March 18, 2025 • 41 mins
Mental health is a complex subject often lost in political rhetoric, and our latest episode of the Gaslit Truth Podcast brings this to the forefront. We challenge the commonly held beliefs surrounding civil commitment laws, particularly in Oregon, as we navigate the new proposed legislation that could redefine how mental health crises are handled.
Join us as we uncover the intricate relationship between NAMI and civil commitments, confronting the ongoing narrative that embeds mental health within a political tug-of-war. As we discuss the proposed shift towards assessing a patient’s risk over a 30-day period instead of relying solely on immediate threats, we raise essential questions about the responsibilities placed upon mental health professionals. Are we setting them up for failure? And what about the rights of those in crisis?
The episode also explores the implications of these laws on vulnerable populations and their intersection with prison reform efforts. As we unpack these pressing issues, we urge our listeners to consider the ramifications of policies that may further stigmatize mental illness while failing to provide adequate support.
We encourage you to engage with us, share your thoughts, and contribute to this critical discourse as we work toward a society that advocates for comprehensive mental health care instead of merely imposing strict legal frameworks. Tune in, and let's explore the gaslit truths that shape our understanding of mental health today. Don't forget to subscribe, leave a review, and join the conversation!
Are you tired of being gaslit and want to DEEP THROAT some more truth? We want to hear from you! Message us your gaslit stories at thegaslittruthpodcast@gmail.com
While you are at it, Follow us on Instagram, Facebook and YouTube @thegaslittruthpodcast.
Be sure to Hit that subscribe button and get alerts for more episodes!
Thanks for listening!
Follow Us individually at
Dr. Teralyn:
Therapist Jenn:
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey everyone, you are being gaslit into believing
that civil commitment is theanswer to treating mental
illness and addiction.
We are your whistleblowingshrinks, Dr Tara Lynn and
therapist Jen, and this is theGaslit Truth Podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Welcome to the show.
It sure is.
Woohoo.
This is a good topic.
But before we get started, I amdoing another shameless
self-promotion for my book.
Do it there, it is your BestBrain.
Do it.
Do it there, it is your bestbrain.
Do it, do it.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Terry, wait, I want you to open the very first page,
please, and I want you to readCan you share with people the
line on the very first page ofthat book?
Speaker 2 (00:36):
100%.
When life knocks you down,calmly get up, smile and say you
hit like a bitch.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Who would have thought?
A book about a brain startswith that.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Well, if you know every chapter starts a little
bit like that.
So this book is a work of Idon't know love and frustration,
I guess, and every chapterstarts out with a little quote,
a little snarky quote, and alittle bit of a life story about
me.
And then we get down tobusiness, about nutrition,
lifestyle, brain health, aminoacids, all the things I talk
(01:10):
about.
So it's nice and small Good tohave next to your bedside.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
It's perfect next to your bed.
Where can people find your bestbrain, Terry?
Speaker 2 (01:17):
You can find this links in bios and also you can
find it on Amazon.
So your best brain Only leaveme five-star reviews.
Per usual, jen, and I only likefive-star reviews If you don't
like it.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
Well, that's too bad.
Go find somebody else to read adifferent book then.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Yeah, so we need to talk about this topic today
because, as per usual, terry andI spend all this time prepping
for these podcasts, whichincludes us sending a thousand
text messages back and forth.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Only a thousand.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
How pissed off we get as we start to dig into these
rabbit holes, talking about thetopic like this one, which is
we're going to cover a lot,we're going to talk about civil
commitments, we're going to talk, we're going to bring a little
politics into this and talkabout how it's actually not
politics and how people aremaking these red and blue issues
out of something that aren't?
we're talking about nami and thebullshit that actually is nami.
(02:07):
Um, if you don't have a lot ofinformation about the national
alliance of mental health, um,mental illness, and we're going
to talk about that as it relatesto the state of oregon and a
state uh, past issue that well,they're trying to pass right now
about civil commitment.
Yeah, we've been talking aboutthis, right?
Speaker 2 (02:23):
So let's rock, let's get into it.
Yes, okay.
So this topic was kind of bornon TikTok, if you will, for me
because I tried my hardest totell people that RFK Jr is not
rounding people up for civilcommitments and sending them to
wellness farms or camps orwhatever it is.
(02:44):
And I actually, you know, a lotof people are like, yes, he
said that, he said that, blah,blah, blah.
And now I've been saying, sendme the video.
Then send me the video that heactually says that, because this
has been fact checked multipletimes, that he has not said this
.
I don't care if you like him orhate him, he has not said this,
okay.
Which then makes this topic apolitical topic, because just
(03:07):
because you don't like, you knowRepublican, doesn't mean that
he said these horrible thingsright, or that the Republican
party is out to civilly commitanyone, okay.
So I kept thinking about thisand I found the original video,
actually that, uh, where that,where he was talking and this
came from prison reform.
So this is where Jen gets alittle geeky because you know
(03:30):
she's she was more involved inthe whole prison system for a
longer period and most recentlythan than I.
So so I got real interested inthis topic because I wanted to
understand what it meant.
Topic, because I wanted tounderstand what it meant.
And then suddenly, rightunderneath your noses, a state,
a blue state, decides to pushforth commitment reform, making
(03:56):
it easier for you to get civillycommitted if you have a mental
health issue and, I would guess,an addiction issue as well
right Sure yes.
And so it got me thinking.
I was like, oh wow, this reallyisn't political.
If it was political, itwouldn't be coming from a blue
state and a blue governor.
(04:17):
So I'm like this is reallyfascinating, because if you want
to push this being only a redissue or a blue issue, it is not
.
As a matter of fact, it's noteven a federal issue.
Yeah, it's a state issue, andthat, to me, makes it even more
fascinating.
So, yes, so here's to all thepeople that are saying that this
(04:40):
is a federal Republican issueand they're all after us yeah,
no, it's not.
This is a federal Republicanissue and they're all after us.
Yeah, no, it's not.
You've got a state rightunderneath your nose trying to
expand how to civilly commit.
So I think it might be animportant thing to just briefly
touch on how things generallystand for civil commitments.
Right For people to understandthat, because right now, civil
(05:03):
commitments in the majority ofstates each state, I think, is a
little bit different.
They've got a little bitdifferent laws and things like
that.
But in general and Jen chime inif you're hearing something
that's incorrect, in general youhave to be at risk to self or
others, like ending your life orending someone else's life.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
It's pretty extreme, it's got to be imminent, it's
got to be extreme.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Right now.
Right now, okay, and that'simportant to know because it's a
right now situation this newlaw and apparently Oregon has
tried to it's the state ofOregon Newsflash.
We're talking about Oregon, soif you've got, any listeners
from Oregon.
Perk your ears up people andtell your friends to start
listening to this episode.
(05:46):
Yes, and NAMI is leading thecharge on this, which is really
interesting because NAMI hasinfluence across the entire
country.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Yes.
In an article that we're goingto be talking about here.
There's an Oregon group right,which is NAMI, that wants to
make it easier to commit thosethat are in mental health crisis
, and the Oregon chapter of NAMI, okay, indicates that they
don't want to be the ones thatare leading this charge.
But because of how problematicthis is for the state of Oregon
(06:20):
and how problematic it is forthe state, specifically within
their Department of Corrections,because the only way to receive
true commitment type servicesthat you would get if you were
civilly committed right is to gothrough the correctional system
, they are deciding theircharges that that is not okay
(06:40):
for people and then, instead ofputting them in the prison
systems, we need to commit themto state hospitals so that they
don't end up in the legal system.
Even though they don't want totake on this charge, they say
that they need to.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Well, I feel the same way.
I didn't want to take on thecharge of the Gaslit Truth
podcast but I felt like I neededto I know, this one's a little
big.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
But you know what, who cares?
We're going to go for it.
So what they did is they endedup putting together it was
actually this last fall, NAMIended up putting together a
draft document for a legislativeconcept on civil commitments,
and what the most importantthing that stood out for us in
this document right, was thiswhole 30-day thing.
(07:25):
So let's talk a little bitabout what Oregon is proposing,
because you know, once one statestarts this, guys, oh, once the
match is lit, the wildfirestarts.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
So yeah, so this is the deal right and it's.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
Oh, we lost.
She lost volume.
All of a sudden she stops.
Okay, if you guys are watchingYouTube right now, you'll see
Terry in a full panic.
She's trying to oh, she'staking the flag off her mic.
Now she's pushing it back in.
This is very fascinating.
So what Terry is trying to sayI'm going to wait to see if she
comes on.
We have no audio at all for her, so she has completely paused.
(08:06):
So what?
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Oh, she's back.
I was just about to talk aboutthe 30 days.
I don't know what happened.
All my audio just decided tocrap.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
So finish your sentence.
