No Guns for Folks On Anti-Depressants?

[Two Cold Soakers]

Would never happen without violating half a dozen confidentiality laws with HIPAA to boot.

At least one media source stated that the FBI had found no record of anti-depressant prescriptions in the killers history.

There is no Dr. - Patient confidentiality in the post 9-11 US of Amerika.

Am I the only one who read that confidentiality statement the docs asked us to sign a few years ago? It allows Health Care providers (or was it requires them?) to release information only as required by law.

Which law?
New laws? Common law? All laws?
Who makes the laws? What laws have been passed in the last five years in regards to medical confidentiality?

BTW, if the gun board of my state (Michigan) wants to, they can petition my medical records and find out about that re-occurring B-17 under Luftwaffe attack dream I had as a kid. If the pediatrician said I was suffering PostTraumaticStressDisorder, I could, according to Doc, be stripped of the CPL.

REPEAT there is no Dr-Patient confidentiality.

 

[junyo]

And that doesn't mean that some people don't need them.

No doubt, and nobody's contesting that. But in the context of the original question, the fact that doctors DO prescribe meds to people that don't have a major problem would tend to rule out prescriptions as an accurate indicator of serious mental defect worthy of loss of rights.

 

[tmg19103]

ADA

Under the American's with Disabilites Act, and per federal case law, it is illegal for states to discriminate against those who have been diagnosed with or suffer from depression - and this would include buying a gun or getting a CCW.

The law for prohibiting guns goes to those who have been involuntarily committed or who are a clear and present danger to themselves - and I just started another thread on this in General Gun Discussions as it seems Cho was involuntarily committed in the past.

 

[nemoaz]

I'm calling BS. I just search all federal cases and found NOTHING.

 

[bowfin]

I call them "Happy Pills" not because they make anyone happy, but because people think that they will make them happy.

I wonder how many million people (doctors and patients both) skip over the first standard remedy of "Sunlight and exercise" that has been proven to be as effective as prescription drugs in treating clinical depression.

In fact, if one Googles "exercise depression", a pretty authoratative name appears first in line...(Mayo Clinic)

Anyhow, I think I have dragged the thread way off topic, no one ever changes any opinions over the net, but I just have an abiding distrust of antidepressants and the possible side effects.

I can't think of anything else to add to my side of the debate.

 

[30 cal slob]

let's get Tom Cruise to post on this thread and throw in his $0.02 on the Scientologist's point of view.

 

[Zen21Tao]

This issue of anti-depressants and massacre is a perfect example of a heuristical bias. In research the phrase "correlation doesn't imply causality" exists for a reason.

People are looking for similarities between numerous killers to blame for their acts. The problem is that they are ignoring everyone else. It may be the case that many of these such killers has been taking anti-depressants but what isn't mentioned is (1) how many people not taking anti-depressants go on killing sprees and (2) how many people taking the same anti-depressants don't go on killing sprees.

What also isn't considered is that in many cases of correlation there is a separate unconsidered thing that is causally responsible for both things considered and found to correlate.

For example, in the case with anti-depressants and a killing spree. If a correlation did exist, it could be a negative self image causing depression. It could also be the case that this self-image is transfered onto others and the way the person lashed out at this image was by lashing out at the people he had projected it on. The bottom line is that such a case could be that reaction to the condition not the medication was what fueled the killings.

 

[Mike U.]

No guns for people on anti-depressants?

This is an inherently BAD idea. For example, I have Peripheral Neuropathy. It's a complication of diabetes where my feet are in great pain most of the time alternating with numbness and often times both at once. Sound fun?
Well, the most effective treatment for this is a drug that is also used for depression called Elavil(amitriptyline). Over long term administration this drug enters nerves and acts as an analgesic and allows me to live relatively pain free.

See where this would not be such a good idea?

 

[SteveS]

People are looking for similarities between numerous killers to blame for their acts. The problem is that they are ignoring everyone else.

Another factor to consider is that the companies that manufacture these drugs have deeper pockets than the killers that have taken thier drugs. If the plaintiff's attorney can show a connection, there would be a much greater award.

BTW, if the gun board of my state (Michigan) wants to, they can petition my medical records and find out about that re-occurring B-17 under Luftwaffe attack dream I had as a kid. If the pediatrician said I was suffering PostTraumaticStressDisorder, I could, according to Doc, be stripped of the CPL.

This is not true. There is nothing in the CPL statute that allows the board to petition the court for your records. At this time, the board can only obtain your records if you inform them that you have a record and consent to the release of you record.

