Could a gruesome automobile accident be due to a man’s mental illness? Or is there a more reasonable explanation lurking, such as the fact the man was drunk at the time of the accident?
As we’ve discussed previously here and here (amongst other places), there is no greater incidence of violence among the mentally ill than in the general population, a common misconception perpetrated by those with a political agenda. There is, however, an increased risk of violence amongst those with a substance abuse problem, such as alcoholism.
And we all know that drunk drivers cause more accidents than sober drivers.
So why, in this article about a gruesome accident caused by drunk driving, does the sister blame his brother’s mental illness on the incident?
Warrichaiet has mental health problems that have grown worse since the spring, Gutowski said. He received counseling for having suicidal thoughts and quit his job at a Green Bay meatpacking plant due to stress, she said.
[...] But Gutowski said her brother needed better treatment and medication.
“There should be money for programs,” she said. “This could happen to the next person. You’ve got to get ill people off the streets.”
Maybe. But her brother was in treatment for his problems — what more was he supposed to do? It’s not clear from the article whether he was still in treatment, quit it on his own, or what. But to implicate his mental illness as basically causing this accident is just perpetuating the myth — that mental illness causes people to act in violent ways.
It’s a horrible tragedy, but let’s put the blame where it belongs — on the guy’s drinking. You don’t need to look far to see the amount of carnage and injury drunk driving causes. On the other hand, there’s no research that shows people with mental illness are more likely to be the cause of or involved in deadly automobile accidents.
(5 votes, average: 4.2 out of 5)
Loading ...You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
8 Comments to
“Gruesome Accident Due to Mental Illness?”
People find different ways to make sense of the incomprehensible. The sister chose to latch on to her brother’s mental illness as the cause of the accident and the media basically helped her along with that. Maybe they thought it would spice up what would otherwise be just another drunk driving story.
Many alcoholics have pyroluria. Very few people know about pyroluria. There are more than 17,000 links on Google about it.
Alcoholism is a brain disease, no? So the accident wasn’t really his fault. (Actually, I don’t really believe that to be true, but if we’re going to consider addiction to be a disease [which I don't], then let’s at least be consistent).
Like everything having to do with the brain, declaring alcoholism as a “brain disease” really is one of those simplifications that doesn’t help anyone. That’s one theory, but it’s not a fact that it is simply 100% genetics or brain abnormalities (not all alcoholics have such genetics or brain abnormalities, blowing wide, gaping holes in such theories). I’m certain genetics and such brain issues contribute to alcoholism, but to what degree and how we use that information to better predict or treat such issues remains to be seen.
Needless to say, if one confined one’s remarks about the man’s mental illness to the fact that he’s an alcoholic or was drunk at the time of the accident, that would be fine. The fact that they didn’t, suggested they thought more than alcoholism or drunkeness was involved in the cause. (Well, at least the sister did.)
Once again Doc John seems to be being something of a revisionist about the DSM…
Not only does he regard pedophilia (DSM code 302.2) to not be a mental disorder, but now he seems to regard alchohol intoxication (DSM code 303.00) to similarly not be a mental disorder.
Whether you think that these things SHOULD or SHOULDN’T be regarded as mental disorders the point is that they ARE regarded as mental disorders at present. If you claim that people who are intoxicated have higher levels of violence then you are claiming that there is a particular kind of mental disorder such that it has an associated higher level of violence.
There are other mental disorders such as intermittent explosive disorder, psychopathy, conduct disorder, borderline personality disorder, etc etc that have violent behaviour as part of the CRITERIA FOR DIAGNOSIS. Given that this is the case there simply WILL be higher prevalence of violence in these conditions. Why? Because it is an ANALYTIC truth, violence is part of what is supposed to indicate that the person is mentally disordered.
Personally, I do have a few problems with addictions and sexual ‘deviance’ and violent / antisocial behaviour being regarded as a mental disorder. But then I don’t think that there are distinctions between criminal conduct, mentally disordered conduct, and undesirable conduct (like laziness). This is very revisionist, however.
At present… What might be of more use… Is for people to understand WHICH of the mental disorders are associated with violent behaviour and which are not.
I can’t see the original story unfortunately.
Whatever one thinks of the disease concept of alcoholism, the driver who caused the accident was under the influence of alcohol. It is known beyond doubt that alcohol or drugs impair judgement and ability when people drive. It is likely to be as simple as that.
It would be the same with anyone, whether he or she is an alcoholic, mentally or physically ill. or whatever.
Any ameliorating factors could be considered in the final judgement according to the law of the land.
The fact that a person is an alcoholic or mentally ill should not prevent them from accountability for causing another person’s death. However, people with such health problems should be given treatment in prison, if that is where they end up.
By the way, the disease concept of alcoholism came from the first members of AA who were seeking a solution to a hopeless situation, one which the medical profession were incapable of addressing at the time. It’s important to consider the original AA members’ definition of alcoholism as a disease. It is different from the definition in DSM IV.
I have a brother who is mentally ill and has been arrested several times for Driving Under the Influence. He recently killed two Hispanic males on a Moped when the police went on a high speed chase after him.
I know that my brother is ill. I feel that 25 years in prison is unfair for him because of his mental disability. I wish I could do something about this.
I hurt everyday of my life for everyone involved. It seems like I wake up every morning facing this nightmare and there is no way out! No one has any compassion for me or my brother.
I feel for you and your family having to deal not only with your brother having a mental illness but also with his problems with the law. Having a mental illness myself i know that making the right choices are sometimes hard if not impossible but that doesnt take away the fact that they were the wrong choices. The fact that he killed two people that have families that will no longer get to see or talk to them has to have some weight. Mental illness is not an excuse for picking and choosing the rules we want to follow.
Join the Conversation! Post a Comment:
Last reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 11 Jul 2007
