While I agree that the "mentally ill" have as many rights as those who are "well" (and the lines of those definitions are remarkably squiggly), it is extraordinarily painful to see a loved one descend into madness and not be able to do anything for them as long as they are "high functioning." My aunt insisted that the neighbors were sneaking into the house at night and shaving her eyebrows, cutting down her trees and grinding the stumps in the middle of the night, and installing cable against her will. But she could cash her SSI check and pay for her groceries and gin, so there was nothing my mother could do for her, despite the fact that she had what her doctor described as an easily treatable form of geriatric schizophrenia. She was killed by a motorist when she stepped defiantly off the curb into oncoming traffic.
So we feel badly for Brittany and her children. But the truth is, she is free to destroy her life if she chooses. Can she "choose" if she is incapacitated by drugs or alcohol or mental illness? That's a heavy philosophical question that most of us don't get asked, because we wear underwear and don't shave our heads. Usually.
What to do? I recommend two things. The first is, if you actually do care about Brittany, then refuse to buy any magazine with her on the cover. Take a minute and send the publisher a postcard, telling them of your decision. Enough people do that and the paparazzi will move on to some other victim. Who knows how her behavior will change without the stress/allure of the cameras?
Secondly, hold her accountable for her actions. You can't have it two ways: if you want the rights of a fully capable adult citizen, then you have the responsibility. Arrest her ass the very second she's caught driving while intoxicated or doing anything else to endanger the lives of others. Arrest her when she steals stuff from stores. Treat her like the rest of us. THEN we'll see what happens.
It's Outrageous That Britney Was Released From the Hospital — Now Here's the Only Way to Save Her!
Is Britney headed for a tragedy because she's a celebrity? Would any ordinary person with major mental issues have been released from a respected psychiatric facility just six days after they were committed by a court order?
Britney's exasperated parents are terrified. "We believe her [Brit's] life is presently at risk," they said in a statement that also pointed out that their daughter was released over the recommendation of her treating psychiatrist.
Shrinks that I talked to are also aghast at this new turn in the Britney saga. "I'm appalled that they let her go" Dr. Carole Lieberman told me. "As a psychiatrist, I know that there is no way that she could have been stabilized in six days. Nonetheless, her celebrity status does seem to have gotten her "special" treatment — that is now putting her life in danger." Let me point out that Dr. Lieberman actually happens to be a member of the clinical faculty of psychology at UCLA Medical Center where Britney was actually treated, and she still feels this way.
"It's an outrage. I would love to know who made that medical decision. It's one of the worst things that could happen to her," clinical psychologist Dr. Judy Kurianski tells me.
"Any patient of mine who drank and drove repeatedly and who had been hospitalized involuntarily twice within weeks and who had extreme stressors, like the loss of custody of one's children, would not be leaving my hospital in six days, if I could help it," adds Dr. Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist and author of Living the Truth.
What should have happened to Britney according to all these experts:
She needed to have been held in the hospital for a minimum of 30 days, just to clear her body of all the alcohol and drugs — prescription or otherwise — that she may have been imbibing. Apparently it would have taken that long for her brain chemistry to even return to "normal" so the pros could actually evaluate what real mental illness she might have.
And Britney was in wicked bad shape when she arrived at the hospital — throwing such wild tantrums she had to be restrained in a padded room, according to Star magazine.
The popwreck admitted at the hospital that she had been taking Adderall, a drug which gives you a high and curbs appetite, and Star reported she was even taking prescription thyroid medications also to lose weight, plus Prozac and who knows what else. Apparently, certain drug combos can actually cause behavior that mimics mania.
Britney may not be bipolar after all, she just may have taken such a mix of dangerous substances for such a long time that they basically made her do crazy things.
But Brit will never know now, nor will her parents or even her psychiatrist. There's a good possibility that because she's a star, and a star who was probably a disruptive pain in the butt at the hospital, that she's now back driving the streets of LA with her paparazzo boyfriend and pack of paparazzi behind her.
It's a huge loss for Britney since psychiatric disorders are so treatable, according to Dr. Ablow. He stressed to me that he doesn't treat Brit but he's not hopeful for her now:
"If she has deep feelings about being controlled and manipulated in life by the people who are then made your financial conservators (like dad Jamie Spears) she may feel like she can't escape from the cage. If you feel these people have never respected you as a person, you may also feel you have no life of your own. When people have been denied their own hopes and dreams, they lose faith that they will ever be free to live as they want and they give up."
