Jackson Free Press

According to NAMI Medical Director Dr. Ken Duckworth, having a mental illness does not automatically make you a violent person. Read the release from NAMI below.

For Immediate Release
April 18, 2007
...
The VTI Tragedy: Distinguishing Mental Illness from Violence

Statement of Ken Duckworth, MD
NAMI Medical Director

The National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) extends its sympathy to all the families who have lost loved ones in the terrible tragedy at the Virginia Technology Institute (VTI). We are an organization of individuals and families whose lives have been affected by serious mental illnesses.

Despite media reports, Cho Seung Hui, the shooter in the tragedy may not actually have had a serious mental illness relative to other diagnoses. But the possibility opens the door for reflection on the nature of mental illnesses—what they are and what they are not— with regard to symptoms, treatment and risks of violence.

The U.S. Surgeon General has reported that the likelihood of violence by people with mental illness is low. In fact, "the overall contribution of mental disorders to the total level of violence in society is exceptionally small." More often, people living with mental illness are the victims of violence.

Severe mental illnesses are medical illnesses. They are different from episodic conditions. They are different from sociopathic disorders.

Acts of violence are exceptional.

Treatment works, but only if a person gets it.

Questions must be answered about whether the mental health care system responded appropriately in this case. We know that Cho Seung Hui was referred to a mental health facility for assessment. Did he receive the right treatment and follow-up? If not, why not?

NAMI offers below the federal government's authoritative language on perceptions of violence.

Mental Illness and Violence

Surgeon General's Report on Mental Health (1999)

Are people with mental disorders truly more violent? Research supports some public concerns, but the overall likelihood of violence is low.

The greatest risk of violence is from those who have dual diagnoses, i.e., individuals who have a mental disorder as well as a substance abuse disorder. There is a small elevation in risk of violence from individuals with severe mental disorders (e.g., psychosis), especially if they are noncompliant with their medication….Yet to put this all in perspective, the overall contribution of mental disorders to the total level of violence in society is exceptionally small.

National Institute of Mental Health (2006)

A study of adults with schizophrenia showed that symptoms of losing contact with reality, such as delusions and hallucinations, increased the odds of serious violence nearly threefold. The odds were only about one-fourth as high in patients with symptoms of reduced emotions and behaviors, such as flat facial expression, social withdrawal, and infrequent speaking.

Overall, the amount of violence committed by people with schizophrenia is small, and only 1 percent of the U.S. population has schizophrenia…By comparison, about 2 percent of the general population without psychiatric disorder engages in any violent behavior in a one-year period.

The researchers found that the odds of violence also varied with factors other than psychotic symptoms. For example, serious violence was associated with depressive symptoms, conduct problems in childhood, and having been victimized, physically or sexually; minor violence was associated with co-occurring substance abuse.

Previous Comments

ID

112350

Comment

Thank you for printing this information. I have a son who has three disorders, and people, especialy the public school system, lookm at him as if he has already killed people. Just because you have a mental, or for that matter an emotional disorder, does not mean you are at significantly hiogher risk of violence. I agree with the part that speaks to the fact that people with mental disorders are more likely to have violence used against them. Maybe you should make sure all the public schools in Clinton get a few copies of this information. OOPS, did I say Clinton Public Schools out loud? Sorry!

Author

kdbstlrfan1

Date

2007-04-19T15:36:18-06:00

ID

112351

Comment

kdbstlrfan1- HA! In my dealings with Clinton Public Schools (working with mentally ill youth), I find what you are saying to be very, very true. They are the least understanding school district in this area when it comes to children with mental illnesses or behavior problems. Its not just YOU! :)

Author

Lori G

Date

2007-04-19T16:56:36-06:00

ID

112352

Comment

You're welcome, k. There is already a stigma out there, so it was a good move on NAMI's part to send out that press release. Don't want to see all that hard work go down the drain. If anything, it should make people more determined to seek help for themselves or their loved ones. This would be a good time to put more pressure on Congress and the insurance companies for mental health parity. It's not fair for them to pay 80% on an insurance claim for physical illnesses and only pay 50% for mental illnesses. That's a huge stumbling block right there. It's an illness whether it's above the eyeballs or below them. The brain is an organ too. Hello!

