All posts by norsehorse

When Votes Do Not Truly Matter

(cross-posted from Vermont Watch, here)

“The most important political office is that of private citizen.”

                — Louis D. Brandeis

Am really looking forward to Wednesday, November 7th (2012), when we can go back to having the politicians ignoring us and we them because they will have gotten all they need of us and with us not expecting anything better or different from them: i.e., At least for those of us who bother to vote, they will receive our votes as well as the surrendering of whatever else is ours to their decision making. Absolutely nothing changes.

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”

               — Plato

That is unless we choose to hold their feet to the fire, keeping up on what matters and organizing as well as letting them hear from us regarding our opinions and concerns about such and not accepting the status quo.

“Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them.”

               —  Frederick Douglass

This should not start the day after the election however, it needs to begin now, before we cast our votes and before they either get into office or are re-elected to the same.

“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”

               — Frederick Douglass

One person singing out might not be heard or make change, however when people sing together, it is harder to ignore the voices of a choir singing in unison, particularly when the chorus refuses to be silenced.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

               — Margaret Mead

None of this is ever easy, but it ends up becoming even harder when no one bothers to make a difference either.

“You may never know what results come of your action, but if you do nothing there will be no result.”

               — Mahatma Gandhi

Commentary: Moratorium on Tasers Needed Now

(cross-posted from Vermont Watch, here; photo omitted)

MacAdam Mason, 39-years-old, was a talented artist as well as a person with disabilities, including epilepsy. He was shot by Vermont State Police with a Taser stun gun while unarmed outside his home in Thetford on June 20th and died immediately thereafter.

A week to the day following his death (June 27th), various advocates, state legislators and concerned citizens held a press conference and issued a statement calling for a moratorium on the use of Tasers by both local and state police across Vermont.

The statement urges, among other things, that the moratorium be kept in place until standardized, statewide and state-approved policies as well as more extensive police training, including about how to better deal with people experiencing mental health crises, than is now currently available, are put in place.

An online petition had also since been created. To date nearly 1200 signatures, the vast majority of which are from Vermont residents, have been collected thus far.

Those interested in signing onto the online petition are strongly encouraged to do so. The Web address for the petition is: signon.org/sign/call-for-moratorium-on

The Taser moratorium and related action should not have to wait until either the results from an autopsy and subsequent reports are finally made available or, even worse, for another tragic incident along these lines to occur.

The time for prudent leadership as well as political courage to be exercised at all levels concerning these urgent matters is sorely needed sooner rather than later.

Morgan W. Brown

Montpelier

Former VT Governor Madeleine Kunin Signs Petition Urging Taser Moratorium

( – promoted by GMD)

(cross-posted to Vermont Watch, here)

If you have not already come across the news yet, former Governor Madeleine Kunin has signed the online petition calling for a moratorium on the use of Tasers within Vermont (no title, just her name; petition main page, here):

86. madeleine Kunin Jul 12, 2012 burlington, VT

Six paragraphs concerning these matters are found within the top of the Vermont Press Bureau’s Notes from the Trail political news column and also features a photo of Madeleine Kunin speaking out front of the Vermont State House (most likely earlier this year), which also includes other political news as well, within today’s Times Argus and Rutland Herald newspapers.

A couple of key excerpts (via Times Argus, here; behind paywall):

[…]

Former Gov. Madeleine Kunin added her name to an online petition that urges Gov. Peter Shumlin to call for an immediate moratorium on the use of Tasers by the Vermont State Police as better policies are developed.

[…]

“I think that with careful law enforcement training there are better ways to diffuse a dangerous situation,” Kunin wrote in her email. “Because Tasers have become widely available, the temptation to use them is great. We need to assure that proper training in their use is always available.”

[…]

Thank you if you have already signed onto the petition. It is greatly appreciated!

If you have not already signed it yet, how about adding your name along with that of former Governor Madeleine Kunin and also some other names you might recognize as well (here)?

Take time to wade through the signatures posted thus far and find them for yourself.

By the way, as of this moment, there are 820 signatures.

Please help us reach and exceed our current (automatically set) goal of 1000 and then beyond.

Thank you in advance.

Online Petition: Call for Moratorium on Tasers in Vermont

(cross-posted to Vermont Watch, here)

As you might have already heard of or read about (including, here), this past Wednesday (June 27, 2012), mental health and civil rights advocates held a press conference in the Cedar Creek Room at the Vermont State House in Montpelier to call for a moratorium on the use of Tasers by law enforcement across the state until certain statewide, state-approved, standardized policies as well as more extensive training are put in place that has grown apparent are currently found to be seriously lacking.

