Over the weekend the local paper ran this article about the sentencing for a woman who pled guilty to charges of doping the kids in her daycare with cold medicine.
Michael Zeigler begins his article with the sentence: “Despite a history of clinical depression that included two suicide attempts, Ana A. Powers was granted a license to operate a day care center in her Rochester home.”
I object to the implications of this sentence in the strongest manner possible.
Mr. Zeigler seems to be using Ms. Powers’ suicide attempts solely as evidence of the more serious problem she had: clinical depression. His implication seems to be that no one with clinical depression, and by extension any serious mental illness, should be allowed to have a day care license.
From both a moral and a pragmatic point of view I find this view to be repugnant.
From the moral point of view, the information given has no time frame, nor any other description of the circumstances of either the illness nor the suicide attempts. We could be discussing Ms. Powers distant past, or what happened the week before her licence application came before the board. By implying that the information given is sufficient for a judgment, Mr. Zeigler is buying into the general stigmatization of mental illness in our culture. And denying opportunities for people with mental illness to support themselves.
This isn’t to say that further examination of such an application wouldn’t be warranted: Perhaps even to the extent of making the applicant pay for an evaluation by an approved psychologist. However, I believe that raising additional requirements for people based on their history is not the same thing as banning them altogether for the same history.
From a pragmatic point of view: by supporting the continuing stigmatization of mental illness, Mr. Zeigler and the D&C are providing evidence for anyone who believes that they’ll be more liable to suffer from being known to be treated for mental illness than they will suffer from their mental illness, untreated. It is my belief that this common concern is one of the reasons that many people who end up with major messes through their mental illness never tried to get treatment before things got completely unmanageable.
Perhaps reducing the social costs of treatment would allow more people to consider getting treatment before their lives get completely out of control, and they end up performing some criminal act, or worse.
Sorry, I don’t buy it. People with a history of depression and suicide attempts should not be licensed to provide daycare, unless it can be established to a near certainty that they are no longer and will no longer be that way.
So a twenty year ago pair of attempts should bar someone from providing daycare?
ETA: How do you feel about someone coming off a DWI and getting a day care license? Or being approved to be foster parents?
ETAETA: What I’m saying is that the information given is insufficient, in either the article’s opening sentence, or in my DWI example, to make a reasonable decision from. It is possible in either case that a more thorough examination of the circumstances would justify the bar. Or that a more thorough examination would reveal no significant problems.
The onus should be on the applicant to establish to a near certainty that they are no longer and will no longer be that way.
That would depend on the degree of severity of the alcohol problem. The onus should be on the applicant to establish to a near certainty that they are no longer and will no longer be that way.
That would depend on the degree of severity of the alcohol problem. The onus should be on the applicant to establish to a near certainty that they are no longer and will no longer be that way.
I suffered from severe clinical depression for many years with a couple of suicide attempts and would have been a lousy candidate for any role that involved looking after others (especially kids).
That being said, since treatment, I’ve been totally symptom free for eight years now…compared to cancer, that is a complete remission!!
But I understand the reticence of the authorities to grant a license to someone who might be still under the cloud of depression…just because they haven’t attempted suicide for x years doesn’t mean they still are not affected. Have they had a complete psych evaluation? Are they at all concerned that their prior illness might affect their behaviour and judgements?
kambuckta, I’m not thrilled that the board seems to have given a license without any consideration for such a history, myself.
Though, given the state of US laws on medical confidentiality, I’m not sure it’s possible to require a license application to include such data, legally.
My objection isn’t to the requirement of additional screening for persons who have personal histories that indicate potential problems. It’s the idea of an outright, and permanent, bar based solely on the knowledge that a person has “clinical depression” that I object to.
Mind you, I am not an impersonal observer. I have a history of mental illness, but no suicide attempts, and I cannot get a job to save my life. Because too many people believe that all persons with mental illness are equally dangerous.
Can I ask what might be a really stupid question? How would your potential employers ever know that you were clinically depressed in the past? I mean, if you haven’t been hospitalized nor attempted suicide, I’d think it was just between you, your doctor, and whatever close personal friends or family you shared that information with. I don’t see how it would prevent you from getting a job.
You will note from the article that the person who repeatedly drugged the small children pleaded her mental health as a mitigating factor at the sentencing, and previously had attempted to explain her actions to the police as “I was just overwhelmed by the children and their issues.” You will then also note that the judge took into account her mental health . . . ailments." For a reporter to turn a blind eye to the court having considered her history of clinical depression and two suicide attempts would be to ignore the elephant sitting in the corner of the room, for regardless of how long ago the depression and suicide attempts were, she clearly is still in no mental condition to take care of other people’s children.
If you have no work history for ten years, the assumption is that you’re bugfuck loco. Especially if you left your last job (a legitimate question) for medical reasons.
Pretty much what I was thinking. You have a person who has in the past dealt badly to stress (depression+suicide attempts), who is being charged with what amounts to reacting badly to stress (drugging kids in her care). It would be like a story involving a drunk driver not mentioning previous DUIs.
I don’t disagree that Ana Powers is not in any condition to take care of children.
What I object to is the assumption that “a history of clinical depression, including two suicide attempts” is sufficient reason for a life long bar against running a day care, without appeal. It’s not about Ana Powers, it’s about the attitude that the reporter’s comments about Ana Powers revealed.
On Preview: neutron star, why bother? I’ve given up. The VA has a disability pension available for some veterans, and I qualify. If no one thinks I can do a damned thing, who am I to argue. When I can’t get a McJob, I am stuck with the conclusion that in the eyes of the world I’m broken. Who is the lone nut to argue with the majority, anyways?
ETA: I missed your edit. I don’t think I made it clear - I can not get a call back from McDonald’s. It’s kinda hard to get a McJob without that.
Proving them wrong would probably go a long way as far as your self-esteem is concerned.
ETA:
Call them yourself, and be persistent. I’ve had relatively few jobs where I just waited for a call and got it. The rest I bugged the hell out of until they gave in and let me work for them. I suffer from nasty depression and shyness, so that wasn’t easy, but I forced myself to do it.
There’s no way anyone can guarantee that they won’t slip into some form of mental illness. We’re all potential victims to it. There are so many people on meds for depression that you’d be hard pressed to find anyone to fill jobs that entail that they be responsible for other lives.
Pilots
Conductors
School bus drivers
Life guards
Flag men
Architects
…and on and on
I’d like to know where you guys are getting your detailed knowledge of the background to the woman’s mental health problems and diagnoses, given that it’s not from the article. The article doesn’t give us full details of the information presented to judge or police, nor the circumstances surrounding the suicide attempts.
I’m entirely with OtakuLoki - sloppy reporting, helping to reinforce various stereotypes which stigmatise those who have problems such as clinical depression, but who do not pose any greater risk to those in their care than anybody else.
As for “The onus should be on the applicant to establish to a near certainty that they are no longer and will no longer be that way” - that’s asking for proof of a negative, is it not? (If it’s still something you stand by, how about requiring those without a history of mental health problems in their history to prove that they won’t develop them at some point in the future?..)
The very next time that anybody posts to the board “Gee, I’ve been feeling absolutely awful, I am wondering if I might even have clinical depression / bipolar disorder / other mental illness. Do you folks think I ought to see a psychiatrist?”, I am…
… well, I’m going to do what I always do, and post my usual post about how psychiatric treatment can be bad for you and may impose involuntary treatment. THEN if some board members start reacting to that with “Excuse me, but it’s pretty rare to be subjected to forced treatment, psychiatric treatment helps many many people, the OP might be missing out on those benefits because of your horrid scare stories”, I am going to link to this thread.
And to my warnings I will add: Those of us who have been Psychiatrically Labeled get to be pariahs. Do you harbor any wishes to ever be a
• vice president?
• gun toter?
• day care center operator?
• jet pilot?
• teacher?
• community resident, like maybe living next door to umm, someone?
• person free to walk the streets, not locked up or anything?
Mmm? Slippery slope indeed. But slippery for whom?
Obviously it is not a characteristic of psychiatrists or the care that they provide that makes the rest of our society such a bunch of flapping chickens about us. And most of the boards’ regular proponents of the efficacy of psychiatric treatment will be even more incensed about this than I am (and for once we share an attitude!).
Damn right it’s a stigmatization. We are the modern-era witches*, and the role of ‘witch’ in this pariah-sense does serve a social function, and you’d best reach an understanding of what that is and how it works if you want to come to grips with mental-illness stigma.
link goes to a paper I wrote over 10 years ago; the philosophy & theory in it I will still stand by, but the research is uselessly out of date; skip that and read the paper for the rest if you 're so inclined.
Teacher here, currently in employment, and also undergoing long-term psychiatric treatment with the full knowledge of my employer (and many colleagues), finds this entry in the list rather interesting…
So basically, you support a lifetime ban. How exactly can one prove the are not depressed. Should they bring the judge a bunch of happy journal entries?