 

[tmg19103]

"I'm calling BS. I just search all federal cases and found NOTHING."

I'm not going to bother calling a buddy from the gun club who is a lawyer who can give me the case law as we have discussed this, but this should help...

http://depression.about.com/od/legalissues/f/ada.htm

Now this just refers to Title I which regards employment. Title II regards access to state or federal regulated services (buying a gun or getting a CCW are examples, as is getting a drivers license) and also states dpression is a covered disability that can't be descriminated against. Just as you can't deny a driver's license because you are depressed, you can't deny the purchase of a firearm.

 

[Valkman]

Man this argument makes me mad, and much of it is because people like bowfin have no clue. If they give someone a AD and it didn't work it means you try another until you find one that does work. I've had depression since my liver transplant in '93 and was on elavil for a long time, then Zoloft and now Cymbalta. Elavil is now hard to get because you can commit suicide with it and no one around here will prescribe it.

To say people on these drugs are dangerous in any way is assinine - you need to worry about the people NOT taking them who should be. If you have the tendencies the VT shooter did then you need big time help but most of us do not.

 

[SteveS]

Now this just refers to Title I which regards employment. Title II regards access to state or federal regulated services (buying a gun or getting a CCW are examples, as is getting a drivers license) and also states dpression is a covered disability that can't be descriminated against. Just as you can't deny a driver's license because you are depressed, you can't deny the purchase of a firearm.

I am skeptical, too. I am a lawyer and I have worked with mentally ill clients that were denied a driver's license. They were required to get evaluated by doctors in oder to get their license back. Additionally, many CPL statutes contain provisions for denying a permit to someone with a "serious mental disorder." I do not work with ADA claims, but it was my understanding that a governmental entity can deny a person for a "legitimate reason." A blind person that is denied a driver's license is not going to prevail on an ADA claim. I am interested in knowing if their are any courts that have allowed an ADA claim for a depressed person that was denied a CPL.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

Absolutely Not!

A few months ago I had a problem with my left eye. It didn't hurt or itch or anything like that. It is hard to explain. Suffice to say I felt like tearing it out of my head. There was an accute sensitivity to light and if there was a light source near, I couldn't even stand to have my eye shut. Things rushing by (traffic, pages of video, etc.) drove me nuts. Closest thing to normal was wearing a black eye patch on the left eye. I was looked at by several doctors, the second last being the ENT that had earlier operated on me for a severe sinus condition. He gave me a clean bill of health, save for a single maxillary polyp, which he considered a non-issue. He recommended a neuro-surgeon. Now I was worried. Went through all kinds of tests culminating in a CT scan searching for a mass. Thankfully nothing surfaced and I was diagnosed with migraine headaches. I was prescribed, you guessed it; anti-depressants. Looking up the drug, it said clearly: May also be prescribed for pain in certain cases depending on Doctor's diagnosis. I take one before bed and that's it, but I can't argue with results. I've never been that bad since.

 

[tmg19103]

SteveS - you said "mentally ill" - I said depressed. Have you ever had a client denied a dirver's license or access to other government services because he or she was depressed? Perhaps if the depression was accompanied by threats of violence, but depression alone is a protected disability.

Since you are lawyer, you should easily be able to look up the federal circuit case law across all circuits that have ruled depression is a disability covered under the ADA. If you look at the laws that prohibit firearms ownship due to mentall illness, they never state the mental illness but refer to being a clear and present danger to one's self or others - or something along those lines.

So, if you are depressed and suicidal, yes, you can be denied buying a firearm or getting a CCW. If you have documented depression with no dangerous behaviors other than feeling flat, down or blue - then you have a protected disability.

 

[PistolNewbie]

Depression is a very broad term. Antidepressant drugs are perscribed for many medical conditions that should have no bearing on owning or handling firearms. An extreme gray area that can't be generalized as far as I'm concerned.

 

[skeeter1]

Nope. I was on anti-depressants for a while, and then I retired from my job. Once I was no longer around the Boss-from-Hell, I had no more use for them. I'm not sure they really did any good, but they sure were expensive.

 

[SteveS]

Have you ever had a client denied a dirver's license or access to other government services because he or she was depressed?

Yes, he was able to get a driver's license with documentation from his psychiatrist.

One of the conditions in MI for obtaining a CPL is that:

The applicant does not have a diagnosed mental illness at the time the application is made regardless of whether he or she is receiving treatment.

One could argue that he or she is not a danger to themselves or others and I think they would stand a good chance of getting their license, as long as they had the support of the person treating them. The statute also specifically mentions depression in another part. I believe a board would have a tough time denying based just on a mental illness and I believe there would be grounds for an appeal.

Based on a cursory scan of caselaw, a state agency could deny a CPL based on a mental illness if it can show that the mental illness would interfere with the ability to use a gun safely. I don't do ADA work, so I am not going to say how the court makes a determination. There was an ABA survey that said people making claims under the ADA lost 96% of the time.

 

[tmg19103]

If you had a client who was denied a driver's license soly on depression - with no other issues such as other psychiatric disorders, suicidal tendencies, history of violence, history of hospitalization due to depression or other issues outside of the depression, you should have referred it to an ADA lawyer and taken 30% of a big settlement.

I'm in Pennsylvania, which is a "shall issue" state and where the law reads that the reasons to be denied a CCW for mental illness go to "an individual who is not of sound mind or who has ever been committed to a mental institution".

"Not of sound mind" sounds subjective, but it has a legal definition in PA:

"lacking mental ability to understand the nature, consequences, and effect of a situation or transaction. This must be proven by by explicit evidence, and not by conjectural proof". i.e. eyewitness reports of threats of violence, dangerous self destructive behavior, an inability to feed or nourish one's self, inability to understand how to pay your bills, etc.

Yes, a severely depressed person could meet this criteria and usurp the ADA, but as far as everyday depression goes it is protected and the vast majority of depressed people who feel blue or sad understand the nature, consequences and effects of situations. In reality, to meet the criteria of not being of sound mind in PA you are legally just about at the point of being able to be involuntarily committed anyway - unless you have the constant care of family members in cases of alzheimers or the like.

What we also might be talking about are varying degrees of depression. Most people are not incompacitated by depression and live pretty normal lives with it. The federal courts have ruled that an inability to sleep well or a loss of sexual desire due to depression constitute a disability for which you cannot discriminate. If a depressed worker tells an employer his or her fatigue is caused by not sleeping well due to medically diagnosed depression, the employer is walking a very fine line on firing that employee for lack of job performance due to fatigue without first making reasonable accommodation.

If someone suffers from depression and the symptoms are an inability to sleep well and loss of sexual desire, that, at least in PA, has no bearing on receiving a CCW or buying a firearm. Your depression causes you to feel suicidal or go into violent rages (which happens in the vast minority of those suffering depression), then you are not of sound mind.

 

[Autolycus]

I was suffering from insomnia and an abnormal sleep schedule due to staying up late to write papers and do homework for some of my classes. I was going to bed at 6:00 am and missing class or not being able to sleep.

The medicine I was prescribed for this was to help me fall back into a normal pattern and it is effective. However the doctor did not tell me that it is also an anti-anxiety medication and that I would feel tired and drowsy all day long. I thought it was a common sleep aid but I was wrong.

I dont think it is right to deny anyone the right to own a gun because of their health or what medicines they are on.

 

[SteveS]

If you had a client who was denied a driver's license soly on depression - with no other issues such as other psychiatric disorders, suicidal tendencies, history of violence, history of hospitalization due to depression or other issues outside of the depression, you should have referred it to an ADA lawyer and taken 30% of a big settlement.

How many people have you treated? How many ADA claims have you been involved in? With all due respect, you don't seem to really know what you are talking about.

Depression, or even dysthymia, can be severe enough to warrant concern. What is "everyday depression"? What is medically diagnosed depression? Can you accurately predict who will go into a violent rage?

 

[tmg19103]

With all due respect in return, I don't know the exact situation with your client so that is why I provided caveats - and no you can't accurately predict who will go into a violent rage - depressed or not. Perhaps nobody should get a driver's license or CCW because anybody could go into a violent rage at any time? Me thinks not.

Those suffering from mental illness, assuming they are not violent, have rights. To assume that anyone who has been diagnosed with dysthymia or major depression, when they have never otherwise shown any behavior that indicates anything violent or suicidal, to assume they will go into a violent rage just because they are depressed is close minded and a violation of that persons rights.

If I were denied a driver's license based on a standard diagnosis of dysthymia (assuming mild to moderate symptoms and no history of suicidal ideations) I'd expect a strong advocate in my lawyer who would fight for my rights and sue the pants of the DMV and state. Then, some lawyers might prefer to make it into a long, drawn out fight in order to pad those billable hours. Other lawyers might be misguided and not understand that those diagnosed with dysthymia are in the majority of cases not dangers to society or themselves, but due to this ignorance those lawyers might not be strong advocates for the rights of their clients.

