GUILFORD — Your coverage of the Vermont Supreme Court case Kuligoski v. Brattleboro Retreat is lacking an important voice: that of psychiatric survivors/mental health consumers.
In news articles where you've published about the court's decision and its influence, you've represented two sides: that of the family bringing the lawsuit and that of mental health providers. The only voices you included who spoke about the impact on survivors/consumers themselves were the dissenting justices.
A court decision that effectively increases the supervision and monitoring of psych patients by mental health agencies and families sends several messages: that we are more violent and dangerous than other groups, that we will not or cannot be held accountable for our actions, that we are less deserving of privacy and autonomy.
None of these messages is remotely true.
The decision was made under a false assumption that the attack on Michael Kuligoski could have been prevented had Evan Rapoza's parents or service providers somehow forced him to continue taking his medications.
There is no link between a psychiatric diagnosis and violence; those of us diagnosed with so-called mental illnesses are more likely to be victims or survivors of violence. Recent studies show no evidence that psychosis precedes acts of violence, or that adherence to medication prevents them (Clinical Psychological Science, April 24, 2015). In fact, studies have shown that the use of SSRIs (a class of antidepressants) can lead to violence and suicide (Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, October 2016).
And yet, media coverage of instances of violence again and again paints a picture of some psychotic patient off their meds going on a rampage. This leads to a political climate in which legislation like the Murphy Bill (HR 2646) in the U.S. House of Representatives threatens to codify a nonexistent link between psychiatric diagnoses and gun violence while taking away funding for community-based peer supports.
In my experience working as a peer advocate at the Retreat and at other treatment facilities in southern Vermont, when folks stop taking their medications, there is a reason.
Instead of exploring these reasons with patients, most doctors try to convince them to take the drugs and do so using unscientific analogies involving cookies or broken legs. And if that fails, they get a court order to force medication on them.
According to the state Supreme Court, the Retreat did not work with Rapoza on plans for his discharge, but rather developed an after-care plan with his parents, whom the court refers to as his “caretakers.”
The underlying current in all of this is that we survivors/consumers are not listened to, not included in decisions about our lives, and not considered fully adult or even fully human.
Your publication can work to reverse this current by seeking out our voices when it comes to events that affect us.
The disability justice movement began to declare in the 1990s, “Nothing about us without us.” In that spirit, I invite you to reach out to organizations like Vermont Psychiatric Survivors for commentary on consumer/survivor issues.
VPS is an independent, statewide mutual support and civil rights advocacy organization run by and for psychiatric survivors.
Media in this country have the power to influence popular perception of marginalized groups and ultimately policy decisions. With that power comes a responsibility to be fair and diligent in your reporting.