I have been asleep at the switch on the story of Linda
Bishop, who was a patient at my hospital in the 2000’s, refusing treatment and
eventually being discharge, after which she moved into an abandoned farmhouse
and eventually starved to death. It was
written up well in the New Yorker in 2011
and I recalled reading that. Since that time it was made into an award-winning
documentary in 2016, “God Knows Where I Am,” which I
had not known about. I’m not sure how I missed that. Asleep at the switch,
apparently. I knew nothing about the
case at the time, but her entire treatment team were all people known to me. I
worked that unit at other times. I think they are all gone from the hospital by
now. The discussions they had are ones I have had repeatedly through the years
as well. A person is psychotic, but
displays no measurable dangerousness. In
the protected environment of the hospital they are able to eat, stay clean, and
clothe themselves. They go to a cooking
group, make food, and answer a nutritionist’s questions intelligently. Whatever we suspect, we are hard pressed to
offer much evidence they won’t be able to care for themselves. We might apply
for a guardianship, but the standard for proving that a person is unable to
make decisions on their own behalf is high.
It is not enough to demonstrate they make bad decisions. Half the state of NH makes bad decisions but
we don’t lock them up and get them a guardian. The bar is high because we want
it to be high.
Her story is poignant, and provoking, but all the commentary
in all such stories seems to say the same ridiculous things over and over. She fell
through the cracks of the mental health system. No she didn’t. The story/film calls into question a system
where a person who doesn’t believe they are sick can make decisions for
themselves. No it doesn’t, not
really, neither the legal nor the mental health system. The hospital refused to notify the family because of HIPAA laws. What’s
this word “refused” in there? Do we say
that the sheriff “refused” to tear down a building because of zoning laws? As
in my post three years ago about the word “systemic,” we use that word system as an evasion. Systemic
racism means we can’t actually define what we’re talking about, but we want
bad things to stop happening so we start kicking the machine in random places.
Someone will pay, dammit!
Tangent: When it’s New Hampshire, people from other places
always have to work in the “Live Free Or Die” angle too. NH actually has more protective (and
intrusive) mental health laws than nearly all other states. Try to get someone committed to a hospital in
Vermont or Massachusetts sometime. The magazine writer and the filmmaker are
from New York City, where you actually can die on the street without many
people noticing. But it’s fun to pretend
it’s one of those backward other states instead.
So…You are fifty years old.
If you get admitted to a hospital do you want your mother notified
without your permission? Your sister? We
have privacy laws for a reason, and when we pass them we generally intuit the pluses and minuses pretty clearly. This
is also true of laws committing someone to a hospital against their will, or
appointing a guardian over their decisions.
We set a bar that must be reached before we take rights away from
people. These are not made in ignorance of what will result. Changing mental health law even a little bit
is very difficult, I can assure you. The
idea that all these problems are new, and no one really ever thought about them
before, but now this new story comes up to awaken us to the idea that OMG,
something might go wrong here, and maybe this will inspire people to action so
that she didn’t have to die in vain…it’s all hogwash. This story came to the
fore because she was white, well-educated, a mother, gentle, had an artistic
streak, chose an environment that had some elements of beauty (Farmhouse!
Orchard! Brook!) and wrote things in a diary expecting a lover to rescue her, a
very old-fashioned attitude like women in books. People who are less white and
educated, with less romanticism or in uglier places have this happen all the
time. It’s not some failure of any
system. It’s exactly what we thought it
was when we passed those laws. We just want to have things both ways, that’s
all.
I rail against arguing from anecdote. That’s all this is. It just happens to be an anecdote that hits
closer to home, and told particularly well. Sad for the family. Sad for lots of families. If you want to change commitment or guardianship
laws, go for it.
2 comments:
I'm not following any of the links. I suspect I'd cry if I did. Personally, I think all laws and all of the people enforcing those laws should ensure the outcome I desire. Ain't gonna happen and I wouldn't be satisfied if it did.
We're never going to build a system in which no one succeeds in suicide, and we wouldn't like the system if we did.
It would be lovely if we developed treatments for psychosis that were so successful and free of awful side effects that the people taking them were genuinely motivated to continue them permanently. If some sufferers have to be locked up for life in order to force them to submit to treatments that we deem "successful," but they don't, then we haven't gained much.
Post a Comment