As for your client, no, I do not have all the facts, but do please tell me how I don't know what I am talking about. If your client is a suicidal person who suffers from road rage then no, of course he should not have a driver's license. If, however, your client just has standard symptoms of dysthymia, such as fatigue, a decreased appetite, trouble sleeping and some indecisiveness, what does that have to do with the potential for going into a rage and why should that person not be able to drive a car? How many non-depressed people get behind the wheel to go to work after a bad nights sleep while missing breakfast? Should we yank their licenses?

To further your statement that I don't know what I am talking about, I indicated that the inability to sleep well due to depression and impaired sexual relations can constitute a disability under the ADA. Please tell me how I don't know what I am talking about per the below links. Towards the bottom of the first link we read that the inability to sleep well due to depression can be an impairment per the ADA (as quoted by the EEOC) and in the second link the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled impaired sexual relations can constitute a disability under the ADA. Note I say "can" constitute a disability because circuits have different rulings on sleep as an impairment, but agreement is across the board at the SCOTUS level on sexual relations - however an impairment is always judged on a case-by-case basis. So, if your depression causes a major life impairment, you are covered under the ADA - however, if that impairment were to affect your ability to drive or own a gun in a safe manner, all bets are off. No doubt it is not a cut and dried legal area, but the mentally ill and people who suffer from depression do have rights and they deserve strong advocates - especially so deranged individuals like Cho can hopefully be found out and properly treated before we have another VA Tech. At the same time, those suffering from depression don't need to be pre-judged as suicidal, murderous maniacs just because they are depressed. Just as tens of millions of firearms owners did not kill anyone yesterday, 20 million or so depressed people in the U.S. did not either.

http://www.eeoc.gov/foia/letters/2003/ada_definition_sleep_apnea.html

http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/pdf/limitation.pdf

 

[Shrinkmd]

Psychiatric Help. $.05

Anyone remember that from Peanuts?

I could write a really long post about risk assessment and dangerousness among the mentally ill, since I do that for a living. From what I remember the studies said that people with mental illness are 2 or 3 times more likely to be violent than people without, although when you add in substance abuse the numbers go up. Also, women with mental illness have higher rates of violence, which are similar to men! Try looking up studies by Monahan on mental illness and violence.

I agree with the other poster on the notion that these are very low frequency events, and making huge changes to our laws and way of life trying to ward them off is foolish. Suicide happens all the time, and is one of the most common causes of death, but predicting one is very difficult. Lots of depression, mania, anxiety, psychosis, and substance abuse out there, and the overwhelming majority don't try it and don't do it. Hindsight bias is always 20/20.

Not that we appreciate this everyday. Remember the big article in the paper comparing your chance of dying in a car accident or drowning compared to terrorism? Then again, we all buy a lottery ticket every now and then to enjoy a dollar's worth of fantasy for a day or two. But we all know that the chance of winning is less than that of shooting sub-moa groups with a rusted out Mosin and that foul Albanian surplus ammo.

Mental illness is real, and treatment works. It's just like the rest of medicine though. When you have a broken bone sticking through the skin, you know what's wrong (and likely what treatment will be needed) before an x-ray. Unfortunately, most of medicine is still more art than science. Shucks, some people can have pneumonia even when their chest x ray is clear. Some people's blood sugar or blood pressure just doesn't seem to respond to medicine and other treatments. Some things just don't get better.

But to be on topic, no, I most certainly do not think that being on antidepressants, in a vacuum, should be used as a criterion for RKBA.

 

[SpeedAKL]

I take Paxil and I'm perfectly fine. I see no reason to deny people who have taken anti-depressants guns unless they've been shown to be unstable and/or in need of being institutionalized.

 

[[email protected]]

Anti depresants, depends on what for & type & amount, WAY TOO MANY VARIABLES, if anything enforce the MENTAL part on the form for this part. If you have been to the looney bin & are on or off the drugs & you are a menace without the pills then no gun. If you are on anti-depresants & can function not a menace or in the looney bin then you can get a gun depending on the rest of your background aka felon, legal age etc.

 

[tmg19103]

Hey ShrinkMD,

You got me curious so I looked it up. While I just found an overview, it does not offer any grand statistics and indicates that the major determinants of violence are socio-demographic and socio-economic factors such as being young, male, and of lower socio-economic status as opposed to being mentally ill.

I also think one significant differentiating factor would be between those suffering form milder forms of depression who take an anti-depressant as opposed to those who have much more severe mental illness along the lines of bi-polar, schizophrenia and other psychotic illnesses.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1525086