View the archived video of the press conference (via YouTube, via vtdigger), here.

Read the statement, which goes into great detail about why the moratorium is being call for and is sorely needed (via Google Docs), here.

For his part, when asked by reporters about it that very afternoon during a press conference he was holding, Governor Peter Shumlin outright rejected the need for a moratorium and staunchly defended the use of Tasers by law enforcement.

View the archived video of Governor Shumlin’s comments, relating to Tasers as well as the advocates call for a moratorium on the use of them, provided in response to questions posed by reporters during that particular news conference (via YouTube), here.

After having sat in on the afternoon press conference and listening to Governor Shumlin’s stance concerning these matters as well as his reasons for the same, it came to mind to consider setting up and creating an online petition much along the lines of what the advocates’ statement is calling to be set in place.

Have since created the petition and it is available (via SignOn), here.

If you agree with the online petition, please consider signing onto it.

In addition, feel free to share the petition with others whom you believe might be inclined to sign onto it as well, most particularly anyone living or working within Vermont.

If, however, you are inclined to do more than signing the petition and sharing word about it with others, consider also contacting Governor Shumlin directly on the subject (if you do however, please be brief and to the point as well as, most importantly, polite and civil as possible), here.

It could also prove helpful to consider contacting your local state legislators as well as writing and submitting a letter to the editor to both your local weekly or daily newspaper as well as, if it is not the same publication, one or more of the statewide dailies.

The Vermont Advocacy Resource Toolkit, which I set up a while back for such purposes, might be useful in doing so.

THE FIRST VERMONT PRESIDENTIAL STRAW POLL (for links to the candidates exploratory committees, refer to the diary on the right-hand column)!!! If the 2008 Vermont Democratic Presidential Primary were

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Press conference on Taser use in Vermont

What: Press conference on Taser use in Vermont

When: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Where: Cedar Creek Room, Vermont State House, State Street, Montpelier, Vermont

Advisory:

Advocates to Call for Taser Moratorium

Mental health and civil rights advocates will hold a press conference Wednesday, June 27, 2012, at 10:30 a.m. in the Cedar Creek Room of the Statehouse in Montpelier. The topic is Taser use in Vermont.

The coalition of groups and individuals will propose a moratorium on Taser use in the state until comprehensive, updated statewide standards of use are developed and training on the standards is implemented and until all officers have also received specialized training in dealing with persons suffering from a mental health crisis.

This press conference is being held a week to the day of the Tasering of Macadam Mason by Vermont State Police with death resulting.

If you are concerned about Taser use within Vermont and find yourself agreeing in principle with the moratorium on Taser use being called for by mental health as well as civil rights advocates:

If you are in the Montpelier area this morning (Wednesday, June 27th) and are able to join us in order to show support by providing a presence of concerned advocates, activists, professionals as well as members of the general public who are taking a stand along with those making the call for such, please consider doing so.

ACLU-VT Statement on Vermont State Police Tasering with Death Resulting

(In the interest of keeping abreast of this issue, I think the ACLU statement provides a valuable piece of the puzzle.  For that reason, I am straying from our usual disinclination to front page press releases, verbatim.

– promoted by Sue Prent
)

ACLU-VT statement link, here.

Taser Shooting A Tragedy

One of the things the ACLU-VT has said consistently about Tasers is that they shouldn’t be used unless deadly force is justified. The death of a Thetford man after being shot with a Taser by Vermont State Police officers is a tragedy that demonstrates why we think this is important. A person is dead. An autopsy will determine the exact cause of death.

Tasers are not safe weapons. They are called “less lethal,” according to the manufacturer, Taser International. They are capable of causing death and serious bodily injury. They should only be used on a limited number of people, the barbs should not be shot at someone’s chest because of the risk of causing heart problems (we understand the Thetford victim was shot in the chest), and other risks incidental to the actual Tasing (such as a person crumpling and falling from the pain of the 50,000-volt shock and suffering injuries) must be considered before Tasers are used.

Between 2001 and 2009 “… there have been more than 400 deaths following police Taser shootings in the United States and 26 in Canada. Medical examiners have ruled that a Taser was a cause, contributing factor, or could not be ruled out in more than 30 of those deaths.” That’s according to an Oct. 21, 2009 article in the Arizona Republic, a newspaper that has followed closely the manufacturer’s success in selling the weapons to police departments, and the track record of the weapons.