The deal is, you're going totalk about the 30 days and what
this fortune telling is thatproviders are going to be given
the luxury of being able to do.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Right.
So right now, as Jen and Italked about, it is an imminent
risk, meaning right now, likethey assess, like right now
today, like they're saying nowthat they want us I'm going to
say us mental health care peopleto assess risk somehow for the
(08:52):
next 30 days.
Is this person going to be arisk to themselves or others
within the next 30 days?
And I don't even know how to dothat.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Let me give the detail of what that means.
So the potential proposal thatNAMI is putting out is defining
danger to others, which is anystatements or attempts to
inflict serious physical harm onanother person that would place
a reasonable person in fear ofimminent physical harm.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
A reasonable person.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
I know here's the word reasonable, which that
shows up in a lot of theverbiage throughout our, our,
our jobs.
Like, I don't know.
It's just like, well, what areasonable person do this.
What the fuck does that mean?
I don't know.
I mean, my God, I'm from thebackwoods.
We do a lot of stupid shit.
It's fine, like.
And then they also definedanger to others as likely to
inflict a serious physical harmon another person within the
(09:48):
next 30 days.
You are likely to inflictserious physical harm on another
person within the next 30 days,so that's part of it.
Then they define danger to self.
Danger to self is statements.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
This is also.
They want this to be a broader.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
I believe the danger to self is broader, the danger
to self is statements orattempts to inflict serious
physical harm to yourself.
So statements or attempts,statements, by the way, people
okay, do you have any clients Ihave that I work with that make
statements that are dangerouswhen stated, but the intentions
and the means and the drive andall these things behind doing
(10:30):
this are a totally differentthing, right?
So the fact that this is sobroad really bothers me, because
as clinicians we are trained init's not just a statement.
We assess intent, we assessmean, we assess their history,
we assess their support systems,we assess whether or not they
had a relationship that justwent to shit in their life and
they have vulnerability factors.
Right, let's spell all that out.
But no, this is pretty general,Okay.
(10:52):
So statements or attempts toinflict serious physical harm to
yourself, including statementsand attempts of suicide, by
which a behavioral healthclinician this is us now would
reasonably conclude that theperson is at a significant risk
of harm within the next 30 days.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Now.
So I get worried about being amental health in that position,
and what if something happenswithin the next 30 days?
There's already a massiveliability to mental health.
I don't know if people knowthis.
If someone ends their lifeunder your care, you can be
(11:29):
investigated for that right.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Yeah, I can tell you, in the Department of
Corrections, the after actionreviews are horrific.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Oh, I was involved in one.
It was terrible so yeah, thisdials in.
Speaker 1 (11:42):
clinicians is anyone who's a behavioral health
clinician.
So this is our licensedpsychiatrists, psychologists,
nps, clinical social workers,licensed professional counselors
, physicians, interns orresidents working under the
board-approved supervisors okay,or any other clinician whose
authorized scope of practiceincludes mental health diagnosis
and treatment.
So basically, we have to find away to not only assess imminent
(12:10):
risk maybe more so, but noteven that but in the next month,
are you going to harm yourselfor somebody else?
Speaker 2 (12:19):
I mean, if that's the criteria, I mean, we should
start selling crystal balls orsomething.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
I think so.
I think so, and I'm not tryingto go back onto like
evidence-based approaches here,but this is really fucking
general.
So if we're going to take areally hard look at this right,
I really think this does adisservice.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
People will be afraid to do this, like what will
start happening is People aregoing to be afraid to talk about
this.
People are going to be afraidto do this Like.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
what will start happening is People are going to
be afraid to talk about this.
People are going to be afraidto tell their clinicians.
anything we are going to keepsecret, secret secrets, because
this is not.
I don't know if this is goingto be super helpful.
There's a level of iatrogeniccare that this like sits with me
and I worked I mean, we workedin the prison system and had a
lot of very mentally ill inmatescome through, which we're going
(13:09):
to talk about, this otheragenda behind the civil
commitment thing that'shappening, but it sits at a
level of iatrogenic care for mejust because this is almost
putting the power in the handsof, I'm going to say, sometimes
the wrong people and it's goingto silence the people who
struggle with mental illness.
(13:30):
It's going to silence thepeople who are going through
withdrawal and are havingsuicidal ideation from going
through medications that they'regetting off of and them not
telling their clinicians.
I would have been civillycommitted twice in the last year
in my decreasing of Lexapro hadI went to someone and shared my
true thoughts on what washappening in my brain.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
If.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
I lived in Oregon.
This was passed.
I would have been civillycommitted on two occasions that
I could feel very confident insaying so.
It's going to silence peopletoo.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
That's what I keep thinking about, because even if
you come in, like what's theassessment?
I don't know what theassessment is.
If you were to come in and talkto your clinician about you
having being very depressed andnot showering or not eating very
well and things like that, like, as a clinician, is the charge
going to be?
This is a civil commitment, youknow.
(14:24):
And what if you don't right?
What if you don't proceed withthe civil commitment?
What is the liability to theclinician as well?
Like, there's two parties inthis right there's the client
and then there's the clinician.
And you know, in privatepractice particularly right.
What is your liability in allof this and how are you going to
(14:46):
be held accountable?
And so are you also going to beessentially pulling the trigger
on this too quickly?
Speaker 1 (14:55):
It's kind of a scary thought.
As a clinician it's very scary.
Yeah, because where is thatlevel of reporting then,
especially if you're somebodywho really knows that your
client is going to be in an okayspace, but what they're going
through right now is some toughshit.
Now it does say in here factorsthe court can consider, but not
(15:15):
limited to, is past behaviorthat has resulted in physical
harm to self or others.
So here comes some of thisbackstory, with people right,
past patterns of deterioratingpast patterns, of relevance, of
the frequency or the severity ofpast behavior, which I do think
that that matters as well.
We have to take people'shistory into account.
(15:35):
But I also think that, workingwith a lot of chaptered inmates
in the prison system who we wereforcing to take psychiatric or
medical medications, pastbehavior became so relevant that
current functioning didn'tmatter anymore and it kept you
committed, okay.
So I did a lot of work withpeople in that space too in the
(15:56):
years that I was working in theprison system.
So so let's talk then aboutabout that part of this, terry,
because there is an agenda,especially in the state of
Oregon.
There is an agenda to why theywant to civilly commit people.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
um, that has to do with prison reform which goes
back into the originalconversation with rfk jr,
because that's what he wastalking about prison reform and
people who want a better lifeafter after they get out of
prison or in lieu of prison,they can go to these places and
learn trades and, you know, dothe wellness farm type thing.
(16:34):
What I think, what people don'trealize and I just want to have
a little caveat is those thingsalready exist in the world,
like wellness farms exist.
There are rehabs that alreadyexist that teach trades and
vocational things.
There's long-term rehabs, onesin Hawaii.
It's a three-year program thatdoes all of that.
So people are like, oh my gosh,when I hear that, I'm like you
(16:57):
guys just don't reallyunderstand the landscape of
addiction recovery and theprograms that are available.
Not all programs are greatprograms.
I'm just talking about thestyle, but any programs like it
can also be very predatory atthe same time.
But these do already exist.
But I think he was just he madea comment and it was very
(17:18):
interesting to me because thisis very true in the state that
we live, very rural communities,and so he would like to use
those rural lands for thesewellness opportunities, and I'm
like he's not wrong.
Most prisons are anyways in ourstate built in rural
communities, except one that Ican think of, but that's still a
(17:38):
rural community.
It's in the middle of thecommunity, but that's still like
a rural town, anyway.
So that's where the entirestatement came from.
So it's kind of interestingthat nami is now looking at this
with oregon and oregon statebecause of their um prison
reform that they're proposing um, so prison reform is always a
(17:59):
huge topic amongst, uh, federaland state lawmakers, if you ask
me and it really depends uponwho's in in office at the time.
Jen and I have talked about thishere too.
Whoever's in office at the timedepends upon how much funding
you're going to get or whereit's going to go programming
blah, blah, blah, all that stuff.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Yeah, I mean, that's what dictated whoever was the
governor and whatever thegovernor's agenda was in the
state that we lived in, right,working in the prison system, we
just waited, and that agendawould trickle itself down then
to the administrator of theDepartment of Corrections, and
then it would trickle down tothe warden levels and then it
would trickle down to the psychlevels, and then that's what we
would do if we received fundingon something or there was an
initiative.
That was the flavor of the weekand that's what we pushed.
(18:42):
So it's-.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
And it changes.
It can change.
The next administration cancome in and the whole thing gets
uprooted and changed.
We'd hold our breath and we'dsit there and wait for the next
election and then it wouldhappen all over again.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
And instead of focusing so much on this
evidence-based model, then wefocused on this model and it was
just a constant bounce right.
This bill that's being proposed, as it relates to the prison
reform, this group, this billthat NAMI is putting together,
that they're authoring, is goingto change the current law in a
few ways.