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2007-04-19T19:27:37-06:00

ID

112353

Comment

I'll 2nd (or 3rd) the bad experiences with Clinton Schools... when I still worked with SPED cases we had the most trouble getting CPS to understand and do the right thing with those students. I don't even have kids and may never, but if I do I have said I would base my decision on where to send my kids according to how the school district treats its SPED kids, particularly the ones with emotional problems. If they do not treat those kids well, how to they treat the "normal" ones? Glad to see NAMI put this out there. It is so hard sometimes to convince people that mental illness does not = freak/violent person.

Author

andi

Date

2007-04-20T13:42:05-06:00

ID

112354

Comment

Okay, I have to chime in here. I'm in Clinton, and have a child that is in the SPED program. They have been very good to him. He had a serious problem adjusting to going to school, and had a bad experience when he started school up in Louisville, KY. They placed him in SPED after repeating Kindergarten: he's a good and sweet child, but has had a few problems catching on to things. He's working on mainstreaming now: he has one regular class and two SPED classes. Start of next year, he'll have two regular and one SPED class: I'm shooting for him being out of SPED after next year. My only complaint was that I had to push to get him out of the SPED program. He doesn't need to be there after this year, IMHO. I would much rather him be in Clinton SPED than in JPS. At least Clinton realized he had a problem. JPS would probably have just passed him because he's a good kid.

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2007-04-20T13:48:55-06:00

ID

112355

Comment

And just to emphasize: my son does not have a learning or emotional disability. He needed a little extra attention and care is all. So SPED does not equal mental illness.

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2007-04-20T13:52:22-06:00

ID

112356

Comment

I did not say that SPED = mental illness. There are many different rulings; we were discussing cases where the children do have serious emotional/psychological issues. I'm glad to hear you had a good experience with CPS. From my experience working with parents of children in that school district, whether they were already in SPED or trying to get a ruling, you are in the minority. It seemed that the students who could be mainstreamed and eventually get out of SPED did have a better time with CPS. It was the students who had serious issues and needed very individualized programs that we had the hardest time seeing eye-to-eye on.

Author

andi

Date

2007-04-20T13:59:55-06:00

ID

112357

Comment

My apologies, andi. I get real defensive when it comes to my kids. Please forgive me. I think that's why he's being mainstreamed: cause I'm being a mama bear about it. :)

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2007-04-20T14:06:03-06:00

ID

112358

Comment

It's okay! I typed the first post pretty fast so I can see now how you might have misunderstood. Your son is lucky to have a mom that is so involved. I would say that about 99% of the kids I dealt with will unfortunately always have to be in SPED.

Author

andi

Date

2007-04-20T14:23:22-06:00

ID

112359

Comment

It's sad, really. I know a lot of these kids, because of my son. I know he has been trated well: I cannot speak for the others. I question whether some of those even need to be there. I know it's been a godsend for him, though. Anyway, back to the subject at hand. I've blathered enough. :)

Author

Lady Havoc

Date

2007-04-20T14:54:22-06:00

ID

112360

Comment

I would much rather him be in Clinton SPED than in JPS. At least Clinton realized he had a problem. JPS would probably have just passed him because he's a good kid. My brother is autistic, so he had to take some special ed classes. I think JPS did pretty well with him. Gradually, he took more mainstream classes than SPED classes, and he even studied French and pre-algebra. He went to both proms, and he got his diploma in 1999. The only problems he ran into were other classmates in middle and high school who teased him and my mom thought about pulling him out of school because of that. He actually wanted to stay in school.

Author

LatashaWillis

Date

2007-04-20T18:33:37-06:00