Madness, Myths, and Reality: Response to Roberta Rose

Abstract

In this article, two mental health consumers respond to Roberta Rose's article, "Schizophrenia, Civil Liberties, and the Law." The consumers argue that the real issue is no longer whether or not mental illness really exists, as Rose says the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other civil libertarians have contended in the past while challenging the basis for involun- tary civil commitment. Rather, the real issue now for many mental health consumers is whether community-based services and self-help-oriented treatment alternatives are finally going to be adequately funded. The answer to that question, the authors urge, is to break the "commitment equals incompetency equals treatment equals drugging" continuum and to begin to listen to the consumers themselves, their advocates, and the courts who support the consumers' right to choose—and to refuse—these potentially problematic treatments. Changing commitment-law criteria to make institutionaliza- tion easier will only result in more costly and unnecessary hospitalizarions and thus begin another cycle of expensive, time-consuming litigation and ultimately reform of the looser commitment laws. A more cost-effective and humane choice for our society would be to support the emerging consumer self-help movement in its efforts to replicate the success of such as substance abuse and physical disabilities. Family members, professionals, and consumers have a common cause in urging courts, legislatures, and agencies not to turn their backs on commu- nity-based alternatives by reopen- ing the asylum doors.