Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
>> WE HAVE GROWN ACCUSTOMED TO THE NARRATIVE, THERE IS A MASS
SHOOTING AND LEARNED PERPETRATOR MAY HAVE HAD A
MENTAL ILLNESS. PEOPLE DEBATING HOW TRAGEDY
COULD HAVE BEEN DIVERTED AND THEN PARTISANSHIP FLARES
AROUND GUN CONTROL AND RIGHTS, THESE ARE INCIDENTS ARE ALSO
SPARKING MORE DIALOGUE ABOUT THE MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM.
NMIF CORRESPONDENT MEGAN KAMERICK SAT DOWN WITH JEFFREY
SWANSON OF DUKE UNIVERSITY, WHO WAS BROUGHT HERE BY IDEAS
IN PSYCHIATRY AT UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO TO TALK ABOUT
MISCONCEPTIONS AROUND VIOLENCE AND MENTAL ILLNESS.
>> PROFESSOR SWANSON, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US HERE ON
"NEW MEXICO INFOCUS". YOU ARE HERE IN NEW MEXICO
GIVING A LECTURE IN SEVERAL PLACES.
THE TITLE IS "THE TRUTH ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE AND MENTAL
ILLNESS." WHAT IS THE TRUTH?
>> I THINK THE TRUTH IS RELEVANT BY COMPARISON TO WHAT
IS NOT TRUE. >> OKAY.
>> SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS TO TRY
TO COUNTERACT WHAT ARE SOME COMMON MYTHS AND
MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GUN
VIOLENCE AND MENTAL ILLNESS. >> TALK ABOUT THOSE.
WHAT ARE THE MYTHS? >> 60% OF THE ADULTS IN THIS
COUNTRY, ACCORDING TO NATIONAL SURVEYS, BELIEVE, FOR EXAMPLE,
THAT PEOPLE WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA ARE LIKELY OR VERY LIKELY TO
BE VIOLENT AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE.
AND THAT IS JUST WRONG. YOU KNOW IT TURNS OUT STUDIES
OF THE PREVALENCE OF VIOLENT BEHAVIOR IN PEOPLE WITH
SCHIZOPHRENIA AND OTHER SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESSES, SHOW
THE VAST NUMBER OF PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESSES DO NOT ENGAGE
IN VIOLENT BEHAVIOR AND MOST VIOLENT ACTS ARE COMMITTED BY
PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT SERIOUSLY MENTALLY ILL.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT IS NOT IMPORTANT.
IT MEANS WHEN YOU IT IN PERSPECTIVE, VIOLENCE AND
MENTAL ILLNESS ARE BOTH IMPORTANT PUBLIC HEALTH
PROBLEMS THAT INTERSECT ON THEIR MARGINS.
THAT INTERSECTION IS WHAT GETS LOTS OF PUBLIC ATTENTION,
PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU HAVE MASS SHOOTINGS.
>> BECAUSE IN THOSE INSTANCES THAT SEEMS TO BE A RUNNING
THREAD, PARTICULARLY, THOSE INSTANCES OF VIOLENCE.
>> IT DOES, AND WHENEVER THERE IS A HORRIBLE ACT OF VIOLENCE
LIKE A MASS CASUALTY SHOOTING BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO TURNS OUT
TO HAVE A SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS OR SOME, YOU KNOW,
MAJOR MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM, PEOPLE LEAP TO THE ASSUMPTION
THAT THIS IS SOMEHOW TYPICAL AND, IN FACT, MASS SHOOTERS
ARE VERY ATYPICAL BOTH OF PEOPLE WITH MENTAL ILLNESS
MOST OF WHOM ARE NOT VIOLENT AND ATYPICAL OF MOST
PERPETRATORS OF GUN VIOLENCE BUT THAT IS A PRISM THROUGH
WHICH WE END UP LOOKING AT THESE PROBLEMS.
IT IS A MOMENT WHEN THE PUBLIC IS PAYING ATTENTION AND, YOU
KNOW, AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO SEIZE THAT MOMENT TO TRY TO
FOCUS ON PROBLEMS OF THE MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM, WHILE
EDUCATING PEOPLE ABOUT THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, MENTAL
HEALTH PROBLEMS REALLY ARE NOT THAT CONNECTED TO VIOLENCE.
>> YOU HAVE WRITTEN IN SEVERAL PLACES, TRAGEDIES LIKE SANDY
HOOK, SHOOTINGS AT VIRGINIA TECH, DENVER AND TUCSON, THERE
TENDS TO BE A RUSH TO LEGISLATE IMMEDIATELY.