The Thetford incident may also demonstrate why Tasers should not be used by police unless all officers have received ongoing, up-to-date training, and rigorous policies are in place for Taser use. These policies should not be cookie-cutter policies produced by insurance carriers, but policies that provide sound, informed police guidance and protection for the public. People can die if policies aren’t sound, and rigorously followed. Lawsuits are inevitable.

A Montpelier Taser Study Committee – formed by the city council when police there wanted to arm officers with Tasers – determined that the weapon is of limited use if the warnings issued by the manufacturer are followed.

It reached this conclusion by looking first at the warnings. Those warnings include that:

Tasers should only be used on “a very limited group of people” (not on people who are “physically infirm, elderly, or pregnant; suffering from drug effects, alcohol effects, or cardiac disease; in mental health distress; and suffering one of a long list of pre-existing conditions”).

Tasers should not be shot at someone’s chest, because of the risk of causing an “adverse cardiac event.” They should also not be shot at someone’s head, throat, eyes, and any pre-existing injury areas.

Taser use creates other risks, including serious injury or death, to people “who could fall and hit their heads, are on an elevated area, are restrained, are anywhere near a knife, are in motion, or are in water.”

“When all the cautions, prohibitions and limitations are accounted for,” the report concluded, “it is apparent that a Taser may only be discharged against a healthy, sober, rational, and clear-headed nonelderly adult who is not pregnant, running, nor in a dangerous environment, and that the device must be capable of being reliably aimed at the abdomen or the back.”

Complicating all this, the report noted, “is the fact that Tasers have a high potential for erroneous deployment, with the possibility of tragic consequences. That is because an officer in the field, managing difficult circumstances, simply cannot know enough to know if it is safe to use a Taser.” Further is “the fact that the probes from a Taser cannot be aimed as precisely as a gun or pepperball launcher, because the Taser probes move further apart as the distance they fly increases, at the rate of one foot for every seven feet of travel. This difficulty in accurate aiming means it is exceedingly difficult in the field to avoid hitting the prohibited areas of the body.”

Police officers face difficult situations every day. It’s the public’s job to make sure officers are fully trained and well-managed, and that they discharge their duties as responsibly as possible so public safety, for everyone, can be maintained.

The ACLU’s sympathies go out to the family of the victim, his friends, and acquaintances. We, like others, await the results of the investigation into this tragic incident.

Links to the Montpelier Taser Study Committee report, as well as other resources, can be found on the ACLU Web site at http://acluvt.org/issues/tasers/index.php

Town of Berlin Will Get Tasers

(cross-posted from Vermont Watch, here; edited third to last paragraph below the fold due to coding problems)

According to an article within today’s Times Argus (Thursday, June 7, 2012; front page, top with continuance on page A6), during its meeting held earlier this week the Berlin Select Board has decided to purchase four (4) Tasers aka Electronic Control Devices (ECD’s) as well as related equipment for its police department (here; via Times Argus; article behind paywall):


BERLIN – Select Board members haven’t yet seen a policy outlining when they should and shouldn’t be used and don’t know precisely where the money to pay for them will come from, but they did agree this week to buy four Tasers for their seven-member police department.

The unanimous decision met with some resistance during a brief discussion that began with a polite request from a concerned resident and ended with a spirited lecture from an unexpected source.

Long-time resident Paul Irons and Dan Stein, an ORCA Media Inc. videographer who took a seat in the audience after running out of tape following the board’s protracted discussion of Berlin Pond Monday night, both urged members not to pull the trigger on the stun gun purchase.

[…]

Since it is related to the above, what follows are excerpted minutes of the May 7th Berlin Select Board meeting during which a Taser presentation was provided (here; via PDF):


Town of Berlin

Municipal Office Building

108 Shed Road

Berlin, VT. 05602

Regular Select Board Meetings

lst &  Monday of Each Month

Monday, May 7, 2012

6:30 PM

Selectboard Members: Brac-il Towne, Chair; Roberta Haskin, Vice Chair, Ture Nelson, Secretary; Pete Kelley, and Craig Frazier. Present: Jeff Schulz, Town Administrator; Patti Lewis, Town Treasurer. All items are unanimous unless otherwise noted.

APPROVED MINUTES

Brad Towne called the meeting to order at 7′:00 p.m.