One is allowing a judge toconsider the person's past
suicide attempts, potential harmto themselves within 30 days,
(19:13):
which we just talked about, okay, rather than immediately when
assessing that person's risk.
Without treatment, people aregoing to wind up facing criminal
charges where they are orderedinto care after being deemed not
competent to stand trial.
And then they also talk a lotabout how, without treatment or
without being civilly committed,most of these people are just
(19:35):
going to end up committingcriminal acts, going into the
justice system that exists inthe state of Oregon.
So I think that's interestingto me.
One because, okay, and I got tojust say I don't live in Oregon
, Like I don't know how bad orgood the Oregon.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
Department of Corrections is, if you want to
chime in you, let us know.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
I can tell you.
I know in the state that welive in our correctional system
and God, if any of my inmateswere listening they'd be like
Mesh Mets, you are so full ofshit but it's pretty dialed in.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
They don't know because they haven't been any
other place.
It's pretty damn dialed in Nowwhen they go to a federal system
.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
They come back and they're like, oh my God, we're
so happy to be back here.
I'm like, yeah, I know.
But something that I think isinteresting is, if we're going
to commit, if we're civillygoing to commit more people in
an attempt to decrease theamount of people that are ending
up in the Department ofCorrections, you may do
(20:37):
something.
One it would have to entailvery swift commitment, meaning
the day that this is deemed anissue, which contraindicates the
30-day thing, but the day thisis deemed an issue, we're going
to have to get you committed andget you receiving services
(21:00):
immediately.
But then the services youreceive, they're going to need
to be for a minute Like it can'tbe in 30 days.
You're done and you're out.
Which many civil, manycommitments that occur?
Okay, and psychiatric hospitalsguys, they're not there for six
months, they're not there forthree to five days, Usually like
(21:21):
here you go, we get you in, wepump you full of some meds,
we'll get you some assessmentsand within a short period of
time you're out.
Um, let me tell you, in, we pumpyou full of some meds, we'll
get you some assessments andwithin a short period of time
you're out.
Let me tell you, in the OregonDepartment of Corrections the
median length of stay is 69months.
So years, five years at least,plus people are average staying
(21:43):
within their system.
So if you think about that forjust a minute, yes, there's a
tax dollar piece going to this.
It's going to cost the taxdollars more.
They are a state that istax-funded, government-funded by
the taxpayers.
But if you're that ill and yougo into a system that is going
(22:05):
to help you for years and offeryou rehabilitative services and
psychiatric services, versus asystem that's going to take you,
check you into the hotel, giveyou what you need and check you
out in a few weeks, is thateffective?
Speaker 2 (22:22):
I don't even know what that is, because, okay, for
the most part and some peopledo get committed longer, you
know or they stay longer, butfor the most part it's about
three to five days is thecommitment time.
Now you can be committed tomedication and things like that
for longer.
That's a different story, right?
(22:44):
Or maybe it's not, I don't know.
Maybe I'm conflating the twothings, I don't know.
But when you get into inpatienttreatment like a committed
inpatient treatment and you haveto stay because you're a threat
to self, you're staying therefor a short amount of time and
all they're doing really justlike Jen said is putting you on
a bunch of medications andmaking sure that you're not
(23:05):
going to do what you're there todo.
Right, and that's pretty muchit.
You're kind of in a holding tank, and I think the general public
has the wrong impression aboutwhat inpatient treatment is that
it should do kind of likeprison care.
Actually, it should be moretherapeutic, it should be more
(23:26):
helpful.
It should be more helpful.
It should be helping you withyour mental, but that's not what
it's designed to do.
It's designed so that you don'thurt yourself or someone else.
That's it, period, okay.
So, although there might besome groups that you can attend.
How therapeutic are you goingto get in three to five days,
like not really.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
You can't even establish a rapport in that
amount of time, you know, withyour treatment team right, yeah,
and so we know I mean, even inthe state that we live in, we
know that individuals who haveserious mental illness okay,
they are at a much higher riskand higher likelihood to commit
criminal activity.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
Which is really funny , because this is another little
nugget that people don't liketo talk about.
Mentally ill are not aggressive, they're not in general, but
yet you just said they're morelikely to commit crimes and go
to jail and prison.
Speaker 1 (24:22):
Sure, yeah, and it doesn't mean that they're like
super, super right, like thesecrimes are very aggressive
crimes.
Okay, some of them are Some ofthem are, though, right so we
kind of convolute all of thesetopics right, make them about
something that they actuallyaren't.
But when you look up even theOregon Department of Corrections
(24:43):
okay, you look up even theOregon Department of Corrections
, okay, recent studies suggestthat 16% of inmates in the jails
and prisons there, okay, have aserious mental illness.
And then it goes on to say a fewdecades ago that percentage was
much less, it was 6.4%.
So when we're looking at thenumber of seriously mentally ill
(25:04):
people that are ending up inthe system, okay, this is saying
okay, an average of 16% givesanother statistic of the total
men and women incarcerated inthe state, 14.6% of men, 40% of
the women, were diagnosed withsevere mental illness.
So if these people truly dohave severe mental illness or
target schizophrenia, majordepression, bipolar disorder,
(25:26):
these things so if they do havethem, we're going to put them
into a facility that is going tooffer short-term solutions,
Band-Aid solutions, and I'm notsaying putting them in the
prison system is right, but whatI can say is that when you're
living in a prison system foryears, you're going to get some
(25:46):
care.
You're going to get a differentlevel of care than you're going
to get than if you are in aninpatient facility committed for
20 days.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Likely.
That also depends upon theprison system, though we can get
into the private prisons versusthe public.
You know what I mean.
There's a whole conversationthere.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
Again, that's my caveat before what I am.
I have a prison system in onestate and multiple prisons I've
worked in.
I cannot speak to Oregon, butto me this concept is very
interesting.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
Why don't they put the opportunity in the prison
then?
Like, why aren't theopportunities more placed in
prison systems?
If they're worried about that,why not make prison systems more
rehabilitative than they areright now?
You know why not make the exitout of prison more
rehabilitative as well, insteadof punitive?
(26:34):
Right so?
But wait a minute, that'sexactly what RFK Jr said.
Yeah, he wants to make the exitout of prison more
rehabilitative.
You know, and I think I can,you know I can go along with
that idea, like I, cause I thinkwe need it, cause I how many
guys, I mean, and women get getuh released and they don't
(26:58):
really have a solid plan.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
They don't.
They don't have a lot of solidrelease plans, um, sad, I mean.
I mean I would put together, asa supervisor of a lot of the
social workers in the state thatwe are in.
I would help my staff puttogether plans which included
like being released to a hoteland being given a few hotel
vouchers.
And that was what it was forthem, because the county that
(27:21):
they lived in was so far norththat there were no services
there for them and most of theseindividuals.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
Jails are even worse.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
Yeah, most of these individuals had a level of
mental illness.
There was a level of care thatwe had to give to them, our
codes we would put on them.
There were mental health one,mental health two, meaning they
were taking a psychiatricmedication or receiving a
service, and those couldn'talways be continued out in the
community for them.
Now, don't get me wrong,there's a lot of stuff, at least
in the state we are in, thatwas a lot more progressive with
(27:49):
some of that which was great, itreally was Again county
dependent.
Yes County dependent.
That's right, because when youlive so far up north that there
are not services for you, you'rebeing released to a Motel 6 and
that's where you're going to goand that's all there is to it.
right, there aren't options foryou.
(28:09):
But I think about this idea ofwhat we know to be psychiatric
hospitals and the type of carethat's given.
Now, to give NAMI credit, theytalk about this in this idea.
They say that what they areproposing is going to require a
shit ton of resources andfunding to go to psychiatric
facilities because they couldnever hold what would likely
(28:34):
come their way.
They wouldn't be able to handleit because a lot of it is
ending up in the prison system.
I would argue that not onlycould they hold that influx of
who's coming in, but to sustainactual, helpful care for them.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
That's the tricky part.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
That, I think, is the tricky part, because these
facilities I mean we're going toswing the pendulum back to
where we were in the 20s and 30swith psychiatric hospitals and
housing people for a very longtime but part of me also goes
but for true care, that's whatprisons do and it works well
(29:14):
because people stabilizethemselves in these places
because they need more than 30days.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
They need more than a week.
They need more than three daysor five days, and I and you know
I would.
I have an argument here too,because you typically don't
civilly commit someone who is anactive addiction.
Okay, so this is weird to metoo.
Or active withdrawal or activewithdrawal you would not civilly
commit exactly, but I wouldargue that if if you're shooting
(29:40):
heroin in your veins, I wouldargue that if you're shooting
heroin in your veins, you are atrisk to self.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
Of ending your life.
Now is that?
I mean, I guess I look atsuicide as being intentionally
wanting to take your own lifewhen you are in active addiction
.
