible, reserving hospital for last resort intervention.
That good quality bit is important though.
You might want to look at the literature around "Early Intervention in Psychosis" style working.
I'm not saying your idea of the situation doesn't happen, but there are a good number of already unstable people seeking out the job, long before they have a chance to be altered by it.
I'm talking about how the abstract concept of these jobs inherently contains the seeds of their inhumanity. If that is fixed the many who are abusive can be seen clearly by each other. You rightly point out that there are individuals carrying out a far worse sociopathy than even the job could dream up for them. I completely agree.
Most of the officers I talk to are motivated by a strong sense of right and wrong. Some are just happy to be helpful. I talked to one guy who honestly enjoyed answering people's questions about renewing tags and getting a handgun permit.
There are plenty of calm, humble, balanced police officers. What I worry about is a culture of law enforcement that trains them to react with force, disproportionately target minorities and close ranks to any criticism, no matter how valid.
is total opposite of
"There are plenty of calm, humble, balanced police officers."
Its a coinflip wether you belong to the right or the wrong end of the scale dependent on environmental factors shaping the police officer.
Preferrably you would want someone who can think for themselve. Which a police department absolutely doesnt want, hence they screen against high iq.
hierarchy and balance dont mix.
Did you report it?
Of course, all jobs attract the kind of people who enjoy the work.
[0] http://southpark.cc.com/clips/149674/its-coming-right-for-us
Previously many of these dangerous cases would be locked up until they were safe. Now, everybody just tries to treat them as an outpatient. That with the easy access to guns makes hospitals very dangerous places these days.
Official security probably has more latitude to take action because they are responsible for the safety of everyone in the area.
probably, but they should have less latitude because of their training in other, non-violent methods to remove the threat. negotiation can help defuse most situations better than a taser or gunshot would.
(was this sarcastic? or just hopeful?)
Abstractly, that may be true, if you free yourself of certain constraints imposed by reality. For one, you have to assume that every single person in every single situation is open to negotiation. Second, you have to assume that nuanced and complex communication of the sort that enables negotiation is readily possible. Third, you have to assume that entering into negotiation will remove any threat the subject may pose to other people nearby. Fourth, you have to assume that trained negotiators arrive sufficiently fast for their magic stop-all-threats-to-everyone powers to engage in time.
In reality, some or all of these can fail. I read about an incident in my city in the past few months where a mentally ill man was reported to police as wandering the streets, carrying a chain. The police arrived. An officer approached the man, attempting to speak with him. She wanted to find out if anything was wrong and see if there was a problem that needed addressing. He proceeded to beat her with the aforementioned chain. If memory serves, the situation was resolved when the armed, actively violent, mentally ill man was shot dead.
And this is a scenario where presumably everyone speaks English! Where in there was she supposed to negotiate with him to solve all the problems at hand? What non-violent methods do you expect to bring a rapid halt to someone actively beating a police officer with a weapon that will be remotely as fast as lethal force? What happens if you have no shared languages, someone deep in the grips of hallucinations, and actively shooting people nearby? Do you expect negotiating police to defuse that problem by negotiating with someone incapable of recognizing them as people who want to negotiate?
It's easy to assume for me because I've seen the vast amounts of work currently happening around "behaviour seen as challenging" in people with mental illness or learning disability[1] or brain injury.
Here shooting people is absolutely not possible in the vast majority of cases of behaviour seen as challenging. Tasering people is also absolutely not acceptable.
Rapid tranquillisation is common, but not acceptable because of the amount of restraint needed immediately prior to the injection.
Various methods of restraint are common, but are not acceptable because of the risk of injury or death.
A lot of money is being spent on better training on de-escalation, diversion, prevention, etc.
It's fucking baffling to me that people think it's okay to kill someone in distress just because the people doing the shooting are so lacking in skills that they have no other option. To me it's clearly a failure of everyone involved (and the departments they work for).
In your example with the chain: you seem to think this is a situation where a violent response is undeniably the right thing. I see that and I think how fucking clueless the woman was, and how fucking clueless the people who shot the man were. There are plenty of Youtube videos comparing UK and US police responses to these situations.
[1] UK definition.
Incidentally, this was not a situation where there were a half-dozen officers on hand to swarm the guy. Should officers always move in groups of six or more, so that any sudden violence can be handled with grappling? Seems expensive, at the very least. How do you propose that a single officer being actively beaten about the head with a chain de-escalate the situation? I'm deeply curious how you think that could be reasonably accomplished. Maybe saying please?
What would an officer in the UK do in the situation I described when being actively beat about the head with a chain? How would it be totally different and reliably yield an ideal outcome?
Another detail of relevance: the incident did not provide the officer with an opportunity to speak to the victim of mental illness in a time of distress. The victim attacked immediately upon the officer exiting her vehicle. If any and all forms of violence are ruled out, with de-escalation and negotiation being the order of the day, how should this officer have reacted to being beaten with a chain? What peaceful, non-violent, resolution skills are available to someone subject to such immediate violence?
