Why do we spend so much time, energy, resources and $$money$$ on coming up with one definition of recovery? Last time I checked, everyone has their own definition of what recovery means to them. And all are right and okay. If everyone does what is right for them, even if we appear to be opposites, we're all right and okay.
This reminds me of the 'discussion' that has lingered for ages about what to call ourselves. Guess what? I will self identify as what I feel is right, and if you self identify as what you feel is right, even if they are different, we're both right!

Our state, like many, has been following the 'recovery' model to close its hospitals and migrate its MI population to the streets , adult care facilities (nursing homes), and the state prison system, since there's not money enough for what has been defined as appropriate community care. Without funding for quality community care -- and the political will to welcome people who are designated MI into our communities -- this will continue to be the outcome across the country. We've got some huge issues we need to face: like the fact that stigma has actually INCREASED since the medicalization of our MI model ("he's not eccentric; he's got a broken brain"). Which means that the people who could be our best political backers are "in the closet" to protect their own professional lives. I don't know how to solve this, but I know that until it's solved, the money will continue to be unavailable for what's most needed.

A key principle for Recovery is mutually respectful dialogue. In October 2010, the following "idea" received top or second place votes in just about all forums. WHAT HAS SAMHSA DONE, AND WHAT IS SAMHSA DOING ON THIS IDEA????

Challenge the undue influence of the pharmaceutical industry in mental health care.
Create more non-drug alternatives in mental health. A SAMHSA summit of key mental health consumer and psychiatric survivor leaders passed the following position paper, please support it:

Bastille Day 2010 Statement – Rockville, MD

14 July 2010

The Urgent Necessity for More Non-Drug Alternatives in Mental Health Care

We are alarmed about the over-reliance on psychiatric medication in mental health care because of the undue influence of the pharmaceutical industry. We see an urgent need for a far greater range of non-pharmaceutical mental health care.

We are participants in the USA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) meeting, “Past, Present, and Future: SAMHSA Efforts to Promote Consumer/Survivor Inclusion.” We are speaking today only for ourselves as individuals, and not for SAMHSA. We applaud SAMHSA's endorsement of the values of peer support, social justice, self-determination, trauma-informed care, and a dignified life in the community for everyone.

As leaders in the mental health consumer and psychiatric survivor movement, we affirm the principle of choice in mental health care, and continue to work towards the elimination of coercion in all mental health treatment. We support the right of those who willingly choose to take prescribed psychiatric medications.

However, the inappropriate prescriptions of psychiatric medication are harming a wide range of the USA population, including infants, vets, people of color and seniors. Severe side effects are contributing to heartbreaking suffering and approximately 25 years of ********* mortality for people in the public mental health system. Advertisements, the media and far too many mental health organizations are disseminating misleading information about psychiatric medication. Some individuals are even involuntarily administered psychiatric drugs over their expressed wishes, including on an outpatient basis.

Our constituency's right to choice, empowerment and self-determination in mental health care is threatened as never before, in the USA and internationally. We call upon SAMHSA to work with their federal partners and consumer/survivors to:

• Address the conflict of interest in the current relationship between the federal government and the pharmaceutical industry.

• End direct-to-consumer advertising for psychiatric medications.

• Complete the President's New Freedom Commission recommendation to investigate the long-term effects of psychiatric medication.

• Independently research on the efficacy, safety and successful ways of reducing psychiatric medications.

• Research and fund non-drug alternatives such as mental health peer-run respite centers and recovery-oriented education.

We encourage all those concerned to speak out about this crisis.

Signed:

Ellen K. Awai
Randall Bosin
Jean Campbell, Ph.D.
Gladys DeVonne Christian
Mary Ellen Copeland, Ph.D.
Jonathan David, Ph.D.
Daniel Fisher, M.D., Ph.D.
David Fuller, CPRP
Patrick Hendry
J. Rock Johnson, J.D.
Jacki McKinney, M.S.W.
James McNulty
David W. Oaks
Pat Risser
Stephen Robinson
Gilberto Romero
Lauren Spiro
Sharon P. Yokote, HCPS

With all due respect, this Recovery "wish list" omits a key factor. Our most severely mentally ill cannot reach a level of recovery without awareness. An ever growing population of psychotic individuals (bi-polar, schizophrenics) require intensive, focused treatment that does not exist today. Lacking insight, they live in denial about their illness and remain untreated until they pose a dangerous threat to themselves or society. Even then, there is no guarantee for treatment. Strict laws intended to protect the mentally ill, prevent family from accessing the much needed care for their loved ones. Forced to involve the judicial system, many of our most ill live in a revolving door between jail and shelters where they suffer further indignity and are placed at great risk. The suggestion that recovery is a "behavioral" process, is insulting to this population who battle their demons every day.

If recovery emerges from respect and hope, then let us recognize the urgent need for reform. Recovery begins only with proper diagnosis, treatment and resources, including after-care and adequate housing. The Definition of Recovery as it stands now, is not inclusive of all mentally ill and needs to not ignore the needs of our most vulnerable.

Rather than focusing on a definition of recovery, I would like to see SAMHSA's
plan/proposal for the much needed funding, research and education that would allow recovery for all.

Thank you for the opportunity to address this very important topic.

Sincerely,
CGT

Goethe said that if you treat a person as he is, he will stay as he is. But, if you treat him as if he were what he ought to be, he will become what he ought to be and could be. As a professional in the mental health field, and the parent of a child with a mood disorder, I know first hand that hope and expectation for a full and inclusive life are essential for our peers with mental health issues. The expectation that one has something meaningful to contribute is essential and should be a goal to which we all strive.