I would guess that some peopleare.
They're playing roulette.
I don't care if I live or die,I'm going to do this, I don't
care.
The consequence is death.
But where is that?
(30:13):
Where's the treatment?
Do you know how many people outhere suffer like parents and
things like that, because theirkids are on the street actively
using and they know they'regoing to die, they know that
they have a high risk of dying?
Where is the outcry for thatpopulation?
You know, there you can't go tothe court and civilly commit
(30:33):
your son because he is shootingheroin.
You can't do it, and I wouldargue that that is also a mental
illness.
You know what I mean?
I would argue that at leastwhen they're using that they
have a mental illness going on.
You can't not.
You know.
So I don't know.
This whole thing just is mindboggling to me.
Speaker 1 (30:51):
Where does it end?
Speaker 2 (30:53):
Well, where does it end?
Speaker 1 (30:55):
Where does it end?
Speaker 2 (30:56):
And then I think of the homeless population, right,
like, isn't that harm to self?
Or threat of harm to selfwithin the next 30 days?
You know, I mean you are goingto be in the frigid cold, isn't
that harm to yourself, Like, butis it so?
Do we have to gauge?
Like well, they didn't mean tofreeze to death, that's just
(31:17):
where they're living, but yetthey froze to death anyway.
They didn't mean to overdose.
Therefore it doesn't fit thecommitment.
And I'm like where does thatend?
And where are the resources forthe people that are just living
like that?
There's nothing.
The resources that you haveavailable are if you're an
(31:39):
imminent threat to yourself orothers.
And now it's within the next 30days, and I feel terrible for
any mental health professionalin Oregon having to assess a
30-day risk.
Speaker 1 (31:49):
Yes, because I do believe in this word.
Okay, the word imminent is inthis draft proposal that they
put out there right.
But here's where the semanticspiss me off, just like the
semantics with addiction versusdependence, all these we're
constantly trying to put theselabels.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
We argue over the wrong things.
Speaker 1 (32:06):
We argue over the stupidest shit.
Okay.
So as a therapist, right, I seethe word imminent also in the
same fucking line as 30 days.
Okay, first of all, those twothings completely contraindicate
one another and it puts peoplein these boxes like where not
only are we supposed to assessrisk right in the moment, but
we're also supposed to againfortune tell and go.
(32:28):
Well, it's very likely that areasonable person would believe,
with the education andknowledge that I have, that
there is a high likelihood thatthis person in the next month is
going to engage in X, y and Zbehavior.
Okay, I can appreciate trying toexpand some of this criteria
(32:52):
for the function of trying tooffer services to people that
aren't just you're going to endup having to go to jail or
prison to get services.
I can appreciate that.
But to me that's not what thisfeels like, because it's just so
subjective and it's also askingus to really truly fortune tell
what is going to be happeningto somebody.
(33:14):
Now we could determine imminentrisk based off history and all
of these factors.
Now in the moment, in the nextday, like hour, two hours today,
is someone going to harmthemselves?
Speaker 2 (33:24):
By the way, in private practice, I think it's
harder because people know whatnot to say, right, right, so.
So I have had a couple peopletake their life in private
practice and I was in oblivion.
I had no idea.
(33:44):
The same, the same rules didn'tapply as what we heard when we
were trained in prison or any ofour trainings on this.
It didn't, because people knowbetter and I and I think most
people don't tell you that thisis going to happen there.
Speaker 1 (33:59):
They don't, they, yeah, and so anyway, it's you
got a mixed agenda here of ofmental health, civil commitments
, prison reform.
Then we bring in thisinternational organization that
is supposed to be there, okay,whose roots and bones are to
(34:20):
help people, and they areleading this charge.
And let's talk about NAMI forjust a hot second, as if you're
on YouTube right now.
Youi for just a hot second, asif you're on YouTube right now.
You guys have to pull YouTubeup and see.
Speaker 2 (34:29):
If you're not, you can see Jen's shoe, you can see.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
Clearly okay.
This image I have.
Someone in my home has beensearching for the best men's
walking shoe.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
That's funny.
I said it could be worse.
The ad on there could be a lotworse.
Oh man, I got to screenshotthis.
We didn't have time to do allthat right, I'm like, you know
what I mean.
Speaker 1 (34:51):
Yeah, it could be like some real crazy shit I'm
into, so I'll go with the men'swalking shoe.
But let's talk about this graph, let's talk about NAMI and
where NAMI receives funding from.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
NAMI was in big trouble for this.
A big spotlight was shown onthem because of all the funding
that they received from bigpharma.
Speaker 1 (35:09):
Yep 2009,.
Actually, the New York Timesposted an article on this and
that the drug makers areadvocacy group's biggest donors,
and it was tied to NAMI.
When you look at this graph wehave up here, you can see that
pharma funded a good chunk ofNAMI.
And let's see, we've got Pfizer.
Speaker 2 (35:30):
Pfizer Wythe.
Speaker 1 (35:32):
Ortho, mcneil, bms Lilly and AstraZeneca.
All of their funding in 2009came from Pharma, except for 15%
.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
That's ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (35:41):
I wonder, what other is that's?
Speaker 2 (35:42):
ridiculous.
Yeah, I wonder what other meansin that context.
What does all right?
Speaker 1 (35:46):
yes, this is old.
Okay, like yes, this is notrecent, however, and if we dug
more I'm sure we'd find morestuff, and I'm going to stop
sharing the screen here, butthis is very interesting to me
because they are such apopularly known coalition in the
mental health space too.
Speaker 2 (36:06):
Well, I have a question.
You know we grew up listeningto NAMI and getting info on NAMI
.
If Big Pharma is funding thingslike NAMI, who does a lot of
like advocacy work abouteverything's mental illness,
right, and so of course it isbecause then Big Pharma will get
more money through prescribingblah, blah, blah.
Then big pharma will get moremoney through prescribing blah,
(36:27):
blah, blah.
Why don't we make big pharmafund just give money to prison
reform?
Why don't we make them getwithout influence, just cash, no
.
Speaker 1 (36:36):
Third, party intermediaries here it's not
going through anotherorganization through another
organization.
Speaker 2 (36:53):
Right, yeah, go ahead and write a check for $15
million and have it go straightto the charge.
The people actually that aredoing it, right, like, why can't
they do that in the, in thefederal and state governments,
say, like, you have to give backa certain part of your profits
for actual care and reform, youknow?
And then I then and I think wecan probably wrap this up after
(37:17):
this little caveat, unlessyou've got something else but I
think, like, why can't Oregon,like Oregon's governor instead
and I'm not saying they areexplicitly doing this, but
instead of turning their back onthe RFK Jr stuff that he's
doing with wanting to do withprison reform and mental illness
(37:38):
and things like that, insteadof making this a partisan issue,
I think there's a hugecollaborative value that can
happen here, like because it'shappening under your noses
without influence of the otherparty, right, but I'm thinking
they are so close to being onthe same page here, they are so
(38:01):
close.
But why can't we just listen?
Right, we are so close.
But why can't we just listen?
Right, we are so close.
Like this is.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
It's almost like the messages, like the overall end
results are the same, yeah, likewe're preaching the same damn
message, but it's about how weget there, and this is where
this split is happening, right.
Speaker 2 (38:27):
Yep, because I don't hear anybody talking about this
Oregon thing, even though to methat's fucking scary.
I saw it, I happened to comeacross it on Google or something
, and I was like wait, what isthis?
And I'm like, but I don't seean outcry on TikTok over that.
There should be People shouldbe freaking the F out over that,
you know, because to me that'skind of scary.
(38:47):
A 30 day like look ahead.
And I'm sorry, but I thinkclinicians should be like what?
Speaker 1 (38:53):
Yeah, yeah, any of those.
They should be leading thecharge.
Yeah, those professionalsshould really be taking a hard
look at that, and starting topush back.
Speaker 2 (39:01):
Thank you, nami and Oregon, for telling me that I
need to learn how to be afortune teller.
Speaker 1 (39:07):
Thank you for putting us in such a compromised
position.
Yes, that really truly goesbeyond our scope of what
practices really?
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (39:21):
And putting all the liability on us.
Yes, thank you.
Speaker 1 (39:26):
Oh, good job.
Speaker 2 (39:29):
Well, with that, listen, we are better together.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
We could talk about this for days, but we're going
to wrap up here and we are theGaslit Truth Podcast and you
have successfully listened tothis awesome episode.
Food for thought.
Get curious, get inquisitive,make sure that you get online,
give us some stars, give us someratings, tell us what you think
.
If you're so inclined, buy us acoffee, because guess what?
We got to fund this?
Somehow because Big Pharmaain't giving us shit for this
(39:53):
show.
Speaker 2 (39:54):
They should, and I don't know.
