Regarding "Gun law vs. mental health," Jan. 30, some advocates for people with mental illness seem strongly opposed to the new law's reporting requirements imposed upon mental health professionals.
The reporting seems obtrusive when a patient is not presenting with a serious, psychotic threatening state of mind, but this view fails to distinguish these cases from the grave threat imposed by a small number of disturbed individuals whose expressions are so psychotic and threatening they must be reported.
The duty of professionals to act when the risks are clear is well-established in law, going back to Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California in 1976. The judge for the majority wrote that "protection of the confidential character of patient-psychotherapist communications must yield to the extent to which disclosure is essential to avert danger to others. The protective privilege ends where the public peril begins."
The practitioner has a duty to the intended victim as well as the patient, and the duty to save a life is paramount. That's what this new law tries to establish. Therapists and doctors can toe the line, and they know when a patient goes over the line.
The wording is clear enough: "Mental health professionals will be required to report to mental health officials when there is reason to believe a patient is likely to engage in conduct that will cause serious harm to themselves or others."
Whether the new law will deter some from an interview isn't clear. I also would defer to my colleagues that it could work against patients to have their names on public registers. And, finally, the new law could deter reporting about domestic violence situations and lessen the willingness of people to call suicide hot lines.
ROY NEVILLE
Co-president, NAMI-Schenectady
Schenectady