[…]

Electronic Control Devices – Lt. Faulkner

Chief William Wolfe, Berlin Police Dept., stated that he would like to equip the Police with electronic control devises (tasers). He stated that it would significantly reduce injuries to ofñcers and the public. Chief Wolfe stated that tasers are a safe alternative to pepper spray, which cannot be used effectively at the Central Vermont Medical Center. He stated that three ofñcers have been injured while on duty in the past month, two of whom were injured while on duty at CVMC. Chief Wolfe introduced Lt. Todd Faulkner, Hillsdale, New Hampshire Police, as the representative of Taser International, an expert witness for the Court of Appeals, and a twenty-two year veteran Police Ofñcer. Lt. Faulkner stated that he has conducted Taser training for many years and has worked with over 100 police agencies in New England. He stated that tasers are the most medically tested weapons system that law enforcement carries today. Lt. Faulkner stated that electronic control devices are not risk  but the likelihood of injury is small. He stated that the device is constantly internally registering when it is used and how much, and how long it is used. Lt. Faulkner stated that this data is downloadable to be used as evidence. He stated that the taser uses very low current that disrupts the bodies nervous system so the individual cannot control muscle use. Lt. Faulkner stated that the taser device uses a pulse current not a constant current. He stated that the weapon comes with different cartridges in 25 feet and 35 feet for law enforcement use. Lt. Faulkner stated that the taser is used for 5 seconds at a time. He stated that the training for taser use consists of an online class setting, followed by policy reinforcernent and training drills with a qualified trainer. Lt. Faulkner suggested that the Town set up Capital reserve íimds for the maintenance and replacement of the Tasers as they are equipment that will need to be maintained and will wear out. Chief Wolfe stated that he would like to buy three tasers for the department at $950 per unit. Craig Frazier asked if the Chief could approach Central Vermont Medical Center to see if they could help offset the cost of the units? Chief Wolfe stated that he could explore that route. He stated that VLCT has a policy that the Town could use as a model, and he is also looking at Lt. Faulkner’s policy regarding tasers. Jeff Schulz asked the Chief to provide the Board with copies of those policies.

[…]

View (embedded) archived video of the May 7th Berlin Select Board meeting (available via Vermont Watch, near bottom of post), here.

Related article: Berlin police chief puts in plea for Tasers (via Times Argus; April 21, 2012; article behind paywall), here.

Find out more about Tasers (via an informational slideshow of mine on the subject of Montpelier, Vermont and Tasers), here.

Progs’ Major Party Status Blues

(cross-posted to Vermont Watch, here)

Over on 7Days Staff blog Blurt (here), Paul Heintz reports about how Vermont Progressive Party Chair Martha Abbott is going through the motions of challenging Governor Peter Shumlin, apparently …

… for three reasons: One of their statewide candidates has to win five percent of the vote for the party to retain major party status; they want to keep candidates from other parties from hijacking the nomination; and, most importantly, they want to push Shumlin to the left.

Understood. Nothing new or different from them, as we’ve seen this all before.

However, not that this is anything new or different from them either for that matter, Heintz quotes Martha Abbott as having said (paragraph three):

[…] “But I’m not saying I’m going to stay in the race. I’m not saying I’m not going to stay in the race.”

Huh!? (scratch head here)

Then, when neither or otherwise nothing is being said along these lines (and other than having made the announcement in the process of possibly running for a given political office), unless and until one knows for sure what they will be doing at some future moment and point pertaining to whether they will remain in the race or not, why bother saying anything at all?

Stop the presses!

(cross-posted to Vermont Watch, here)

Yesterday (Monday, April 23, 2012), the political campaign of TJ Donovan, who is challenging incumbent Bill Sorrell in the Democratic primary for the office of Attorney General of Vermont, declared about how:

Donovan announces more than 100 attorneys join “Lawyers for Donovan”

Wow, stop the presses!

Gotta love the early throes of the forthcoming political campaign season, as if it truly means anything real to most voters right now and especially when it would appear to be far too early to take either it or those campaigning for a given office seriously enough to bother paying attention yet, other than to observe how these sort of announcements make rather good gist for jokes, save possibly for what might be something for the press and news media to report about on a slow news day of course.

After coming across the press release on this (via vtdigger), it made one wonder what would be the next in line of lists of 100 or more supporters of candidates running for the office of Attorney General?

Will it be 100 (fill in category: view below examples) for (fill in candidates name here)?: e.g.,

… jay walkers …

… disturbers of the peace …

… those possessing less than an ounce of marijuana …

… people who have been Tasered …

… drunk drivers …

… Identity thieves …

… various (other) convicted felons …

Any other suggestions for a list of 100 or more campaign supporters … !?

