Sean Philpott, MSB’06, PhD,
professor of bioethics, is a regular commentator for WAMC Northeast Public
Radio. In his most recent segment (below), he reflects on the recent shooting
in a Colorado movie theatre during the screening of the new Batman movie, “The
Dark Knight Rises.”
A public health researcher and
ethicist by training, Dr. Sean Philpott is also chair of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s Human Studies Review Board, which reviews all research
involving human participants submitted to the EPA for regulatory purposes. He
can be heard every other Thursday afternoon on WAMC. For a list of channel
frequencies and past segments recorded by Dr. Philpott, visit: www.wamc.org.
Shining
a Light on Aurora
Most of us were shocked and
deeply saddened by the tragedy that occurred last Friday at the movie theater
in Aurora, Colorado. Twelve people lost their lives and another 58 were wounded
– 11 critically – during one of the worst mass shootings in US history.
Coming just two days before the
anniversary of the massacre in Norway, and close on the heels of such US-based
tragedies as the shootings at Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Tucson and Columbine
High School, what happened in Aurora has sparked considerable debate and
controversy.
Questions being asked repeatedly
in print, on the internet, and over the airwaves include: How could a
24-year-old PhD student with a promising future in neuroscience deliberately
plan and implement an early morning rampage that left so many dead or wounded?
What caused him to commit such a heinous act? Could the violence have been
prevented, had there been stricter (or perhaps looser) gun controls in place?
These are all important questions to ask.
What is unfortunate is that the
primary focus of the current debate has been on the last of these questions.
Many of the pundits featured in the media following the shootings in Colorado
have talked primarily about gun control and our Second Amendment right to
purchase and own firearms. Nearly every candidate in the upcoming November
elections has already weighed in on this issue, as have the various special
interest groups funding their campaigns.
In addition to gun control,
however, what we really should be talking about is the problem of undiagnosed
and untreated mental illness in the US. Moreover, we should not be looking
solely to the government or to the mental health industry for solutions to this
vexing problem. Rather, we also need to look inward and ask ourselves why we
are so reluctant to reach out and help those struggling with mental health
issues. Doing so would be more likely to prevent future tragedies than
resurrecting the ban on assault weapons or expanding open-carry laws.
If we look to the killings at
occurred at Columbine and Tucson, for example, it becomes clear that many of
those who commit extreme acts of violence make their intentions known well in
advance. Dylan Klebold, one of the perpetrators of the Columbine massacre,
wrote of such acts in several of his school compositions. His high school
English teacher raised concerns about these writings, but school officials and
Dylan’s parents dismissed these warnings; his violent writings were seen as
mere works of creative fiction.
Jarod Loughner, the Tucson man
who killed six and wounded twelve (including former US Representative Gabrielle
Giffords), posted similar materials and threats on both his MySpace and YouTube
accounts. He was also so prone to violent outbursts and confrontations while
attending Pima Community College that school officials had him suspended. He
later dropped out after refusing to undergo the mental health evaluation
required for him to re-enroll. Once he dropped out, however, no one at the
college ever reported their concerns or fears to mental health professionals.
Family and friends likewise failed to notice or report signs of the impeding
massacre to relevant medical personnel or legal authorities.
I will not be surprised if, in
the coming weeks, it turns out that the suspect in the Aurora shootings showed
signs of mental illness. These will likely have gone unnoticed or unheeded by
his friends, family and those he worked with.
Even when we have a colleague or
loved one who is acting irrationally, it is often difficult to ask questions
about their mental stability. We may not feel it is our place or our
responsibility to raise these concerns. After all, few of us are trained
psychiatrists or psychologists, and the threat of harm may seem remote.
Given the stigma associated with
mental illness, we may be reluctant to label a close friend or family member as
such. We may also be scared of those who are mentally ill, going out of our way
to avoid or ignore them (such as crossing the street to get away from the
unkempt individual on the corner who is mumbling incoherently to themselves).
Finally, even if we want to help
we may feel powerless to do so. Current state and federal laws make it
difficult to hospitalize or treat someone against their will. Forty-four
states, including Colorado and New York, have assisted outpatient treatment
laws that can be used to compel patients to get mental health care. However,
compulsory treatment is limited to those patients who meet certain criteria,
including a diagnosis of mental illness, a history of not complying with care
and a record of violent or antisocial behavior. Few if any perpetrators of
recent massacres met that definition.
Clearly there is no quick fix to
this problem. Despite my personal aversion to firearms, for example, I do not
think that stricter gun laws are an obvious panacea. Rather, I think the answer
lies with each and every one of us. We need to be more willing to reach out to
friends and family members who are behaving erratically, rather than be afraid
or ashamed of them. We need to be willing to talk with them about their
problems, to encourage them to seek treatment, and to be willing to seek care
of their behalf if they are reluctant to do so.
We will never be able to prevent
every potential massacre, but if we can stop just one future Aurora the effort
will be well worth it.