The American Psychiatric Association (APA) recently expressed concern over media coverage of mental illness, lamenting a focus on sensational, violent cases. They offered “helpful tips” for reporters, aiming for more accurate portrayals. But a critical question arises: why is transparency regarding a perpetrator’s mental health history so rarely prioritized, if not entirely absent?
It’s often during moments of tragedy – mass killings or acts of extreme violence – that mental health enters the public conversation. Shouldn’t the public have access to information about a perpetrator’s diagnosed conditions and the “treatment” they received? Such knowledge could reveal patterns in diagnoses and potentially highlight failures within the current system of psychiatric care.
Consider the case of Audrey Hale, who killed six people in Nashville in March 2023. Initial reports stated Hale had no mental health background, a narrative that shifted only after it was revealed she had been a patient at Vanderbilt University Hospital since age seven. The specifics of her potential diagnoses – depression, anxiety, or other conditions – remain undisclosed.
Crucially, details about Hale’s two decades of psychiatric drug “treatment” have also been withheld. This lack of transparency is particularly striking given the APA’s stated goal of reducing stigma. Wouldn’t a full accounting of her care potentially illuminate connections between prescribed medications and tragic outcomes, even if uncomfortable?
The APA seems wary of any suggestion that psychiatric drugs might contribute to violent acts, a correlation that could undermine public trust in these “treatments.” Yet, they offer guidance to reporters, asking if mental illness is even *relevant* to a story. In Hale’s case, twenty years of mental health intervention seems undeniably pertinent.
The APA advises against relying on hearsay and encourages consultation with mental health professionals for factual accuracy. However, even within professional reporting, misinformation can persist. A recent online article incorrectly stated that ADHD drugs “replenish depleted chemicals in the brain,” a claim demonstrably false according to neurological science.
This error highlights a deeper issue: a fundamental misunderstanding of mental health diagnoses and the mechanisms of psychiatric drugs. There is no scientifically validated test to measure “concentration chemicals” in the brain, yet this notion continues to circulate, unchallenged by the very professionals the APA recommends consulting.
The article further claimed that ADHD drugs “overstimulate the brain with pleasure hormones” differently in those diagnosed versus those without. This is also inaccurate. Pharmaceutical companies themselves admit they don’t fully understand how these drugs work, and their effects are not contingent on a pre-existing diagnosis.
In fact, the manufacturers of Adderall, Ritalin, and Vyvanse acknowledge the mechanisms of action are not completely understood. The illegal, recreational use of these drugs – often snorted like cocaine – underscores their powerful and potentially addictive effects, regardless of a formal diagnosis.
While the APA offers assistance with reporting, a more impactful step would be proactively providing the public with honest information. They could acknowledge that mental disorders, as defined in their Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-V), are based on consensus, not objective scientific evidence of brain abnormalities.
Furthermore, the APA could openly state that psychotropic drugs do not “treat” any confirmed biological disorder. This transparency, coupled with advocating for the release of mental health data in criminal cases, would significantly improve public understanding.
The pursuit of accuracy in mental health reporting is vital. But true progress requires more than just offering guidance to the press. It demands a commitment to honesty, transparency, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about the current state of mental healthcare.
