Shameful Profiling of the Mentally Ill
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
But now I take several drugs and am very well-treated, extremely "high-functioning" in the clinical sense. I've been married happily and nicely employed for years. While being manic is a lot of fun, I have no inclination to fall off the treatment wagon. I'm a success story basically.
But suppose I wanted a government job requiring security clearance to privileged information, should I be trusted given that I've been mentally healthy for several years, without incident?
I think the answer is no. Obviously.
Manic depressives are, relative to everybody else, prone to poor judgment, psychosis, run-ins with the law, suicide, not taking their medicines, unemployment, broken relationships and vices in general. Call me a self-hating nut but if I had a daughter (and parenthetically I do intend to have a kid, even though the kid has a fifty fifty chance of having the disease), would I want a bipolar boy to date my daughter, however well-treated he might be? Absolutely not.
So regarding my people, those with mood disorders (not just bipolar), while I appreciate the anti-discriminatory progressive stuff to make things easier for my people, between you and me, do yourself a favor, whether you are an employer, a money lender, an army recruiter, an immigration policy maker or a dad - or even a bipolar person yourself who's on the dating market, keep your distance from us manic depressives as too often we are bad news.
... Though we are more creative.
Make no mistake - we will never be rid of hatred and intolerance in the world for as long as we have industrialised mental health institutions producing their discriminating materials. Without discrimination, you can't "diagnose" someone as having a "mental disorder" that is "socially not accepted and therefore requires treatment".
At the same time, I wouldn't conflate "giving security clearance to bipolar person" with "allowing formerly depressed person to cross US borders."
Judging by the most-prescribed US drugs, depression is endemic in the US: http://www.rxlist.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=79509
We're talking about spectrum conditions here. You could run that same line of reasoning on autistics... when the environment (which includes people) is exactly the thing necessary to ensure productive and positive development.
In the wake of Newtown, a lot of states wanted to enact gun control measures, in my state, and in this example specifically, we wanted to enact gun control measures against the mentally ill.
As an advocate of the second amendment, I was initially for the idea, though against the majority of the bill, until I heard testimony from mental health professionals in the area who found the measures appalling, which was especially confusing to me, since they generally supported the bill, and specifically the ban on some semi-automatic rifles (referred to erroneously as assault rifles).
Through their testimony, I learned then that even of those diagnosed with potentially 'dangerous' mental disorders (mania, schizophrenia, etc.) that many of them were perfectly non-violent. Ultimately, my opinion was formed on the same grounds as most of my other opinions, which is that disorder or no, rights should not be curtailed without due process.
So, conceding that you shouldn't be eligible for top secret level positions, how do you feel about your second amendment rights? What about the right to vote? (And yes, I acknowledge that comparison often comes off as inflammatory, though I don't intend it to, and have had little good luck in explaining why it shouldn't.) -- And, so it's qualified up front, there's no wrong answer here.
Apologies if these questions are invasive, or even if they're just taken as rude. They feel rude of me to ask, and for that I apologize, but I've never had the luxury of speaking to someone so seemingly objective about their own situation before.
Edit: I redact the question. I don't know why, but it makes me feel dirty asking it, and I'd rather I hadn't. Thanks anyway.
edit: As for bipolar CIA agents on Homeland, they should be restricted to carrying pistol-shaped tasers.
However, categorically suggesting that people should "keep [their] distance" from those with bipolar disorder seems like an extremely destructive message. As another commenter pointed out, there is a spectrum (as with any mental disorder), and I feel like sweeping generalizations of the societal risks of individuals with BP serve to exacerbate the issue of negative stigma surrounding the disease.
At what threshold of treatment efficacy should those with BP be allowed to participate equally and without stigma, in your opinion? Will it require some sort of brain stimulation to address the root cause? genetic engineering to attempt to prevent it? more advanced mood stablizers?