THE FIRST VERMONT PRESIDENTIAL STRAW POLL (for links to the candidates exploratory committees, refer to the diary on the right-hand column)!!! If the 2008 Vermont Democratic Presidential Primary were

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Vermont Resident Suicide Statistics Paint Grim Picture

( – promoted by odum)

(cross-posted from Beyond Vermont State Hospital blog, here)

*Updated* (with the usual edits)

When it comes to the delivery of community mental health and developmental disability services across the state, there are ten (10) catchment areas and each of these are served by one of the ten (10) designated regional community mental health centers (CMHC’s).

Back in early September of this year, Art Woolf blogged a post to Vermont Tiger on the Department of Depressing Vermont Statistics, which regarded the state’s suicide rate (here):

In its annual compendium on Vital Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control reports that Vermont’s age-adjusted suicide rate was 13.8 per 100,000 population.  That translates into 89 suicides in 2007 and gave Vermont a number of dubious distinctions.

  • The 16th highest suicide rate among the 50 states and well above the U.S. average of 11.3.  Most of the states with higher suicide rates are in the West.
  • Only two states east of the Mississippi River, Kentucky and West Virginia, had higher rates than Vermont.
  • Within New England, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts had rates well below Vermont and below the U.S. average while Maine’s rate was just under Vermont’s and New Hampshire’s rate was just below the U.S. average.

[…]

Read the entire blog post, here

As saddening as those statistics and facts might prove to be, even more disturbing are the recent regional and statewide data on resident suicides that has come to light of late. Apparently, however, this data has not been widely enough known or shared and, other than when individual suicides happen, also not widely known and reported on by the press or media as of yet either.

If there was any good news to be gleaned from the Vermont Resident Suicide Statistics provided by the Vermont Mental Health Performance Indicator Project (PIP) recently, which compared certain data over the last two twelve month periods (i.e., September 2009 through August 2010 and September 2010 through August 2011), four (4) of these ten (10) catchment areas experienced a decrease in suicides within the last twelve (12) month period reported in the statistics from what they were within the previous year.

That was the good news.

The bad news reported in these same statistics was how there has been an increase in suicides experienced within the six (6) other catchment areas.

Furthermore, based upon the data received thus far, although the number of overall suicides for the given time periods appear to indicate an increase of thirteen (13) additional suicides statewide between the two, when one wades through the different catchment areas of the state served by the different CMHC’s and, while as mentioned above there has been a decrease in four (4) of those catchment areas that then brings down the overall number as far as actual increases goes, some of the six (6) other catchment areas have seen noticeable increases or even a spike over last year’s number (the below areas and numbers are only those indicating increases in suicides over the previous twelve month period): i.e.,

Catchment area: 2009/2010 versus (vs) 2010/2011 = Increase

NCSS (Northwestern Counseling and Support Services): 7 vs 11 = 4

HC (Howard Center): 13 vs 18 = 5

HCRS (Health Care and Rehabilitation Services of Southeastern Vermont): 14 vs 22 = 8

RMHS (Rutland Mental Health Services): 5 vs 10 = 5

USC (United Counseling Service of Bennington County): 8 vs 9 = 1

WCMH (Washington County Mental Health): 9 vs 13 = 4

Total Increase (in the above six catchment areas alone, not counting the catchment areas that experienced actual decreases): Twenty-seven (27) suicides.

Thus the decreases elsewhere end up painting a picture that is somewhat misleading when these numbers are not looked at in terms of increases in each of the given local catchment areas that had experienced such as well as then added up as a whole in terms of overall increases over the numbers from the previous time period.

Therefore this is not merely a statistical increase of thirteen (13) suicides statewide, as would be the case when taking into account the decreases experienced elsewhere, but is actually an increase of twenty-seven (27) suicides above and beyond what transpired within those particular catchment areas as indicated during the previous time period.

It should also be understood how these numbers also do not take into account any suicides that might have occurred since the end of August of this year, which would also mean the increases in suicides indicated by the data occurred during a period of time mostly prior to Tropical Storm Irene and the closure of the Vermont State Hospital (VSH), save for a few days afterwards. That said, there is also deep concern over what has transpired since then, from September 1st of this year, as well.

In addition, the data also included statistics indicating how many of the suicides within each time period were by persons connected with the local CMHC within a given catchment area and both time periods illustrate how the majority of the reported suicides were committed by persons who had not been connected to CMHC services at the time.

However, due to its very limited scope in an attempt to answer the questions posed at the time, the statistical data does not provide information concerning whether or not any of these persons had attempted to connect with CMHC or other services and, if they had, if they were on waiting lists or were turned away for one reason or another. It would be important to have such data collected and analysed.