In other words, message to Jamie and Lynne Spears: If you love your daughter, now get two "neutral" conservators, and since a hospital won't hold her, see if you can get a 100% Britney sympathetic psychiatrist/babysitter who can treat her.
What else can you do?
Comments for this post are now closed
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I suggest she take a page from Amy Winehouse's book and win five Grammys. That certainly seemed to sober up Amy, at least for the night.
But then again, I think Britney's true problems stem from unchecked bipolar disorder. Until and unless she addresses that issue, she'll go down in flames.
Unfortunately, it's the norm for "ordinary" people to live in a revolving door when it comes to hospitalization for mental illness. They need to be a danger to themselves or others to get in if they don't want to be there; once in, a few pills make them seem ok - then out they go, and sooner or later stop taking medication. Rinse, repeat.
I've been saying for a year that Brit needed a guardian and finally she has one.
I read that Kfed is all of the sudden being nice and will let Brit's mother take the kids to see Brit. Where was his kindness when Brit needed it? When Brit just wanted joint custody Kfed said no he wanted it all, and I bet he was counting on Brit losing it, but not to the point where she now has a guardian of her own.
Kfed and Kaplan have to back up now because their dealing with Daddy Spears directly now.
Who knows, maybe Kfed will have to get a job.
I was channel surfing and came upon a video of Britney - I forget the name and "song" - oh yea - "You Want A Piece of Me."
In the video Brit does her Zombie dance moves along with many clips of the paparazzi "harrassing" her.
Brit loves to dance in front of the camera - I think that's all this is about. It's her life and focus. Why are people talking about anything else?
I suffer from manic-depression. I have been executive director of two nonprofits for those with mental illness. I have been a field director for the National Institute of Mental Health. I am neuro-researcher. I am author of a book on the subject.
All of the above is to suggest that I am not unaware of the dangers to someone in her condition and situation. That does not mean that I agree with your position.
People with mental illness are human beings. They are citizens. They have rights. The courts have been given authority to to temporarily abrogate those rights. They may hold someone for 72 hours. After that, the person is free to stay or go. It is not a matter of who released her.
No other medical condition is the basis for incarceration. Those of us with mental illness are denied rights that everyone else enjoys. Thanks to people like you who have no concern for our rights and have no understanding of our illness, we are singled out, stigmatized, imprisoned, ridiculed and ostracized.
Were it not for you and those who are likeminded singling us out in the ways just described, we might be more accepting of 'help.' There might be a better understanding of the problem, of how to deal with the problems, of how to treat the illness.
Does she need help? Obviously. Does she need her rights denied? Absolutely not. Does she need the intervention of people who are ignorant of her problem or the needed response? No. Those people need to find some other group on which they can lavish their ignorance.
cognito ergo populistae
Spot on. If it isn't voluntary it isn't treatment. Don't piss social control up my leg and call it "recovery"
Thank you for bravely sharing your story, and your insights.
I am perplexed by one notion: lumping release against the advice of doctors treating a patient for self-destructive behavior vs. NON-self-destructive behavior. I am not willing to ignore the difference.
In our society, while some people would defend the right to commit clear-headed suicide, I would guess that number would be much smaller if the hypothetical is muddle-headed self-destructive behavior. I would put myself in that middle group.
With treatment, Britney might not be self-destructive, and her kids wouldn't be at high risk of losing their mother -- in the name of defending her right to disregard her own health, mental and otherwise.
If a detoxed Britney on a mental health regimen nevertheless jumps off the Golden Gate Bridge, that's one thing. A slow-mo train wreck of an incoherent person is another.
Either way, it's a tragedy in real time. I for one hope for a third path, regardless of whether voluntary or imposed by the medical community and the courts.
I look forward to your thoughts.
Most people assume that 'treatment' works. Those of us in the field see very little 'success' with accepted treatments.
In independent studies, those paid for governments and universites, not by the drug companies, no psychopharmaceutical works as well as a placebo and every such drug damages the brain. Studies as far back as 1962 prove conclusively that mental illness is not due to a chemical imbalance. They prove that it could not possibly be from a chemical imbalance.
Knowing what it isn't doesn't mean they know what it is. This has allowed drug companies to sell you a chemical for your presumed chemical imbalance.
If treatment doesn't work, in fact does actual harm, why favor such treatment? Actually, sometimes treatment does work. How? The placebo effect sometimes temporarily moderates the symptoms. The only other way it works is through the stimulant effect. SSRIs are in the same chemical class as cocaine and amphetamines. They are weak stimulants that have an effect on some people but not others.