Treatment has progressed substantially from the heavily stigmatized 40s-80s already, and it's not unreasonable to assume that eventually it may become trivial to treat for the majority of cases. Were that to occur, should society still take your cautionary advice about these otherwise high-functioning individuals?
These people (like you) have biological issues that aren't their fault. Should they be given guns or be working for the CIA? In general, probably not. But they shouldn't be stigmatized and shut out of normal employment, either. These diseases are (for most people) quite treatable.
Also, "sane" people do dangerous, stupid, and unethical shit all the time. I know someone who just lost his license for drag racing, drunk, at 110 miles per hour. Although somewhat of a psychopath, I don't think he has a diagnosed mental illness. He is more of a danger to society than the average bipolar person.
On dating and mating, I think two mentally ill people being together is bad news. If one is grounded and they have a healthy relationship, and the person with the illness is principled and mature in managing the condition, then it's not so bad.
First of all, I grew up with someone who had exactly the same course of illness as you. So it isn't like I don't know. I lived with it for my whole childhood.
You also don't understand anything about getting a security clearance. Nothing.
Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) of the “Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information” states:
“No negative inference concerning the standards in this section may be raised solely on the basis of mental health counseling. . . . However, mental health counseling, where relevant to the adjudication of access to classified information, may justify further inquiry to determine whether the standards of subsection (b) of this section are satisfied, and mental health may be considered where it directly relates to those standards.”
When you apply for a clearance, I think they are redoing the forms, but the old ones there was a question:
Mental health counseling in and of itself is not a reason to revoke or deny a clearance. In the last 7 years, have you consulted with a health care professional regarding an emotional or mental health condition or were you hospitalized for such a condition? Answer “No” if the counseling was for any of the following reason and was not court-ordered:
1) strictly marital, family, grief not related to violence by you; or
2) strictly related to adjustments from service in a military combat environment.
If you answer yes you have to fill out "Authorization for the Release of Medical Information” with authorizes the following information from the mental health practitioner(s):
Does the person under investigation have a condition that could impair his or her judgement, reliability or ability to properly safeguard classified national security information?
If so, describe the nature of the condition and the extent and duration of the impairment or treatment.
What is the prognosis?
If the answer is yes, more paperwork is filled out, investigation, blah blah blah.
By the way:
Of the 150,000 security clearance applications processed each year by the Defense Industrial Security Clearance Office (DISCO) only 5 applicants were denied clearances in 2009 by Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judges because of Psychological Conditions. A July 2009 article at www.Army.mil reported that the US Army Central Clearance Facility’s “adjudicative history indicates that 99.98 percent of cases with psychological concerns obtained/retained their security clearance eligibility.”
Source: http://news.clearancejobs.com/2010/03/19/mental-health-and-f...
Your children don't have a "50%" chance of being bipolar. Nobody knows the odds. There is a genetic component but usually there is an environmental component as well.
And stigmatizing the mentally ill for life? That's just wonderful. Stigmatizing them doesn't allow them to get better and reintegrate into society and live and happy and fulfilling life.
It isn't like everyone is at the same level of "functioning" either. I hate that word, but there isn't any better I can think of.
You have some very hateful views.
I'm bipolar type II, I've spent years suicidal. I've spent years working (yes, it is HARD work) to improve my life and get better. Now you are saying I don't deserve my job and my spouse and all the work I did was useless because all people will see me for is "mood disorder" rather than the person I am?
I'm not bipolar, I have a history of depression and anxiety. I would often hear others (including my folks) mention this to me to give me hope. I found it incredibly patronising, especially when in practically every other area in life the same people would just repeatedly kick my confidence in the teeth.
(I'm not too excited about Google dredging up 25-year-old Usenet posts from my college days.)
Primary note: African Americans could easily be labeled given the qualification of the nebulous "threat" clause, when it is in fact Old America (those likely to celebrate their licensed gun-ownership) that is going about shooting them in the face[0].
White supremicists, Men's Rights Advocates of many stripes, and the Tea Party are stridently making cases that African Americans are sub-human[1]; wherein it stands to reason they so too could be required to have "clearance" given their supposed "lack" of psychological integrity, etc.