WHY IS THAT PROBLEMATIC? >> IT IS PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE
THE RESULT CAN BE, YOU KNOW, WHAT I HAVE CALLED CRISIS
DRIVEN LAW FOR PEOPLE THAT HAVE SAID THE SAME THING. AN
EXAMPLE IS I THINK THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT, THAT WAS
ENACTED IN NEW YORK SHORTLY AFTER THE SANDY HOOK
SHOOTINGS; TRAGIC SHOOTING WHERE SCHOOL CHILDREN AND SOME
TEACHERS WERE MASSACRED AND THERE WAS THIS PUBLIC DEMAND
TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. SO, THERE WERE A BUNCH OF
PROVISIONS THAT SEEMED TO MAKE SENSE, LET'S BEEF UP
ENFORCEMENT FOR PEOPLE WHO TRAFFIC IN GUNS AND YOU KNOW
LET'S BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT, THEN THE LAW REACHES INTO THE MENTAL HEALTH TERRITORY
AND SAYS, WELL, WHY DON'T WE HAVE A MANDATE FOR MENTAL
HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND COUNSELORS, IF THEY HAVE A
CLIENT WHO INDICATES THAT THEY ARE HAVING THOUGHTS ABOUT
HARMING THEMSELVES OR THERE IS A RISK OF HARM AGAINST SELF OR
OTHERS, THAT THEY HAVE TO BE REPORTED TO THE POLICE TO
MATCH THEIR NAMES AGAINST THE GUN REGISTRY DATA BASE AND
THEN BE ABLE TO REMOVE GUNS. >> WHY IS THAT PROBLEMATIC?
>> IT'S PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT
ON PEOPLE'S HEALTH SEEKING. IMAGINE SOMEBODY ON A COLLEGE
CAMPUS TO CRANKS UP THEIR COURAGE TO GO AND SEE A
COUNSELOR AND NOW THEIR NAME IS REPORTED TO THE POLICE.
IT MIGHT KEEP THEM FROM DOING THAT.
IT COULD ALSO INHIBIT WHAT PEOPLE DISCLOSE AND TELL THEIR
THERAPISTS. MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS
HAVE A LOT OF OPTIONS, SO, IT IS JUST AN EXAMPLE AND ANOTHER
ONE IS IN CONNECTICUT WHICH CHANGED LAW NOW SO THAT
ANYBODY WHO VOLUNTARILY SIGNS IN TO A PSYCHIATRY HOSPITAL
ARE PUT ON THE LIST OF PROHIBITED PERSONS FROM
FIREARMS. SO, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO,
THOUGH, IS TO TALK ABOUT WAYS IN WHICH WE COULD PUT THAT
BARRIER BETWEEN THE DANGEROUS PERSON AND THE FIREARM THAT
ARE FOCUSED ON REAL INDICATORS OF RISK; NOT MENTAL ILLNESS
CATEGORICALLY AS A BROAD CATEGORY.
THE LAWS THAT WE HAVE NOW ARE PROBABLY OVER-INCLUSIVE.
THEY GET PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT NECESSARILY VIOLENT BUT ALSO
FAIL TO IDENTIFY SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE, BUT THERE ARE BETTER
APPROACHES. >> HOW DO YOU GAUGE RISK?
BECAUSE ONE OF YOUR ARTICLES MENTIONED THAT OVER HALF OF
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PSYCHOTIC AND HAVE KILLED STRANGERS,
WHICH IS A SMALL PERCENTAGE ACTUALLY, OVER HALF OF THEM
HAD NOT SOUGHT MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT OR THEY WEREN'T ON
ANTIPSYCHOTIC DRUGS AND WE DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE
DANGEROUS. HOW DO YOU GAUGE RISK.
>> RISK FOR WHAT? >> RISK FOR VIOLENCE.