Speaker 1 (39:57):
Thanks for listening, guys.
Speaker 2 (39:58):
Send us your gaslit truth at thegaslittruthpodcast
at gmailcom.
Five-star ratings only folks.
All right, Until.
Hey everyone, you are being gaslit into believing
that civil commitment is theanswer to treating mental
illness and addiction.
We are your whistleblowingshrinks, Dr Tara Lynn and
therapist Jen, and this is theGaslit Truth Podcast.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Welcome to the show.
It sure is.
Woohoo.
This is a good topic.
But before we get started, I amdoing another shameless
self-promotion for my book.
Do it there, it is your BestBrain.
Do it.
Do it there, it is your bestbrain.
Do it, do it.
Speaker 1 (00:33):
Terry, wait, I want you to open the very first page,
please, and I want you to readCan you share with people the
line on the very first page ofthat book?
Speaker 2 (00:36):
100%.
When life knocks you down,calmly get up, smile and say you
hit like a bitch.
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Who would have thought?
A book about a brain startswith that.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Well, if you know every chapter starts a little
bit like that.
So this book is a work of Idon't know love and frustration,
I guess, and every chapterstarts out with a little quote,
a little snarky quote, and alittle bit of a life story about
me.
And then we get down tobusiness, about nutrition,
lifestyle, brain health, aminoacids, all the things I talk
(01:10):
about.
So it's nice and small Good tohave next to your bedside.
Speaker 1 (01:14):
It's perfect next to your bed.
Where can people find your bestbrain, Terry?
Speaker 2 (01:17):
You can find this links in bios and also you can
find it on Amazon.
So your best brain Only leaveme five-star reviews.
Per usual, jen, and I only likefive-star reviews If you don't
like it.
Speaker 1 (01:28):
Well, that's too bad.
Go find somebody else to read adifferent book then.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
That's right.
Speaker 1 (01:32):
Yeah, so we need to talk about this topic today
because, as per usual, terry andI spend all this time prepping
for these podcasts, whichincludes us sending a thousand
text messages back and forth.
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Only a thousand.
Speaker 1 (01:46):
How pissed off we get as we start to dig into these
rabbit holes, talking about thetopic like this one, which is
we're going to cover a lot,we're going to talk about civil
commitments, we're going to talk, we're going to bring a little
politics into this and talkabout how it's actually not
politics and how people aremaking these red and blue issues
out of something that aren't?
we're talking about nami and thebullshit that actually is nami.
(02:07):
Um, if you don't have a lot ofinformation about the national
alliance of mental health, um,mental illness, and we're going
to talk about that as it relatesto the state of oregon and a
state uh, past issue that well,they're trying to pass right now
about civil commitment.
Yeah, we've been talking aboutthis, right?
Speaker 2 (02:23):
So let's rock, let's get into it.
Yes, okay.
So this topic was kind of bornon TikTok, if you will, for me
because I tried my hardest totell people that RFK Jr is not
rounding people up for civilcommitments and sending them to
wellness farms or camps orwhatever it is.
(02:44):
And I actually, you know, a lotof people are like, yes, he
said that, he said that, blah,blah, blah.
And now I've been saying, sendme the video.
Then send me the video that heactually says that, because this
has been fact checked multipletimes, that he has not said this
.
I don't care if you like him orhate him, he has not said this,
okay.
Which then makes this topic apolitical topic, because just
(03:07):
because you don't like, you knowRepublican, doesn't mean that
he said these horrible thingsright, or that the Republican
party is out to civilly commitanyone, okay.
So I kept thinking about thisand I found the original video,
actually that, uh, where that,where he was talking and this
came from prison reform.
So this is where Jen gets alittle geeky because you know
(03:30):
she's she was more involved inthe whole prison system for a
longer period and most recentlythan than I.
So so I got real interested inthis topic because I wanted to
understand what it meant.
Topic, because I wanted tounderstand what it meant.
And then suddenly, rightunderneath your noses, a state,
a blue state, decides to pushforth commitment reform, making
(03:56):
it easier for you to get civillycommitted if you have a mental
health issue and, I would guess,an addiction issue as well
right Sure yes.
And so it got me thinking.
I was like, oh wow, this reallyisn't political.
If it was political, itwouldn't be coming from a blue
state and a blue governor.
(04:17):
So I'm like this is reallyfascinating, because if you want
to push this being only a redissue or a blue issue, it is not
.
As a matter of fact, it's noteven a federal issue.
Yeah, it's a state issue, andthat, to me, makes it even more
fascinating.
So, yes, so here's to all thepeople that are saying that this
(04:40):
is a federal Republican issueand they're all after us yeah,
no, it's not.
This is a federal Republicanissue and they're all after us.
Yeah, no, it's not.
You've got a state rightunderneath your nose trying to
expand how to civilly commit.
So I think it might be animportant thing to just briefly
touch on how things generallystand for civil commitments.
Right For people to understandthat, because right now, civil
(05:03):
commitments in the majority ofstates each state, I think, is a
little bit different.
They've got a little bitdifferent laws and things like
that.
But in general and Jen chime inif you're hearing something
that's incorrect, in general youhave to be at risk to self or
others, like ending your life orending someone else's life.
Speaker 1 (05:22):
It's pretty extreme, it's got to be imminent, it's
got to be extreme.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Right now.
Right now, okay, and that'simportant to know because it's a
right now situation this newlaw and apparently Oregon has
tried to it's the state ofOregon Newsflash.
We're talking about Oregon, soif you've got, any listeners
from Oregon.
Perk your ears up people andtell your friends to start
listening to this episode.
(05:46):
Yes, and NAMI is leading thecharge on this, which is really
interesting because NAMI hasinfluence across the entire
country.
Speaker 1 (05:56):
Yes.
In an article that we're goingto be talking about here.
There's an Oregon group right,which is NAMI, that wants to
make it easier to commit thosethat are in mental health crisis
, and the Oregon chapter of NAMI, okay, indicates that they
don't want to be the ones thatare leading this charge.
But because of how problematicthis is for the state of Oregon
(06:20):
and how problematic it is forthe state, specifically within
their Department of Corrections,because the only way to receive
true commitment type servicesthat you would get if you were
civilly committed right is to gothrough the correctional system
, they are deciding theircharges that that is not okay
(06:40):
for people and then, instead ofputting them in the prison
systems, we need to commit themto state hospitals so that they
don't end up in the legal system.
Even though they don't want totake on this charge, they say
that they need to.
Speaker 2 (06:54):
Well, I feel the same way.
I didn't want to take on thecharge of the Gaslit Truth
podcast but I felt like I neededto I know, this one's a little
big.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
But you know what, who cares?
We're going to go for it.
So what they did is they endedup putting together it was
actually this last fall, NAMIended up putting together a
draft document for a legislativeconcept on civil commitments,
and what the most importantthing that stood out for us in
this document right, was thiswhole 30-day thing.
(07:25):
So let's talk a little bitabout what Oregon is proposing,
because you know, once one statestarts this, guys, oh, once the
match is lit, the wildfirestarts.
Speaker 2 (07:36):
So yeah, so this is the deal right and it's.
Speaker 1 (07:43):
Oh, we lost.
She lost volume.
All of a sudden she stops.
Okay, if you guys are watchingYouTube right now, you'll see
Terry in a full panic.
She's trying to oh, she'staking the flag off her mic.
Now she's pushing it back in.
This is very fascinating.
So what Terry is trying to sayI'm going to wait to see if she
comes on.
We have no audio at all for her, so she has completely paused.
(08:06):
So what?
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Oh, she's back.
I was just about to talk aboutthe 30 days.
I don't know what happened.
All my audio just decided tocrap.
Speaker 1 (08:16):
So finish your sentence.
The deal is, you're going totalk about the 30 days and what
this fortune telling is thatproviders are going to be given
the luxury of being able to do.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Right.
So right now, as Jen and Italked about, it is an imminent
risk, meaning right now, likethey assess, like right now
today, like they're saying nowthat they want us I'm going to
say us mental health care peopleto assess risk somehow for the
(08:52):
next 30 days.
Is this person going to be arisk to themselves or others
within the next 30 days?
And I don't even know how to dothat.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Let me give the detail of what that means.
So the potential proposal thatNAMI is putting out is defining
danger to others, which is anystatements or attempts to
inflict serious physical harm onanother person that would place
a reasonable person in fear ofimminent physical harm.
Speaker 2 (09:24):
A reasonable person.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
I know here's the word reasonable, which that
shows up in a lot of theverbiage throughout our, our,
our jobs.
Like, I don't know.
It's just like, well, what areasonable person do this.
What the fuck does that mean?
I don't know.
I mean, my God, I'm from thebackwoods.
We do a lot of stupid shit.
It's fine, like.
And then they also definedanger to others as likely to
inflict a serious physical harmon another person within the
(09:48):
next 30 days.