There is also a need to ascertain other general information and data concerning the persons and what might have led to their suicide that could indicate possible patterns and potential correlations to be assessed and learned from as well, which could help inform the state as well as community service providers about what needs to be done differently and better or otherwise be put in place.

That said, the state and its various community partners need not wait until all such information and statistical data is available in order to begin doing something meaningful to address these serious matters of concern in the time being either.

Beyond the above, the state and its various local community partners can also assess whether there is something beneficial to learn from the local catchment areas that have seen decreases as well.

They are as follows:

Catchment area: 2009/2010 versus (vs) 2010/2011 = Decrease

CSAS (Counseling Service of Addison County): 7 vs 2 = 5

LCC (Lamoille Community Connections): 5 vs 4 = 1

NKHS (Northeast Kingdom Human Services): 10 vs 7 = 3

CMC (Clara Martin Center): 8 vs 4 = 4

Unknown (no catchment area listed or known): 1 vs 0 = 1

Total Decrease (in the above four catchment areas — and one unknown — alone, not counting the catchment areas that experienced actual increases): Fourteen (14) less suicides between the two given time periods.

As the state moves forward in dealing with these matters and determines its priorities as well as funding choices for how to proceed, it would be crucial that it not make the mistake of robbing Peter to pay Paul however.

For example, by pouring additional resources to the six (6) catchment areas experiencing the increases in suicides of late and either not also equally supporting the other four (4) catchment areas as is also needed or providing less support to them in an effort to pay for additional services where they are sorely needed elsewhere.

The fact is we need to continue to support the other four catchment areas in their work or otherwise the consequences could make matters worse.

It should also be noted how none of this is to suggest the state did not have a problem with suicides prior to this either, because it of course still did (view statistical data for 1985 through 2006, here), however as the more recent data referred to earlier within this post appears to suggest (here), the problem appears to be getting even worse.

There will be those among the state’s political leaders and other policy makers who will not want to admit it, however it will not be a surprise if the successive cuts over the last several years — including those made during the former Challenges for Change process — to the CMHC’s as well as many other community service providers helping those most in need across the state have resulted in such a dire fraying of the social safety net as to make it harder and harder to meet the needs being experienced at the community level.

Such unmet basic human needs and the toll they take on persons, families and communities eventually show up in higher rates of usage of various types of emergency services, hospital emergency rooms, prison, other forms of costly and dehumanizing forms of institutionalization including VSH-type settings as well as also resulting in unemployment, homelessness as well as, when it seems like there is no hope and one has run out of viable options one would freely avail themselves of, suicide.

With all the above seemingly focused up to now on access or the lack of access to formal or traditional medical model mental health and related services, it should also be pointed out how it would be important to provide such services in a very different and also voluntary manner versus what has been the case up to this point in time with the mental health system having a heavy reliance or dependence on forced or coercive treatment and its negative focus as well as usually bad or poor outcomes.

This could be done in a variety of ways, including creating a more robust community services system that is much more proactive, holistic, recovery-based, trauma informed, person-centered as well as driven and, thereby, addressing basic human needs (including in areas of housing) far more upstream versus usually waiting for the worse to occur and when it is more costly to do so.

In doing this however, there should be a serious increase in funding various alternative services and supports, including those that are peer-run and operated.

If the state takes opportunity the current crisis affords to create and provide services and supports people actually need and want to use, then people would be more inclined to seek as well as access such and less inclined to avoid a system many now dread will take over their lives and make them career mental patients.

If, rather than continuing to focus the bulk of funding on forced or coercive treatment most people would rather not have foisted upon them if given an actual choice, the state instead shifted its focus and energy as well as greater funding toward voluntary services and supports needed, people who often seek out services would not be turned away or put on waiting lists due to a lack of adequate funding.

Although it appears the state is now headed in this direction, not only are there those who are pushing back against such needed change out of fear and possibly other motives as well, the increase in suicides being seen points out an obvious need how crucial such changes are needed and also how certain things need to be put in place sooner rather than later.

All this could be done if these matters remain a top priority, which it now seems to be the case and also if the political will to bring such about is exercised, not just while these matters have our attention for the moment, but also when they once again become too easily forgotten or otherwise taken for-granted and have fallen off the table.

*Note*: Made several, mostly minor, edits for the purposes of clarification and readability; last updated on Monday, November 28, 2011 at 9:45 AM (EST).