2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

During a recent special legislative session in 2008, then Senator Margaret Carter proposed a bill to quantify where the money spent on Mental Health in Oregon was being spent.  The results of that study were that nearly 40% of all mental health care tax dollars in Oregon were spent on the State Hospital system.  Given that the number of persons treated by the State Hospital in any given year numbers approximately 1000 and serious mental illness strikes many more thousands than that, the need to carefully look at how money is spent is a very relevant topic.  The Department of Justice CRIPA report also suggests that multiple persons who are well enough to be placed in community treatment facilities languish for months in the State Hospital system suggests that the real problem area right now is the lack of structured community treatment.

When I attended the Phase One hearings on the new State Hospital plan, the reporters suggested that a major problem in Oregon was the lack of an intake and reintegration system for citizens with mental health issues.  To date that system has not been addressed.  Until it is, any new facility will continue to house people in the most expensive and potentially unproductive manner.  The money can be spent on better facilities to assist citizens in dealing with their issues of care and still protect public safety.

posted 2 years, 10 months ago
view in context

Mental illness is not a question of "wanting" to be cured.  My daughter anguishes over her condition and is apologetic, but unable to control her thoughts.  With diabetes, you at least have a measurable condition.  With serious mental illness medical science cannot even fully explain it, much less effectively treat it.  Until we can fully understand the nature of the diseases, we can only hope to help treat the symptoms, not the causes.

We do not choose who to treat for cancer and many ultimately die.  At least they have the dignity of not being shot or beaten to death as a result of their condition.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

Since the 1950's the U.S. has decreased populations in mental institutions by 90% and sent them packing to live in communities without adequate support.  Most just changed to a new residence in our ever-increasing jail populations or live without homes.  When will we address the need for adequate treatment and support for mental illness? 

The police have been asked to work with a situation that they did not create and are not trained to handle safely.  The result is a disastrous mix where our community is fractured and everyone loses.

We need to deal with the problem on many fronts but I sense a lack of will to take the steps to fund solutions that can be effective.  Community Mental Health was promised with deinstitutionalization but was never given a chance to succeed.

posted 3 years, 1 month ago
view in context

I have to agree that the tone was oriented to the "danger to everyone" and the "publics safety". The facts about the nature of the threat are overblown. Would the sheriff go door to door warning of "crack houses" that are known to be in the neighborhood? It seems as though the safety of the neighborhood is in question when someone is trying to make a situation as controlled as possible. For that effort they are rewarded with "safety hysteria." promoted by those who are supposed to protect the public. The sheriff misses the real threats to his community.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

The fact is that people can recover. The alternative is to keep people locked in the state hospital at $150,000 per year costs to taxpayers which benefits no one, while at the same time people who need treatment wander the streets without supervision. More people under proper treatment is a better answer. Most with mental illness that is treated properly are model citizens. The public is suffering from irrational fear and lack of knowledge about the problem. I personally know two former patients that I would love to have as neighbors.

The point about the cost is not to save the state money but to provide treatment to more who need treatment in a more effective manner. Even if federal money pays part of the costs, we still foot the bill as taxpayers.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context