You are likely to inflictserious physical harm on another
person within the next 30 days,so that's part of it.
Then they define danger to self.
Danger to self is statements.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
This is also.
They want this to be a broader.
Speaker 1 (10:06):
I believe the danger to self is broader, the danger
to self is statements orattempts to inflict serious
physical harm to yourself.
So statements or attempts,statements, by the way, people
okay, do you have any clients Ihave that I work with that make
statements that are dangerouswhen stated, but the intentions
and the means and the drive andall these things behind doing
(10:30):
this are a totally differentthing, right?
So the fact that this is sobroad really bothers me, because
as clinicians we are trained init's not just a statement.
We assess intent, we assessmean, we assess their history,
we assess their support systems,we assess whether or not they
had a relationship that justwent to shit in their life and
they have vulnerability factors.
Right, let's spell all that out.
But no, this is pretty general,Okay.
(10:52):
So statements or attempts toinflict serious physical harm to
yourself, including statementsand attempts of suicide, by
which a behavioral healthclinician this is us now would
reasonably conclude that theperson is at a significant risk
of harm within the next 30 days.
Speaker 2 (11:08):
Now.
So I get worried about being amental health in that position,
and what if something happenswithin the next 30 days?
There's already a massiveliability to mental health.
I don't know if people knowthis.
If someone ends their lifeunder your care, you can be
(11:29):
investigated for that right.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Yeah, I can tell you, in the Department of
Corrections, the after actionreviews are horrific.
Speaker 2 (11:36):
Oh, I was involved in one.
It was terrible so yeah, thisdials in.
Speaker 1 (11:42):
clinicians is anyone who's a behavioral health
clinician.
So this is our licensedpsychiatrists, psychologists,
nps, clinical social workers,licensed professional counselors
, physicians, interns orresidents working under the
board-approved supervisors okay,or any other clinician whose
authorized scope of practiceincludes mental health diagnosis
and treatment.
So basically, we have to find away to not only assess imminent
(12:10):
risk maybe more so, but noteven that but in the next month,
are you going to harm yourselfor somebody else?
Speaker 2 (12:19):
I mean, if that's the criteria, I mean, we should
start selling crystal balls orsomething.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
I think so.
I think so, and I'm not tryingto go back onto like
evidence-based approaches here,but this is really fucking
general.
So if we're going to take areally hard look at this right,
I really think this does adisservice.
Speaker 2 (12:44):
People will be afraid to do this, like what will
start happening is People aregoing to be afraid to talk about
this.
People are going to be afraidto do this Like.
Speaker 1 (12:48):
what will start happening is People are going to
be afraid to talk about this.
People are going to be afraidto tell their clinicians.
anything we are going to keepsecret, secret secrets, because
this is not.
I don't know if this is goingto be super helpful.
There's a level of iatrogeniccare that this like sits with me
and I worked I mean, we workedin the prison system and had a
lot of very mentally ill inmatescome through, which we're going
(13:09):
to talk about, this otheragenda behind the civil
commitment thing that'shappening, but it sits at a
level of iatrogenic care for mejust because this is almost
putting the power in the handsof, I'm going to say, sometimes
the wrong people and it's goingto silence the people who
struggle with mental illness.
(13:30):
It's going to silence thepeople who are going through
withdrawal and are havingsuicidal ideation from going
through medications that they'regetting off of and them not
telling their clinicians.
I would have been civillycommitted twice in the last year
in my decreasing of Lexapro hadI went to someone and shared my
true thoughts on what washappening in my brain.
Speaker 2 (13:52):
If.
Speaker 1 (13:52):
I lived in Oregon.
This was passed.
I would have been civillycommitted on two occasions that
I could feel very confident insaying so.
It's going to silence peopletoo.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
That's what I keep thinking about, because even if
you come in, like what's theassessment?
I don't know what theassessment is.
If you were to come in and talkto your clinician about you
having being very depressed andnot showering or not eating very
well and things like that, like, as a clinician, is the charge
going to be?
This is a civil commitment, youknow.
(14:24):
And what if you don't right?
What if you don't proceed withthe civil commitment?
What is the liability to theclinician as well?
Like, there's two parties inthis right there's the client
and then there's the clinician.
And you know, in privatepractice particularly right.
What is your liability in allof this and how are you going to
(14:46):
be held accountable?
And so are you also going to beessentially pulling the trigger
on this too quickly?
Speaker 1 (14:55):
It's kind of a scary thought.
As a clinician it's very scary.
Yeah, because where is thatlevel of reporting then,
especially if you're somebodywho really knows that your
client is going to be in an okayspace, but what they're going
through right now is some toughshit.
Now it does say in here factorsthe court can consider, but not
(15:15):
limited to, is past behaviorthat has resulted in physical
harm to self or others.
So here comes some of thisbackstory, with people right,
past patterns of deterioratingpast patterns, of relevance, of
the frequency or the severity ofpast behavior, which I do think
that that matters as well.
We have to take people'shistory into account.
(15:35):
But I also think that, workingwith a lot of chaptered inmates
in the prison system who we wereforcing to take psychiatric or
medical medications, pastbehavior became so relevant that
current functioning didn'tmatter anymore and it kept you
committed, okay.
So I did a lot of work withpeople in that space too in the
(15:56):
years that I was working in theprison system.
So so let's talk then aboutabout that part of this, terry,
because there is an agenda,especially in the state of
Oregon.
There is an agenda to why theywant to civilly commit people.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
um, that has to do with prison reform which goes
back into the originalconversation with rfk jr,
because that's what he wastalking about prison reform and
people who want a better lifeafter after they get out of
prison or in lieu of prison,they can go to these places and
learn trades and, you know, dothe wellness farm type thing.
(16:34):
What I think, what people don'trealize and I just want to have
a little caveat is those thingsalready exist in the world,
like wellness farms exist.
There are rehabs that alreadyexist that teach trades and
vocational things.
There's long-term rehabs, onesin Hawaii.
It's a three-year program thatdoes all of that.
So people are like, oh my gosh,when I hear that, I'm like you
(16:57):
guys just don't reallyunderstand the landscape of
addiction recovery and theprograms that are available.
Not all programs are greatprograms.
I'm just talking about thestyle, but any programs like it
can also be very predatory atthe same time.
But these do already exist.
But I think he was just he madea comment and it was very
(17:18):
interesting to me because thisis very true in the state that
we live, very rural communities,and so he would like to use
those rural lands for thesewellness opportunities, and I'm
like he's not wrong.
Most prisons are anyways in ourstate built in rural
communities, except one that Ican think of, but that's still a
(17:38):
rural community.
It's in the middle of thecommunity, but that's still like
a rural town, anyway.
So that's where the entirestatement came from.
So it's kind of interestingthat nami is now looking at this
with oregon and oregon statebecause of their um prison
reform that they're proposing um, so prison reform is always a
(17:59):
huge topic amongst, uh, federaland state lawmakers, if you ask
me and it really depends uponwho's in in office at the time.
Jen and I have talked about thishere too.
Whoever's in office at the timedepends upon how much funding
you're going to get or whereit's going to go programming
blah, blah, blah, all that stuff.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Yeah, I mean, that's what dictated whoever was the
governor and whatever thegovernor's agenda was in the
state that we lived in, right,working in the prison system, we
just waited, and that agendawould trickle itself down then
to the administrator of theDepartment of Corrections, and
then it would trickle down tothe warden levels and then it
would trickle down to the psychlevels, and then that's what we
would do if we received fundingon something or there was an
initiative.
That was the flavor of the weekand that's what we pushed.
(18:42):
So it's-.
Speaker 2 (18:43):
And it changes.
It can change.
The next administration cancome in and the whole thing gets
uprooted and changed.
We'd hold our breath and we'dsit there and wait for the next
election and then it wouldhappen all over again.
Speaker 1 (18:52):
And instead of focusing so much on this
evidence-based model, then wefocused on this model and it was
just a constant bounce right.
This bill that's being proposed, as it relates to the prison
reform, this group, this billthat NAMI is putting together,
that they're authoring, is goingto change the current law in a
few ways.
One is allowing a judge toconsider the person's past
suicide attempts, potential harmto themselves within 30 days,
(19:13):
which we just talked about, okay, rather than immediately when
assessing that person's risk.
Without treatment, people aregoing to wind up facing criminal
charges where they are orderedinto care after being deemed not
competent to stand trial.
And then they also talk a lotabout how, without treatment or
without being civilly committed,most of these people are just
(19:35):
going to end up committingcriminal acts, going into the
justice system that exists inthe state of Oregon.
So I think that's interestingto me.
One because, okay, and I got tojust say I don't live in Oregon
, Like I don't know how bad orgood the Oregon.
Speaker 2 (19:54):
Department of Corrections is, if you want to
chime in you, let us know.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
I can tell you.
