Mental Health Court: Saving Lives or Harming More? A Critical Look at the Approach of Advocate Janet McCabe

Janet McCabe is a mental health advocate that I have known and respected for over 30 years. However, I do not agree with the approach of Mental Health Court, which seems to operate on the premise of “take your drugs or go to jail.” In her recent piece, Ms. McCabe listed five objectives of Mental Health Court, but disappointingly, none of them focus on improving the lives of the defendants. Instead, four of the objectives aim to lessen the burden on the state, while the fifth is about increasing safety. But mandating mental health treatment does not necessarily lead to increased safety.

Ms. McCabe concludes her piece by claiming that Mental Health Court saves lives, but I question the validity of this statement. The medications required in Mental Health Court have been known to shorten people’s lives by 20-25 years and can even lead to suicide and homicide in some cases. Despite efforts to improve mental health outcomes in Alaska through initiatives like The Law Project for Psychiatric Rights’ white paper, progress seems to be lacking. It is clear that Alaska has the potential to do better in terms of mental health care and treatment. The solutions are out there, it is just a matter of implementing them effectively.

This issue weighs heavily on my mind and I believe it is important to openly discuss and address these concerns