There are many nets and dragnets being cast to categorize arbitrary lots of "unmentionable" society. There's a significant rate of undiagnosed depression in the African American community[2].
[0]: http://www.upworthy.com/she-knocked-on-his-door-to-ask-for-h...
[1]: http://whitelocust.wordpress.com/morality-and-abstract-think...
[2]: http://www.pbs.org/thisemotionallife/blogs/black-and-depress...
Your reference [1] makes no reference to the Tea Party.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/24/maddow-tea-party-appar...
That blog is an aggregation of Tea Party writers and commenters. Please... don't do what you're doing.
For me, there is too much cognitive overhead when you try to do this because you have to be constantly aware of what you have already said about yourself (going back years) and decide if additional information you are about to give could be used to disambiguate your identity by somebody who had access to the content of all your past online posts.
For example, say that mention that I am from a small town in Vermont. On another website, years later but with the same uncommon handle, I mention that my highschool class only had 27 people in it. On another site, I mention that I once swam a 100 meter freestyle in under 55 seconds. Just with those three things, each fairly reasonable things to mention in various online discussions, an obsessed stalker could probably narrow me down to one of a few dozen people. Now that is not too bad, but those are only three mundane facts, and if I am using the same handle for years or decades...
Handles that are hard to google without getting irrelevant results (such as my current handle) can certainly help, but that will only go so far. Counting on that is making assumptions about the capabilities of future web search technology.
The only way I could obscure my information online would be if I maintained an entirely different persona/identity entirely, with totally separate lives. Since I can't or won't do that (I'd feel vaguely dishonest), I just use my real name anyway.
I operated like that for a few years, but then I realized that although my presentation of myself online is not that different from how I present myself in 'real life', there are examples in real life of situations where I present myself differently. For instance, I no longer discuss politics with family (in no small part out of respect for immediate family members who are now in the military. If I said to them what I am willing to say online, feelings would be hurt...)
Hos does this not also apply to voting? I feel the same, now I am afraid to be in public for having the views that I have.
...
So it's great to see the focus on the other side of this issue as well, which is why the U.S. is profiling in this way in the first place.
a physical or mental disorder and behavior associated with the disorder that may pose, or has posed, a threat to the property, safety, or welfare of the alien or others, or
have had such a disorder and it is likely to recur.
It sounds as though this lady's condition does not meet these requirements, and hence she should have been admitted.
The issue, in this case, is that the immigration agents actually searched online for her medical/criminal history and found evidence of mental disorder[1].
Apparently, the agent in this case did not ascertain whether her condition presents a danger to herself or others currently. She states that it does not, and presumably she has a psychiatric sign-off to that effect.
Unfortunately, aliens have very little power to effect change in U.S. laws and abuse of those laws by the border guards. You just try to get past the border people, then breath a sigh of relief. If you can't get through, you are angry but your own government is unlikely to act.
This is just more fuel for the argument that our border control needs a major overhaul. Certainly we should be scrutinizing people coming in from other countries, especially ones who come from certain Middle Eastern and central Asian places who are interested in learning to fly jet planes and so forth. But the vast, overwhelming majority of visitors are good, honest people whom we should and must welcome. All I can think of to help solve this problem is to write to your Congressional delegation and get the issue onto the agenda.
[1] http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/dhs-agent-cites-p...
Healthcare is not free in the US, so someone is paying for the services your family is receiving. Perhaps you meant that you have high-quality employer-paid insurance. In that case, sure, once you're hooked up "within the system" it works. Don't lose your job!
No, that's not at all what I said. Not at all.
> That's hard to believe.
Oh, the problem is one where my facts are conflicting with your belief structure. I got it.
What part specifically? The part where I actually got care despite not getting any care after over a year waiting? That the cost is so much substantially lower that it's essentially free?