I know in the state that welive in our correctional system
and God, if any of my inmateswere listening they'd be like
Mesh Mets, you are so full ofshit but it's pretty dialed in.
Speaker 2 (20:12):
They don't know because they haven't been any
other place.
It's pretty damn dialed in Nowwhen they go to a federal system
.
Speaker 1 (20:17):
They come back and they're like, oh my God, we're
so happy to be back here.
I'm like, yeah, I know.
But something that I think isinteresting is, if we're going
to commit, if we're civillygoing to commit more people in
an attempt to decrease theamount of people that are ending
up in the Department ofCorrections, you may do
(20:37):
something.
One it would have to entailvery swift commitment, meaning
the day that this is deemed anissue, which contraindicates the
30-day thing, but the day thisis deemed an issue, we're going
to have to get you committed andget you receiving services
(21:00):
immediately.
But then the services youreceive, they're going to need
to be for a minute Like it can'tbe in 30 days.
You're done and you're out.
Which many civil, manycommitments that occur?
Okay, and psychiatric hospitalsguys, they're not there for six
months, they're not there forthree to five days, Usually like
(21:21):
here you go, we get you in, wepump you full of some meds,
we'll get you some assessmentsand within a short period of
time you're out.
Um, let me tell you, in, we pumpyou full of some meds, we'll
get you some assessments andwithin a short period of time
you're out.
Let me tell you, in the OregonDepartment of Corrections the
median length of stay is 69months.
So years, five years at least,plus people are average staying
(21:43):
within their system.
So if you think about that forjust a minute, yes, there's a
tax dollar piece going to this.
It's going to cost the taxdollars more.
They are a state that istax-funded, government-funded by
the taxpayers.
But if you're that ill and yougo into a system that is going
(22:05):
to help you for years and offeryou rehabilitative services and
psychiatric services, versus asystem that's going to take you,
check you into the hotel, giveyou what you need and check you
out in a few weeks, is thateffective?
Speaker 2 (22:22):
I don't even know what that is, because, okay, for
the most part and some peopledo get committed longer, you
know or they stay longer, butfor the most part it's about
three to five days is thecommitment time.
Now you can be committed tomedication and things like that
for longer.
That's a different story, right?
(22:44):
Or maybe it's not, I don't know.
Maybe I'm conflating the twothings, I don't know.
But when you get into inpatienttreatment like a committed
inpatient treatment and you haveto stay because you're a threat
to self, you're staying therefor a short amount of time and
all they're doing really justlike Jen said is putting you on
a bunch of medications andmaking sure that you're not
(23:05):
going to do what you're there todo.
Right, and that's pretty muchit.
You're kind of in a holding tank, and I think the general public
has the wrong impression aboutwhat inpatient treatment is that
it should do kind of likeprison care.
Actually, it should be moretherapeutic, it should be more
(23:26):
helpful.
It should be more helpful.
It should be helping you withyour mental, but that's not what
it's designed to do.
It's designed so that you don'thurt yourself or someone else.
That's it, period, okay.
So, although there might besome groups that you can attend.
How therapeutic are you goingto get in three to five days,
like not really.
Speaker 1 (23:46):
You can't even establish a rapport in that
amount of time, you know, withyour treatment team right, yeah,
and so we know I mean, even inthe state that we live in, we
know that individuals who haveserious mental illness okay,
they are at a much higher riskand higher likelihood to commit
criminal activity.
Speaker 2 (24:07):
Which is really funny , because this is another little
nugget that people don't liketo talk about.
Mentally ill are not aggressive, they're not in general, but
yet you just said they're morelikely to commit crimes and go
to jail and prison.
Speaker 1 (24:22):
Sure, yeah, and it doesn't mean that they're like
super, super right, like thesecrimes are very aggressive
crimes.
Okay, some of them are Some ofthem are, though, right so we
kind of convolute all of thesetopics right, make them about
something that they actuallyaren't.
But when you look up even theOregon Department of Corrections
(24:43):
okay, you look up even theOregon Department of Corrections
, okay, recent studies suggestthat 16% of inmates in the jails
and prisons there, okay, have aserious mental illness.
And then it goes on to say a fewdecades ago that percentage was
much less, it was 6.4%.
So when we're looking at thenumber of seriously mentally ill
(25:04):
people that are ending up inthe system, okay, this is saying
okay, an average of 16% givesanother statistic of the total
men and women incarcerated inthe state, 14.6% of men, 40% of
the women, were diagnosed withsevere mental illness.
So if these people truly dohave severe mental illness or
target schizophrenia, majordepression, bipolar disorder,
(25:26):
these things so if they do havethem, we're going to put them
into a facility that is going tooffer short-term solutions,
Band-Aid solutions, and I'm notsaying putting them in the
prison system is right, but whatI can say is that when you're
living in a prison system foryears, you're going to get some
(25:46):
care.
You're going to get a differentlevel of care than you're going
to get than if you are in aninpatient facility committed for
20 days.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Likely.
That also depends upon theprison system, though we can get
into the private prisons versusthe public.
You know what I mean.
There's a whole conversationthere.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
Again, that's my caveat before what I am.
I have a prison system in onestate and multiple prisons I've
worked in.
I cannot speak to Oregon, butto me this concept is very
interesting.
Speaker 2 (26:13):
Why don't they put the opportunity in the prison
then?
Like, why aren't theopportunities more placed in
prison systems?
If they're worried about that,why not make prison systems more
rehabilitative than they areright now?
You know why not make the exitout of prison more
rehabilitative as well, insteadof punitive?
(26:34):
Right so?
But wait a minute, that'sexactly what RFK Jr said.
Yeah, he wants to make the exitout of prison more
rehabilitative.
You know, and I think I can,you know I can go along with
that idea, like I, cause I thinkwe need it, cause I how many
guys, I mean, and women get getuh released and they don't
(26:58):
really have a solid plan.
Speaker 1 (27:01):
They don't.
They don't have a lot of solidrelease plans, um, sad, I mean.
I mean I would put together, asa supervisor of a lot of the
social workers in the state thatwe are in.
I would help my staff puttogether plans which included
like being released to a hoteland being given a few hotel
vouchers.
And that was what it was forthem, because the county that
(27:21):
they lived in was so far norththat there were no services
there for them and most of theseindividuals.
Speaker 2 (27:27):
Jails are even worse.
Speaker 1 (27:29):
Yeah, most of these individuals had a level of
mental illness.
There was a level of care thatwe had to give to them, our
codes we would put on them.
There were mental health one,mental health two, meaning they
were taking a psychiatricmedication or receiving a
service, and those couldn'talways be continued out in the
community for them.
Now, don't get me wrong,there's a lot of stuff, at least
in the state we are in, thatwas a lot more progressive with
(27:49):
some of that which was great, itreally was Again county
dependent.
Yes County dependent.
That's right, because when youlive so far up north that there
are not services for you, you'rebeing released to a Motel 6 and
that's where you're going to goand that's all there is to it.
right, there aren't options foryou.
(28:09):
But I think about this idea ofwhat we know to be psychiatric
hospitals and the type of carethat's given.
Now, to give NAMI credit, theytalk about this in this idea.
They say that what they areproposing is going to require a
shit ton of resources andfunding to go to psychiatric
facilities because they couldnever hold what would likely
(28:34):
come their way.
They wouldn't be able to handleit because a lot of it is
ending up in the prison system.
I would argue that not onlycould they hold that influx of
who's coming in, but to sustainactual, helpful care for them.
Speaker 2 (28:48):
That's the tricky part.
Speaker 1 (28:50):
That, I think, is the tricky part, because these
facilities I mean we're going toswing the pendulum back to
where we were in the 20s and 30swith psychiatric hospitals and
housing people for a very longtime but part of me also goes
but for true care, that's whatprisons do and it works well
(29:14):
because people stabilizethemselves in these places
because they need more than 30days.
Speaker 2 (29:19):
They need more than a week.
They need more than three daysor five days, and I and you know
I would.
I have an argument here too,because you typically don't
civilly commit someone who is anactive addiction.
Okay, so this is weird to metoo.
Or active withdrawal or activewithdrawal you would not civilly
commit exactly, but I wouldargue that if if you're shooting
(29:40):
heroin in your veins, I wouldargue that if you're shooting
heroin in your veins, you are atrisk to self.
Speaker 1 (29:50):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (29:50):
Of ending your life.
Now is that?
I mean, I guess I look atsuicide as being intentionally
wanting to take your own lifewhen you are in active addiction
.
I would guess that some peopleare.
They're playing roulette.
I don't care if I live or die,I'm going to do this, I don't
care.
The consequence is death.
But where is that?
(30:13):
Where's the treatment?
Do you know how many people outhere suffer like parents and
things like that, because theirkids are on the street actively
using and they know they'regoing to die, they know that
they have a high risk of dying?
