An Inconvenient Truth

August 9, 2017 Time’s Katy Reilly headlined Senator Suggests McCain Voted Against Obamacare Repeal Because of His Brain Tumor. “Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson, a Republican, suggested Tuesday that John McCain’s brain cancer diagnosis might have affected his decision to vote against GOP efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act. “Again, I’m not going to speak for John McCain. You know, he has a brain tumor right now, that vote occurred at 1:30 in the morning — some of that might have factored in,” Johnson said in an interview Tuesday on AM560 Chicago’s Morning Answer, which was published by CNN on Wednesday.” Evidence of McCain’s blood clot procedure that revealed a glioblastoma tumor were visible on his forehead above his left eye. Johnson’s speculation apparently stemmed from that physical evidence. But what if there was no scar, no visible interface with the presence of illness or medical procedure? Cleveland.com’s Peter Krouse headlines Cuyahoga County’s top judge, John J. Russo, and Prosecutor Michael O’Malley moving ahead on justice reform (8-18-17). “Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Administrative Judge John J. Russo asked a question of his audience on Friday at the City Club of Cleveland. What’s the largest hospital in Ohio? “The institution,” he said, before waiting for an answer. And by that he meant he meant jails and prisons. While a federal consent decree requires Cleveland police officers to become better trained at dealing with individuals with mental health issues, the county also is better served by having drop-off points where police can take those individuals in lieu of jail. Russo said Common Pleas Judge Hollie Gallagher and County Law Director Robert Triozzi are among those working to bring support services to those drop-off points and that a model in use in Broward County, Fla., will be studied.” Analysis found this from the Broward County’s Policy 508 (updated May 17): “The purpose of this policy is to direct Department sworn personnel through a continuum when handling situations involving individuals in need of mental health services, especially in cases where an arrest may not be the best course of action. When an officer responds to a mentally ill person call or during the course of any investigation determines that they are dealing with a mentally ill person, they may initiate any of the following procedures. The goals of the Mental Health Policy are to provide immediate response to and management of situations where the mentally ill are in a state of crisis; prevent, reduce and/or eliminate injury to both the consumer and the responding officer; find appropriate care for consumers; reduce consumer recidivism and to insure the individual receives the proper mental health services and the proper diversionary steps are taken for the safety and welfare of the mentally ill person or others.” This is something that Newark, along with Licking County and its prosecutor, would be well advised to consider. After all, most illness does not announce itself with a mark on the forehead. Is it the business of the police to consider the nature of a disturbance? Do they need to be trained in that? Are we asking them to be more sensitive, more insightful than ordinary citizens? Analysis finds these questions very relevant. Answering them might reveal an inconvenient truth (to quote past VP Gore). Reporting the same day for the same cleveland.com, Eric Heisig headlines Akron federal Judge John Adams investigation explores the line between meanness and possible mental illness. From that report: “These [various previous stated] events, along with other antisocial behavior are chronicled in a pair of disciplinary decisions publicly released this week that give insight into why a special investigative committee ordered Adams to undergo a mental health evaluation by an expert the committee hired. A panel from the federal judicial conference sanctioned Adams and again ordered him to undergo the evaluation, which he has so far refused to do.” “An investigation into Adams — plucked from the Summit County bench and appointed by President George W. Bush in 2003 — began in February 2013. Four federal judges in the Northern District of Ohio made a formal complaint to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The appeals court formed the special committee – itself a rare step, as numbers from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts show that four or fewer special committees have been formed annually in recent years to investigate the thousands of judges in the federal system nationwide. The special committee worked in secret — though many lawyers and court watchers knew about the probe – and a hearing was held in 2015. All the while, Adams continued to hear criminal and civil cases, and the appeals court continued to review Adams’ cases. Throughout this time, the appeals court overturned several of his rulings, removing him from a decade-old lawsuit involving Akron fighters and a criminal case in which a defendant said he did heroin with members of Adams’ family. The special committee’s findings led to the 6th Circuit Judicial Council’s decision to discipline Adams in February 2016. They reprimanded him and decided that he could not hear any court cases for two years.” “The special committee believed that Adams might suffer from an impairment that prevents him from maintaining professional relationships with his colleagues, prevents him from taking on the responsibilities as a member of the court and causes him to make “unfounded and destructive attacks against his colleagues,” the Judicial Council’s decision says. After Adams refused to undergo the exam, the special committee’s psychiatrist looked at provided information provided and concluded there is “a reasonable basis for concern as to Judge Adams’ mental or emotional state,” the decision says. “The data available so far do not suggest a mental state of psychotic proportions, but do suggest significant personality traits that may have contributed to the current concerns,” it continues. The 6th Circuit Judicial Council wrote that Adams should retire if he continued to refuse to undergo the ordered mental health exam. Adams appealed, and the Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability of the Judicial Conference of the United States took up the case. That panel released its decision Monday and mostly upheld the Judicial Council’s findings and discipline, absent taking away Adams’ docket.” Analysis reveals that ordinary citizens, voters, need to be cognizant of this possibility not only with those suspected of violating the law but also with our elected and appointed officials. Well trained law enforcement officers will provide immediate medical care for those suffering apparent (or suspected) physical impairment or trauma. Now we are requesting such acuity and appropriate response for a not easily diagnosed mental dysfunction. And what of those we’ve elected? Do we ever allow for any health condition other than a readily apparent and diagnose-able physical ailment?

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: