Dec 19 2009
Throwing Care at a Problem
This science news headline didn’t surprise me:
More mental health care called for in wake of Ft. Hood shootings
Clearly, the Army-base shooting that claimed many lives was a catastrophe. But should we throw money, in form of more mental health care, into the wake of the event? Will it prevent future events (very, very, very rare events at that)?
Stephen M. Stahl from the Department of Psychiatry at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine believes that improving the care on military bases such as Ft. Hood -
could help prevent future dire consequences to U.S. soldiers as well as to the health professionals who deliver such services.
As you might guess. I’m skeptical. First there is the data he used to establish “it’s broke.”
. . . findings from interviews, surveys and education programs at Ft. Hood – data collected from more than 100 mental-health workers and nearly 300 command soldiers just prior to the shooting – show a low level of confidence in army mental health care.
From there he makes suggestions as to how to “fix it.” This, too, I am skeptical of, as I am skeptical of the entire field of psychology — my field.
My own guess (informed bias?) is that an increase of expenditure and care would be better directed not at the mental health of individuals, but at the health and functioning of the social groups, of the communities individuals work in. The two, of course, are strongly interrelated. Improve individual health and you improve community health. Improve community health and you improve individual health. In this case, the cheaper option, the option that may provide more bang for the buck (oops — hopefully less), might be a focus on the health of working social groups.
Then there is this question: Is more care always better care? I wonder. And so I am skeptical. Even in the wake of a catastrophe.