Where is the outcry for thatpopulation?
You know, there you can't go tothe court and civilly commit
(30:33):
your son because he is shootingheroin.
You can't do it, and I wouldargue that that is also a mental
illness.
You know what I mean?
I would argue that at leastwhen they're using that they
have a mental illness going on.
You can't not.
You know.
So I don't know.
This whole thing just is mindboggling to me.
Speaker 1 (30:51):
Where does it end?
Speaker 2 (30:53):
Well, where does it end?
Speaker 1 (30:55):
Where does it end?
Speaker 2 (30:56):
And then I think of the homeless population, right,
like, isn't that harm to self?
Or threat of harm to selfwithin the next 30 days?
You know, I mean you are goingto be in the frigid cold, isn't
that harm to yourself, Like, butis it so?
Do we have to gauge?
Like well, they didn't mean tofreeze to death, that's just
(31:17):
where they're living, but yetthey froze to death anyway.
They didn't mean to overdose.
Therefore it doesn't fit thecommitment.
And I'm like where does thatend?
And where are the resources forthe people that are just living
like that?
There's nothing.
The resources that you haveavailable are if you're an
(31:39):
imminent threat to yourself orothers.
And now it's within the next 30days, and I feel terrible for
any mental health professionalin Oregon having to assess a
30-day risk.
Speaker 1 (31:49):
Yes, because I do believe in this word.
Okay, the word imminent is inthis draft proposal that they
put out there right.
But here's where the semanticspiss me off, just like the
semantics with addiction versusdependence, all these we're
constantly trying to put theselabels.
Speaker 2 (32:05):
We argue over the wrong things.
Speaker 1 (32:06):
We argue over the stupidest shit.
Okay.
So as a therapist, right, I seethe word imminent also in the
same fucking line as 30 days.
Okay, first of all, those twothings completely contraindicate
one another and it puts peoplein these boxes like where not
only are we supposed to assessrisk right in the moment, but
we're also supposed to againfortune tell and go.
(32:28):
Well, it's very likely that areasonable person would believe,
with the education andknowledge that I have, that
there is a high likelihood thatthis person in the next month is
going to engage in X, y and Zbehavior.
Okay, I can appreciate trying toexpand some of this criteria
(32:52):
for the function of trying tooffer services to people that
aren't just you're going to endup having to go to jail or
prison to get services.
I can appreciate that.
But to me that's not what thisfeels like, because it's just so
subjective and it's also askingus to really truly fortune tell
what is going to be happeningto somebody.
(33:14):
Now we could determine imminentrisk based off history and all
of these factors.
Now in the moment, in the nextday, like hour, two hours today,
is someone going to harmthemselves?
Speaker 2 (33:24):
By the way, in private practice, I think it's
harder because people know whatnot to say, right, right, so.
So I have had a couple peopletake their life in private
practice and I was in oblivion.
I had no idea.
(33:44):
The same, the same rules didn'tapply as what we heard when we
were trained in prison or any ofour trainings on this.
It didn't, because people knowbetter and I and I think most
people don't tell you that thisis going to happen there.
Speaker 1 (33:59):
They don't, they, yeah, and so anyway, it's you
got a mixed agenda here of ofmental health, civil commitments
, prison reform.
Then we bring in thisinternational organization that
is supposed to be there, okay,whose roots and bones are to
(34:20):
help people, and they areleading this charge.
And let's talk about NAMI forjust a hot second, as if you're
on YouTube right now.
Youi for just a hot second, asif you're on YouTube right now.
You guys have to pull YouTubeup and see.
Speaker 2 (34:29):
If you're not, you can see Jen's shoe, you can see.
Speaker 1 (34:32):
Clearly okay.
This image I have.
Someone in my home has beensearching for the best men's
walking shoe.
Speaker 2 (34:41):
That's funny.
I said it could be worse.
The ad on there could be a lotworse.
Oh man, I got to screenshotthis.
We didn't have time to do allthat right, I'm like, you know
what I mean.
Speaker 1 (34:51):
Yeah, it could be like some real crazy shit I'm
into, so I'll go with the men'swalking shoe.
But let's talk about this graph, let's talk about NAMI and
where NAMI receives funding from.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
NAMI was in big trouble for this.
A big spotlight was shown onthem because of all the funding
that they received from bigpharma.
Speaker 1 (35:09):
Yep 2009,.
Actually, the New York Timesposted an article on this and
that the drug makers areadvocacy group's biggest donors,
and it was tied to NAMI.
When you look at this graph wehave up here, you can see that
pharma funded a good chunk ofNAMI.
And let's see, we've got Pfizer.
Speaker 2 (35:30):
Pfizer Wythe.
Speaker 1 (35:32):
Ortho, mcneil, bms Lilly and AstraZeneca.
All of their funding in 2009came from Pharma, except for 15%
.
Speaker 2 (35:40):
That's ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (35:41):
I wonder, what other is that's?
Speaker 2 (35:42):
ridiculous.
Yeah, I wonder what other meansin that context.
What does all right?
Speaker 1 (35:46):
yes, this is old.
Okay, like yes, this is notrecent, however, and if we dug
more I'm sure we'd find morestuff, and I'm going to stop
sharing the screen here, butthis is very interesting to me
because they are such apopularly known coalition in the
mental health space too.
Speaker 2 (36:06):
Well, I have a question.
You know we grew up listeningto NAMI and getting info on NAMI
.
If Big Pharma is funding thingslike NAMI, who does a lot of
like advocacy work abouteverything's mental illness,
right, and so of course it isbecause then Big Pharma will get
more money through prescribingblah, blah, blah.
Then big pharma will get moremoney through prescribing blah,
(36:27):
blah, blah.
Why don't we make big pharmafund just give money to prison
reform?
Why don't we make them getwithout influence, just cash, no
.
Speaker 1 (36:36):
Third, party intermediaries here it's not
going through anotherorganization through another
organization.
Speaker 2 (36:53):
Right, yeah, go ahead and write a check for $15
million and have it go straightto the charge.
The people actually that aredoing it, right, like, why can't
they do that in the, in thefederal and state governments,
say, like, you have to give backa certain part of your profits
for actual care and reform, youknow?
And then I then and I think wecan probably wrap this up after
(37:17):
this little caveat, unlessyou've got something else but I
think, like, why can't Oregon,like Oregon's governor instead
and I'm not saying they areexplicitly doing this, but
instead of turning their back onthe RFK Jr stuff that he's
doing with wanting to do withprison reform and mental illness
(37:38):
and things like that, insteadof making this a partisan issue,
I think there's a hugecollaborative value that can
happen here, like because it'shappening under your noses
without influence of the otherparty, right, but I'm thinking
they are so close to being onthe same page here, they are so
(38:01):
close.
But why can't we just listen?
Right, we are so close.
But why can't we just listen?
Right, we are so close.
Like this is.
Speaker 1 (38:09):
It's almost like the messages, like the overall end
results are the same, yeah, likewe're preaching the same damn
message, but it's about how weget there, and this is where
this split is happening, right.
Speaker 2 (38:27):
Yep, because I don't hear anybody talking about this
Oregon thing, even though to methat's fucking scary.
I saw it, I happened to comeacross it on Google or something
, and I was like wait, what isthis?
And I'm like, but I don't seean outcry on TikTok over that.
There should be People shouldbe freaking the F out over that,
you know, because to me that'skind of scary.
(38:47):
A 30 day like look ahead.
And I'm sorry, but I thinkclinicians should be like what?
Speaker 1 (38:53):
Yeah, yeah, any of those.
They should be leading thecharge.
Yeah, those professionalsshould really be taking a hard
look at that, and starting topush back.
Speaker 2 (39:01):
Thank you, nami and Oregon, for telling me that I
need to learn how to be afortune teller.
Speaker 1 (39:07):
Thank you for putting us in such a compromised
position.
Yes, that really truly goesbeyond our scope of what
practices really?
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (39:21):
And putting all the liability on us.
Yes, thank you.
Speaker 1 (39:26):
Oh, good job.
Speaker 2 (39:29):
Well, with that, listen, we are better together.
Speaker 1 (39:33):
We could talk about this for days, but we're going
to wrap up here and we are theGaslit Truth Podcast and you
have successfully listened tothis awesome episode.
Food for thought.
Get curious, get inquisitive,make sure that you get online,
give us some stars, give us someratings, tell us what you think
.
If you're so inclined, buy us acoffee, because guess what?
We got to fund this?
Somehow because Big Pharmaain't giving us shit for this
(39:53):
show.
Speaker 2 (39:54):
They should, and I don't know.
Speaker 1 (39:57):
Thanks for listening, guys.
Speaker 2 (39:58):
Send us your gaslit truth at thegaslittruthpodcast
at gmailcom.
Five-star ratings only folks.
All right, Until.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.