Say you are depressed and I give you a stimulant then ask you how you feel. If you received that stimulant effect, you will tell me you feel better. Why? Because you have more energy. It is not because temporarily giving you more energy cured or moderated your mental illness.
Using these drugs for period longer than 2-6 months increases the chance of a recurrance of a psychotic episode by 5-10 times. The ranges are due to differing protocols used in different studies. This is one of the results of the damage done by the drugs.
There are no easy answers. That is because we know so little about mental illness. The drug companies have been leading us in the wrong direction for half a century. It's less likely you will get to your destination if you head off in the wrong direction.
Continued below
Continued
There would be an advantage to being in some sort of protective custody if one is suicidal. This does not mean that harmful treatments are warranted. This does not mean that a psychiatric facility is the proper place.
I cannot explain it sufficiently in this short space. That's why I had to write a book.
As a psychiatric nurse, I can attest to that. This is very well put. It could be that something will happen that puts her under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system (DUI), and she may be ordered to rehab, or whatever she really needs, after that. But as long as she doesn't present a clear danger to herself and/or others, they can't hold her. It's a good thing that she can't have the kids with her. Let's hope nobody gets hurt.
Britney doesn't represent a clear danger to herself? Britney Spears? That Britney? A case can easily be made.
Someone appointed by a court had her released, not the hospital. Stupid? Yes. Hospital's fault? No
Why is it outrageous that BS, was released from the Hospital. Go to your nearest corner, in the poorest section of your city, and there's many BS there. There just not celeb's, so what's with the shock. We have an epidemic of mental health patient's on our streets, and you people are suprise. Last year there was a report that showed, hospital worker's were dumping mental health patient's on the streets of LA, and you're suprised.
This is the kind of crap that's going to get her killed.
I can't imagine a credited mental hospital just up and letting her go. Doctors send you out of places like that after talking to your family, setting up outpatient plans, etc. How exactly UCLA managed to do all that without the approval/knowledge of Brit's father is beyond me.
And where is Brit's father anyway? Why is she out driving all over LA? If you're in charge and you think her life is at risk and that is your DAUGHTER, you drag her ass out of that car and take her home. Be a parent, Dad.
Yes, it is outrageous that she was released so soon. My son is nineteen and bi-polar. He was diagnosed with depression at age 8, and finally bi-polar three years ago. I always was part of his talks with Dr's, but now- from one day to the next- once he turned 18 I could no longer help him. He's no less sick, and no more mature. But that's the fucked up law in this country.
Wow. Best wishes to your family.
True. I sympathize.
Give me a fricken' break! She is an adult. Her parents are no paragons of moral or intellectual rectitude. Why do you care? I say let her make her own choices.
When I think of all the major stories not covered by MSM, I cringe. The Davos conference was covered thoroughly in European newspapers and broadcast media, but received short shrift here, because the press' eyes were focused on the highjinks of some celebrity. If Huffington wants to include a sidebar of celebrity news...Fine. I just don't want it contaminating my political news and blogging.
Here in America, if you are diagnosed with a mental illness such as Manic Depression you STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE TREATMENT...
Even though your brain disease severely limits your reasoning power.
Sounds odd to me. Your opinion on the situation you describe?
The question is how unqualified that right ought to be.
May I select which and how many of your rights I may deny? We are all supposed to be equal before the law. There is no question. Burden some other group with your ignorance.
cognito ergo populistae
Here's the way to save her-stop paying attention to this trailer trash soap opera.
Okay,it probably won't save her,but so what?There are literally billions of people on this planet that are far more deserving than some spoiled celebutard who's flipped her wig because she suddenly stopped getting her way.And there are far better ways to make a living than "reporting" on this drivel and opining on what's best for her.What's best for the rest of the world is for you people to find something worthwhile to write about,and this skank to just go away.
"Now Here's the Only Way to Save Her" -- ignore her.
PLEASE, HuffPo, IGNORE HER! She keeps making the front page of your web site, and no "entertainment" story -- particularly this one -- should EVER do so.
I agree insofar as I don't consider this story legitimate "entertainment." In fact it's a sad display of schadenfreude. But as for entertainment stories generally, your complaint indicates you don't understand the business model for this site. It isn't trying to duplicate Kos. It's trying to do what Kos does, but with an additional Hollywood-centric focus consistent with many bloggers (and I'm sure it hopes readers) that it attracts and Kos doesn't.