>> YEAH. VIOLENCE AND MENTAL ILLNESS IS
ABOUT EVERYTHING FROM MINOR ACTS OF VIOLENCE TO PUSHING
AND SHOVING, ALL THE WAY TO SERIOUS ACTS THAT WOULD
INVOLVE A WEAPON AND IT SEEMS AFTER THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW,
IT IS AS SHOULD BE PREDICTABLE, PREVENTABLE
LOOKING THROUGH THE RETROSPECTASCOPE BUT NOT
NECESSARILY THE CASE. YOU KNOW, THERE IS THIS
HINDSIGHT. SO, IN ADVANCE --
>> WE DON'T LIVE IN -- >> PSYCHIATRISTS ARE
NOTORIOUSLY BAD AT BEING ABLE TO PREDICT WHO IS GOING TO
VIOLENT. THEY ARE BETTER AT RULING OUT
WHO IS NOT GOING TO BE VIOLENT BUT THE FACT IS, EVEN IF WE
CURED SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESSES, WHICH WOULD BE
WONDERFUL, OUR PROBLEM OF VIOLENCE IN SOCIETY, 96% OF
THAT WOULD STILL BE THERE. HOWEVER, IF YOU BRING INTO THE
DEFINITION OF FIREARMS VIOLENCE, SUICIDE, THAT IS A
DIFFERENT STORY, BECAUSE OVER HALF OF THE FIREARMS
FATALITIES IN THE U.S. ARE SUICIDES AND THAT IS MUCH MORE
RELATED TO MENTAL HEALTH AND PREVENTABLE MENTAL HEALTH
CONDITIONS. SO, WE CAN'T SAY ON THE ONE
HAND, WELL, GUN VIOLENCE HAS NOTHING DO WITH MENTAL ILLNESS
AND AT THE SAME TIME RECOGNIZE WE HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM WITH
SUICIDE AND OVER HALF OF THE SUICIDES USE FIREARMS, LESS
THAN HALF. SO, YOU KNOW, RISK ASSESSMENT
IS SOMETHING THAT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DO.
AND, SO, SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT RATHER
THAN JUST TRY TO IDENTIFY THAT NEEDLE IN THE HAY STACK, WHO
IS GOING TO ENGAGE IN VIOLENCE, YOU HAVE TO KIND OF
THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE HAY STACK, AND
PREVENTING WHAT WE CAN'T PREDICT.
IF WE WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE BETTER ACCESS TO
EVIDENCE-BASED MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT TO PEOPLE, IF WE
COULD THINK ABOUT VIOLENCE ALMOST AS IF IT WERE A
COMMUNAL DISEASE, HOW DO WE HAVE HEALTHIER COMMUNITIES
WITH FEWER KIDS EXPOSED TO TERRIBLE TRAUMA GROWING UP TO
BE PERPETRATORS, SO PREVENT VIOLENCE AND DO A BETTER JOB
OF LIMITING ACCESS TO GUNS AND LEGAL MEANS WHEN PEOPLE ARE AT
RISK AND SOME OF THOSE ARE, YOU KNOW --
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY, YOU ARE PART OF A CONSORTIUM OF
RISK-BASED FIREARM CONSORTIUM, YES.
>> CONSORTIUM OF RISK-BASED FIREARMS --
>> YOU RECENTLY MADE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS TO STATES AND
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHAT THOSE
RECOMMENDATIONS WERE. >> THE TERM RISK BASED IS NOT
AN ACCIDENT. WE WANT THE FOCUS TO BE ON
RISK. WE CAN'T JUST LEGALLY, YOU
KNOW, BAN ACCESS TO GUNS IN OUR COUNTRY, IT IS A
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT SO WE'RE TRYING TO FOCUS
ON WHEN PEOPLE ARE AT RISK. ONE EXAMPLE ON THE MENTAL
HEALTH SIDE WOULD BE THIS; LOTS OF PEOPLE ARE
INVOLUNTARILY ADMITTED TO A MENTAL HEALTHCARE FACILITY ON
A SHORT-TERM BASIS AT A TIME WHEN THEY DO POSE A RISK.
MANY OF THEM DON'T END UP GETTING A FORMAL INVOLUNTARY
COMMITMENT AS A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING WITH A
REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL. SO, THEY ARE EITHER DISCHARGED
OR SOME OF THEM ACTUALLY SIGN IN VOLUNTARILY.
WELL, EVEN THOUGH MOST MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE ARE NOT
DANGEROUS, THAT IS A TIME, SURROUNDING THAT PERIOD OF
TIME WHEN WE DO KNOW RISK IS ELEVATED, RISK OF HARMING
OTHERS OR SELF, SO, WHY NOT HAVE A TEMPORARY PROHIBITION
FROM FIREARMS FOR PEOPLE WHO FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY AND
HAVE IT BE PAIRED WITH A POLICY FOR A TIMELY AND
CLINICALLY FORMED RESTORATION OF GUN RIGHTS WHEN PEOPLE ARE
NO LONGER AT RISK. SO, THAT WOULD BASICALLY
EXPAND THE CATEGORY OF PROHIBITED PERSONS TO INCLUDE
THOSE PEOPLE DURING THAT TIME AND THE PERIOD AFTER THAT WHEN
WE KNOW PEOPLE ARE AT RISK, WE ALSO KNOW THERE IS EVIDENCE
THAT THERE IS A CONNECTION BETWEEN RISK OF VIOLENCE AND
THINGS LIKE CONVICTION FOR A VIOLENT MISDEMEANOR.
MANY PEOPLE WHO WERE CONVICTED OF VIOLENT MISDEMEANORS ARE
NOT DISQUALIFIED FROM GUNS UNDER FEDERAL LAWS.
IN SOME STATES THEY ARE. CALIFORNIA IS AN EXAMPLE. AND
THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT ACTUALLY HAS REDUCED GUN
VIOLENCE. SO, OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD
BE THERE IS SEVERAL CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE ON THE CRIMINAL
SIDE, VIOLENT MISDEMEANORS WOULD BE ONE GROUP, PROHIBITED
FROM FIREARMS FOR 10 YEARS, HOW ABOUT PROHIBITING GUNS
FROM PEOPLE WITH TWO OR MORE DUI OR DWI CONVICTIONS IN
FIVE YEARS. PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED
-- >> THAT WOULD CAPTURE A LOT OF
PEOPLE IN NEW MEXICO. >> IT IS NOT WITHOUT
CONTROVERSY. PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO
A TEMPORARY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER DURING THE
PERIOD OF TIME THAT IS IN EFFECT AND WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE
WHO HAVE HAD TWO OR MORE CONVICTIONS FOR A CRIME
INVOLVING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE.
THOSE ARE THINGS WHERE WE HAVE EVIDENCE THAT THERE IS A
CONNECTION BETWEEN VIOLENCE RISK AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS.
IT WOULD BE EASY TO DO BECAUSE THOSE RECORDS EXIST, THOSE
WOULD BE TEMPORARY RESTRICTIONS.
THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF POLICIES WE ARE
RECOMMENDING, FOCUSED ON RISK. >> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT A
SPECIFIC CASE IN NEW MEXICO THAT YOU WILL MENTION IN YOUR
LECTURES. JOHN HYDE, DIAGNOSED AS A
SCHIZOPHRENIC BUT FUNCTIONED PRETTY WELL FOR 15 YEARS AND
THEN ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO, HE SHOT AND KILLED FIVE PEOPLE.
HE AND HIS FAMILY HAD ACTIVELY SOUGHT HELP AND THEY WERE TOLD
BY AUTHORITIES THEY HAD TO WAIT UNTIL HE ESCALATED.
WELL, HE ESCALATED. SO, I AM CURIOUS IF YOU'RE
MENTIONING THIS IN YOUR TALKS HERE, WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN
DONE DIFFERENTLY? IS THERE ANYTHING IN PLACE
THAT WOULD PREVENT ANOTHER CASE LIKE THIS?
>> IT IS HARD TO SAY. IN THE CASE OF JOHN HYDE, IT
IS SO TRAGIC IN A NUMBER OF LEVELS.
IT IS A PERSONAL TRAGEDY, FAMILY TRAGEDY FOR THE PEOPLE
WHO LOST THEIR LIVES. AGAIN IT IS EASY TO, AFTER THE
FACT, LOOK BACK AT WHAT HAPPENED AND SAY, THERE WERE
OPPORTUNITIES MAYBE WHERE HE COULD HAVE BEEN DETAINED,
INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED. YOU KNOW, I THINK IT IS AN
OCCASION WHERE WE CAN RECOGNIZE A FACT AND THAT IS
THAT THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, NOT JUST IN THIS
STATE, BUT MANY STATES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, IS
SERIOUSLY INADEQUATE. IT IS FRAGMENTED WHERE THERE
IS NOT A LOT OF COMMUNICATION AND CONNECTION BETWEEN
DIFFERENT SECTORS, LIKE THE INPATIENT SECTOR AND EMERGENCY
PSYCHIATRY AND OUTPATIENT TREATMENT.
IT IS UNDER-RESOURCED, SO THERE IS MORE NEED THAN WE
HAVE A CAPACITY TO MEET. >> YOU THINK THERE IS
POLITICAL WILL TO CHANGE THAT? >> I DON'T KNOW.
I THINK THERE SHOULD BE BECAUSE WE'RE NEVER GOING TO
SOLVE THE PROBLEM BY JUST SIMPLY, YOU KNOW, KIND OF
REARRANGING THINGS IN THE SYSTEM WITHOUT INVESTING IN,
YOU KNOW, MORE CAPACITY TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE BASED
TREATMENTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE. I ALSO THINK THAT THE HYDE
THING IS INTERESTING BECAUSE IF YOU REMEMBER THIS, ONE OF
THE THINGS PROPOSED AS A SOLUTION IS LET'S PASS A LAW
FOR OUTPATIENT COMMITMENT, YOU KNOW, MANDATED COMMUNITY
TREATMENT. LET'S PASS A LAW THAT WOULD
APPLY TO CERTAIN PEOPLE AND SAY, THAT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE
THEM A COURT ORDER SO THEY HAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN
OUTPATIENT TREATMENT. IT DIDN'T PASS.
ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WAS CRITICS POINTED OUT THERE
WASN'T, ALONG WITH THAT, A PROPOSAL FOR APPROPRIATION OF
FUNDS IN THE SYSTEM TO PROVIDE MORE SERVICES.
SO, IF YOU JUST SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE GOT INADEQUATE
MENTAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM LET'S PASS A LAW THAT REQUIRES
PEOPLE TO GO GET THE CRUMMY SERVICES TO WHICH THEY DON'T
HAVE ACCESS ANYWAY, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT IS NOT A VERY GOOD
SOLUTION, BUT IT IS AN EXAMPLE.
THERE ARE THREE LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY, OUTPATIENT COMMITMENT
LAWS, THAT ARE NAMED AND FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE KILLED BY AN
INDIVIDUAL WITH MENTAL ILLNESS.
KENDRA'S IN NEW YORK, AND SHE WAS PUSHED UNDER THE SUBWAY
AND KEVIN'S LAW IN MICHIGAN AND LAURA'S LAW IN CALIFORNIA.
IT IS A REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ASK, WOULD THOSE
LAWS HAVE SAVED THOSE LIVES? IT ISN'T A DOUBT IN MY MIND
THE LAWS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ENACTED WITHOUT THOSE TRAGIC
INCIDENTS, BUT OUTPATIENT COMMITMENT IS A POLICY THAT
MAYBE APPLIES TO A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE, BUT, ARGUABLY, YOU
KNOW, THE WAY TO FIX THE SYSTEM IS NOT JUST TO PASS A
LAW MANDATING PEOPLE TO SERVICES BUT TO INVEST IN
SERVICES THAT ARE GOING TO OVERCOME SOME OF THE BARRIERS
TO CARE THAT WE HAVE. >> YOU ANTICIPATED MY LAST
QUESTION. IT IS QUICK AND I APOLOGIZE
BECAUSE I KNOW THESE ARE COMPLEX.
IF YOU WERE OMNIPOTENT AND YOU HAD A MAGIC WAND, WHAT WOULD
YOU DO, TELL US IN THIRTY SECONDS.
>> IT IS A NOT ONE, TWO, OR THREE THING, WE NEED TO DO
MORE THAN ONE THING. >> PEOPLE APPROACH IT AS A
SILVER BULLET. >> WHAT IS THE ONE THING.
YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION,
IF YOU WANTED TO. SO, I THINK ENACTING SOME OF
THESE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE ONE GOOD THING.
THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. WE CERTAINLY NEED TO THINK
ABOUT VIOLENCE AS A PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM AND GET
UPSTREAM AND INVEST IN HEALTHIER COMMUNITIES AND THAT
MEANS STARTING WITH KIDS WHO ARE EXPOSED TO TRAUMA AND THAT
MEANS PROVIDING TREATMENT FOR DRUG ABUSE, FOR PEOPLE WHO
NEED THAT, MAYBE SPEND MORE OF THE MONEY ON THAT THAN
ADDICTION AND IT ALSO MEANS, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO FOLLOW
PEOPLE UP AND NOT JUST THINK, WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS IS KIND
OF A ONE-SHOT AGAIN THING. I THINK IF WE DID ALL OF THESE
THINGS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE INCREMENTAL CHANGES.
WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY WHERE GUNS ARE A RADIOACTIVE
POLITICAL SYMBOL BUT MENTAL HEALTH IS MAYBE A ONE SQUARE
INCH OF COMMON REAL ESTATE WHERE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE ON
GUN CONTROL CAN COME TOGETHER AND THINK ABOUT AT LEAST THAT
PART OF IT. AND, SUICIDE PREVENTION IS A
GOOD EXAMPLE. THAT IS A GREAT PUBLIC HEALTH
OPPORTUNITY. THOSE ARE TREATABLE ILLNESSES
THAT INCREASE SUICIDE RISK AND LIMITING ACCESS TO LETHAL
MEANS WHEN PEOPLE ARE AT RISK WOULD BE A GREAT THING TO DO.
>> DR. SWANSON, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING TO US ON THIS
COMPLICATED ISSUE. STICK AROUND, WE'LL DO SO MORE
ON THE WEB. >> THANK YOU.