And what does my insurance have to do with it? Yes, I have insurance, but it doesn't cover the cost. The state does. My job has nothing to do with it.
I meant exactly what I said. Even the part about harming my son.
Which state would that be? Did you come from Alberta or something?
Sorry if I come off as incredulous. But your story flies in the face of a lot more than just my own anecdotal experience.
> I find it hard to believe
Don't let my facts get in the way of your beliefs.
Edit: Better yet, let me treat you the same way. I doubt your story, liar. Fuck, you offer up a contradicting story, and people find it so hard to believe and immediately doubt you.
Seriously, if you think Canada's health care system is perfect, you are delusional.
Was language a contributing factor? With the exception of Montral Quebec tends to be like a completely different country, and they definitely prioritize French language services. I could see getting an English-speaking specialist would be tough, especially in a smaller place.
Considering the original comment I was replying to was "US healthcare sucks," I don't see why I need to pony up the proof. There are 50 states, all with different rules and regulations, all with different programs, and all that do things better in some areas than others. I'm tired of playing the game of having to explain it every time, so I limit my explanation to what I'm replying to.
As for being piled on, I'm used to it. But consider it's my kids, I feel it's worthwhile. If I can save someone else's child from suffering what my child had to suffer, it's worth it.
> Was language a contributing factor?
No.
First, this was several years ago, before the latest government went all crazy with the French language and French language police. It's worse now, but back than, it wasn't as bad.
Second, we lived and would have received services in Montreal.
Thirdly, we never prioritized English. My wife speaks French just fine, and we didn't care if it the service was in English or French.
Fourth, it was a result of regulations by the government saying that early intervention for children with Autism is not crucial. This was explained to us many times. This rule flies in the face of every doctor. Early intervention for children with autism is key.
Fifth, for the amount of money I was paying in taxes, I found it evil the amount that was being given to police the french language over Autism assistance. I will not ever stand to support that province again in any way, and have no qualms about fucking it over every chance I get.
Sixth, we were told on more than one occasion we should give up our son to a state run home. Now, this is the part that really gets people, and I'd love to say I was lying. I realize this isn't official policy, but still. It's the mentality. From what I'm told by others working up there in the medical field, this isn't uncommon for the French.
Anyways, that's more information than I intended to share, but point is, we did everything in our power. My wife worked this full time, submitting paperwork to every possible location to the point where our primary physician told us to stop sending out letters because she was tired of getting requests for information.
The straw that broke our back was being informed that we had finally gotten an appointment after 6 months of waiting, and we scheduled that appointment (which would take place 6 months later, mind you). This was with an service that our doctor from one of the children's hospitals in Montreal had recommended to us for our son. We got this appointment in the sprint of 2011, and we were finally happy that we were moving forward. That afternoon, we got a call back from the agency, and they cancelled the appointment, because they don't take children with autism. One moment we were happy! The next, horrified that all that work was for nothing. Over a year, and we had nothing to show for it, and our son was almost 2 1/2. Luckily, I am American, and we made the decision to move that day.
So yeah, I have a deep seeded hatred for Quebec, and the Canadian Healthcare system that allowed that to happen. Almost 10 years of living up there, and when we really needed the system, it failed us hard. It wasn't money, it wasn't lack of doctors, it wasn't even a lack of need.
It was purely a choice, political, and prioritizing a stupid language.
Usually wait times aren't that terrible, and the quality of care is very good. I've had 2 surgeries. One of which would have been very expensiveness in the US.
We waited for more than a year to get any care (which we never got). In the US? We had appointments set up before we moved here.
> While the quality of health care varies from province to province
Quebec can rot.
First 2 weeks in Pennsylvania resulted in more care than we got in the more than year up in Quebec fighting for anything for my son. My wife, a Canadian who was afraid of the US health care system before, loves it now. State/county helps to cover the cost of care for our children.
U.S. health insurance is not something to be proud of in general, but Pennsylvania's support for children with special needs is excellent.
As usual, FedGov is oblivious to statistics.