Amazing at the assumptions being made about Ms. Spears and her mental health status. Barring knowledge of an actual diagnosis, all these "experts" have absolutely not real idea of what is going on or why. They and the media stalkers need to leave this young women alone. Her parens, lawyers and the judge on the case can handle the situation without all the armchair quarterbacking. I suggest the media types take a chill pill and stalk some other hottie.. .maybe then, the media will not have another Princess Diana death to their credit.
This may sound callous but my main concern about Britney is that she is out driving on the same roads where other people who are not drunk and high are trying to get where they need to go. For gods sake get her out from behind the wheel.
I completely agree! I've seen her reckless ways and cannot believe she gets away with it everyday! Seems like each time I'm on the road a cop is lurking about. You'd think a speeding car being trailed by dozens of SUV's, etc. would attract more attention/complaints. Meanwhile all over Los Angeles the wrong people are getting harassed and princess Britney gets free reign on the road. This city is ridiculous.
Only Britney can save Britney.
Interesting that Britney has been stoked up on the very same mind-altering drugs that the drug industry has been pushing as "cures" for mental illness.
Heath Ledger just lost his very LIFE due to ingesting that crap.
Quick, high-volume access to these drugs started as a benevolent idea. Take a Prozac pill and you'll fall in love and be able to ride a white horse bareback along a Hawaiian beach. Billions in advertising put the project in high gear.
It turns out that dozens of the tests that were done on this class of drugs showed poor or harmful or even deadly results. Those tests were hidden by the drug industry because the profits were insanely high.
I don't claim to have any answers here. I am as lost as the Psychiatric profession is when it comes to how we can get a grip on mental derangement. But I know that we are going to be very sorry if this binge of taking mind-altering drugs does not cease.
The mind-altering drugs you're referring to also have another name: medicine. Don't confuse the already complicated issue of the relative merits and drawbacks of prescription medications with the legitimate criticisms of the companies that manufacture them. The point here is that many medicines, the psychiatric medicines among them, that do a lot of people a lot of good, are dangerous when improperly prescribed or abused by patients. The fact that many psychiatric medications can be especially prone to abuse doesn't mean they aren't invaluable, life-saving tools for the many people who need them and use them properly.
"Medication"? Life-saving tools? Chemical restraints that shorten the consumer's lifespan by 25 years, snd Eli Lilly is settling 2 Billion in lawsuits as I type this.
After 14 years of research on the subject, I would find your misinformation laughable were it not so commonly held and so dangerous.
cognito ergo populistae
In other words, whenever the medicated has a problem with the medication, it must have been prescribed in error.
The most protracted and difficult addictions to treat are often those that have to do with your so-called medicine. With the med insurance procedural policy of no more than 15 minutes per patient visit, the likelihood that these drugs will continue to plague the public is a near-certainty. They will be prescribed to folks who ask for them, and to folks who seem in that brief period to exhibit or describe symptoms which have been desginated as treatable via this so-called medicine by their manufacturer's brochure, which very often these days is all the medical practitioner has to go by.
The FDA? Too busy accepting flawed data and safety studies conducted and paid for by the manufacturers.
I'm sure there are many fine drugs out there, maybe even some you swear by, but when even some of the most innocuously marketed of them turn out to have serious and unwanted side effects (for which there is often another drug available), I'm afraid that right now we're looking at a broken, corrupted system in which some of the most egregious abuses are taking place because of the greed and unscrupulousness of drug manufacturers, insurance providers, and doctors themselves.
I suspect you have a lot invested in the idea that these psychiatric drugs do a lot of good, perhaps because of your own experience. It is however, an experience that may not be shared by or agreeable to others. There are even some among us, and no I'm not a scientologist, who are still troubled by the notion that psychiatry would continue to masquerade as science, despite its history as a tool of the state or a moralising punishment inflicted on the desperate and on the unwilling, with little or no discernable positive effect.
As a former employee of a national health insurance company, I can say with certainty that this length of stay is not at all unusual for non-celebrities--at least not if a patient is reliant on health insurance to pay for treatment.
Inpatient services are used only to stabilize a patient enough that they no longer pose an imminent danger to themselves or others. As soon as a patient can "contract for safety," (ie promise not to hurt themselves or anyone else), they are "stepped down" to outpatient services.
Posted February 7, 2008 | 04:02 PM (EST)