You don't want to end up grappling with someone who might actually be much better at it.
The article described a situation in which two people with police training used a taser and a gun to restrain a naked man. It was two against one. Did they really need the taser? Even if they did, did they really need to shoot him with a gun, too?
If you give people guns, empower them to use them, and protect them from the legal ramifications, then stories like this are the obvious outcome.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3356115/Alabama-man-...
http://mtstandard.com/crime-and-courts/missoula-motel-murder...
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/arizona-man-meth-se...
http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2015/04/fort_pay...
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/compensation-for-mother-of...
http://somd.com/news/headlines/2016/20355.php
European nations will likely have fewer such problems than we do - our population is much more violent. As Scott Alexander once quipped, "Who'd have thought populating half a country with the descendants of a group of people called "Border Reavers" would cause so much trouble?"
https://twitter.com/slatestarcodex/status/672540086932779009
I'm not trying to say that the police were justified in this incident - note that I'm a huge critic of American policing. I'm merely pointing out that the threat is quite real.
There are places where security guards and police do without guns in normal duties. Perhaps it's, at least in part, because policing and security sets the tone, that they have to do more deescalation before drawing a gun, that they have less violence.
[EDIT:] Has anyplace ever become more safe by putting more guns in the hands of armed security and police?
If you are charged with protecting people from a crazy lady with a knife, would you turn down the tazer or gun? (If you believe it doesn't improve your odds of survival, you of course would.)
Given that many of these crazy people incidents happen away from security guards, it's hardly clear that "policing and security sets the tone". The US is just a highly violent place.
What sort of evidence are you looking for?
(The SOMD link isn't loading for me) Note that all but one of your links involve drug abuse. Here the violence isn't due to mental illness, but to drug abuse. Drug & Alcohol addiction is a predictor of violent behaviour. (Much stronger than mental illness.)
When many people keep misunderstanding what you say perhaps the problem is with your poor communication style, not their comprehension.
> Although I doubt you are correct
Your inability to provide a cite has been noted.
http://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/resources/consequence...
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/mental-illn...
The latter article also describes a study suggesting "matched controls" (read: siblings of mentally ill people) are also disproportionately violent which is interesting.
Many citations are provided therein. I didn't provide it because it's completely tangential to the main point, namely that there exist crazed and violent people who should be tazed and tied up. I'll note you didn't provide a citation either.
You have two (or more) members of staff dealing with that person.
You de-escalate at every opportunity.
You have stuff like rapid tranquilisation and restraint available (although these are methods of last resort).
Of course, in the UK, the next question from the police would be "What's with the handgun?" :)
All that said, in the case of Alan Pean in the article, I could well believe that the two off-duty police officers moonlighting as security guards were basically incompetent amateurs with weaponry, believing their own hype.
It provides an insight into the internal experiences of somebody suffering from delusions. In his interview, Alan Pean tells a vividly detailed account of how he experienced the manic episode. He recalled how, at times, he would be able to rationalise the delusional thoughts away but they came so quickly, it was difficult to stay rational as the delusions had their own internal coherence.
One memorable part of his story was when he described how he “escaped” from his third floor apartment building to get to the hospital: he locked his front door (which he thought was being watched by enemy agents) and then swung down from his balcony to the one below it and on to the ground, all the time telling himself to “Remember your training, remember your training” (while in reality, he’d never trained as a secret agent).
In his delusion, Alan thought he would be killed by either a missile strike on his apartment complex or be shot by the enemy agents who were circling in for the kill. The interviewer points out the tragic irony that when Alan finally made it to the place he felt would be safe, that he was actually shot.
Alan still finds it difficult to deal with the fact that a police officer was willing to take his life with a gunshot to the chest. I can imagine such an experience being deeply traumatic for those of us with good mental health but it must be much more difficult for someone already dealing with psychological issues.
From a personal point of view, a woman in my social circle about 15 years ago was suffering from bipolar disorder. I’d known her for about a year but had no clue that she had any problems with mental health. Then one day my brother and I met her on the street while she was having a manic episode. We took her into our home to look after her. I can’t recall the details but we found looking after her to be a distressing experience. We invited other friends in common around to help as we felt very much out of our depth. The next day her parents took her to a psychiatric hospital where she spent a few weeks while the doctors found a combination of medication that helped even out the mood swings.
[1] http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/579/m...
Why does this happen? I know someone who showed up to the ER after crashing his car during a delusional manic episode. His wife showed up and said he has a history of bipolar disorder and needs a psychiatric evaluation. The nurse literally laughed at her!
That customer posting a bad review of my restaurant. He's acting like he's been on the wacky tabacky, nudge nudge... Best get him out of here to the police station, and whilst you're about it those comments are clearly drug affected. Just clear them. Incidentally, about that bonus for working extra hours - I put that in your account last night.
Good work officer!
edit: my new iPad didn't pick up the fact I wrote restaraunt. Aside from being a great typo to say aloud, wtf?