Editorial stance ‘an insult’
I am writing to you regarding both the editorial and its accompanying cartoon in your Jan. 23 edition. I cannot possibly convey how disappointed I find its oversimplifications and errors. Equally upsetting is the demeaning and nasty tone given to the coverage of a sensitive and important issue.
If your commentary were to be believed and there is nothing wrong with the Mental Health Act, then why have a half dozen formal inquiries, including most recently the Brian Smith Inquiry, recommended changes to the Act?
The fact is that in many cases a person who is suffering from a mental disorder unfortunately does not have the capacity to recognize the need for their own treatment. There have been numerous, and often tragic, occasions when individuals who are in desperate need of treatment are not being treated.
Your command of the legislation that I have put forward, of the Mental Health Act and of the implications of both, is very suspect. The Act most certainly does not state “an imminent danger to society.” If it did, we might not have experienced many of the tragedies that we have here in Ontario. The word “imminent” is used at one point in the present Act. The problem is that nobody in the relevant fields (mental health and psychiatric care workers, police and legal systems) can get a clear understanding or command as to how to interpret it.
This legislation may to you amount to “minor tinkering” with wording. The reality, however, is it will probably have an immediate and profound effect on the who, how, when and where of involuntary mental health care treatment in this province
You should know that in the process of formulating this legislation we had been in contact with the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) in Toronto. We also met with the Mental Health Legal Committee. As a result, adjustments were made to the bill.
You should know as well that I have been consistently on record as in favor of more resources and better support services in this area. I strongly believe that this would go a long way towards helping people. To become familiar with this issue, however, is to know that increased resources alone will not prove to be a remedy.
The statement that the bill is a waste of time and money is an insult to the wide number of groups and individuals in the Ontario mental health-care community, who have overwhelmingly supported this initiative. It is an insult to anyone who has suffered because our society has failed to properly treat those with the disease. Finally, and perhaps worst of all, it is an insult to those afflicted.
Richard Patten, MPP
Mental health changes ‘necessary’
We were dismayed by your comments on Richard Patten’s bill for changes to the Mental Health Act.
Most of us who are affected by the consequences of mental illness, cannot agree that Patten’s proposed changes are “playing with definitions” or are, by any definition, a “waste of time.”
Personal experience has taught us that it is the nature of mental illness that the affected person is no longer able to have a full appreciation of their condition and will often neglect or resist treatment. Under such circumstances it is extremely difficult to prove to the appropriate authorities that treatment is necessary. This is the essential reason for refining the definition of the terms under which treatment is to be imposed.
Dorothy and Ed Funke
Gloucester
Patten applauded
We are writing to protest the coverage and editorial treatment in your Jan. 23 issue of Ottawa Centre MPP Richard Patten’s plans to reintroduce his bill to propose changes in the Ontario Mental Health Act when the legislature resumes sitting in a few weeks.
Mr. Patten should be given credit for persisting with a private members’ bill related to mental illness rather than being held up to ridicule that is based on poor reporting and ignorance of the problems created by the present Mental Health Act.
Research has shown that early intervention and treatment is the key to reducing the impact of schizophrenia on people’s lives. Prompt treatment makes it more likely that they will keep taking the medication that is needed to keep the symptoms of schizophrenia under control. Unfortunately, because of their illness many people with schizophrenia fail to understsand that they are sick and need treatment.
This is why many provinces and states have introduced legislation which helps people with this illness to remain in the community by requiring them to take medication or go back to hospital.
Ontario’s legislation imposes a standard of “dangerousness” for involuntary admission to hospital that is so restrictive that it can take months to geet someone needing immediate treatment admitted to a psychiatric ward. The effect is to make these people become much sicker and therfore less able to benefit from treatment. Another effect is that patients are admitted to hospital again and again because of their illness, a cost of many millions of dollars which could be avoided by earlier treatment.
Your editorial is correct in stating that more funding is needed for community mental health services. However, this will be of little help to people with schizophrenia if they have stopped taking medication and are too sick to take advantage of whatever services are available.
Schizophrenia commonly begins among young people at around the age they would be attending university. May we suggest that Centretown News assign one or two staff to write a special feature on this disabling and lifelong disease of the brain which affects 300,000 Canadians and costs the Canadian community close to $5 billion a year.
Michael Cassidy, Maureen Cassidy
First Avenue