All posts by Hollis Easter

Involuntary Hospitalization and Mental Health

How New York’s laws about mental health and involuntary hospitalization work

Involuntary Hospitalization presentation copyright 2014 by Hollis Easter. All rights reserved.

Several years ago, I was asked to help explain how people get sent to psych hospitals involuntarily in NY, whether for suicidal thoughts or homicidal behaviors. It turns out that a lot of people are uncertain about which laws apply, how they work, and what they do.

The same questions often come up when I’m teaching people about suicide prevention or suicide intervention, because someone usually says “just send ’em to the mental hospital!”. It’s not that simple.

New York’s Mental Hygiene Law Article 9 covers hospitalization of the mentally ill. It’s a long and somewhat challenging read, and most people’s eyes glaze over pretty quickly. Moreover, much of what’s in Article 9 never gets used in small rural counties like mine because we don’t have the relevant facilities or specialists.

But this is important stuff.

Involuntary hospitalization involves depriving people of their liberty in order to protect them, or society, from immediate harm. It’s a safety valve the law allows for dealing with emergency situations. But we shouldn’t take it lightly, and it’s essential that people follow the laws when invoking it.

So I made this presentation. It uses instructional design principles, and it ought to help make this complicated subject more clear. I believe strongly in the importance of finding stories to tell about the material we’re teaching, and I hope I’ve given you some pathways into understanding the provisions of NY’s Mental Hygiene Law.

Because of this presentation, I was honored by the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (the national professional organization for instructional designers) with their NSU Award for Outstanding Practice by a Graduate Student in Instructional Design. Thanks, friends! I built this presentation during my fifth week in graduate school, so I’ve learned some more things since then, but I’m still proud of it.

I encourage you to watch the video, since it walks you through the tools I designed, but if you’d like to see the flowchart in fixed form, here it is:

Involuntary Hospitalization Flowchart, copyright 2014 by Hollis Easter
Involuntary Hospitalization Flowchart, copyright 2014 by Hollis Easter

Errata

In the years since I made the video, Ruth Ayen has retired as Director of Community Services in St. Lawrence County. The phone number remains the same, so if you need help with a pickup order, call and ask to speak to the current DCS.

Disclaimer

I’m not an attorney. I work in the mental health system and interact with involuntary hospitalization procedures for my job, but I am not an attorney and you shouldn’t consider this legal advice. If you’re using this presentation for training or guidance, you should seek legal counsel to make sure you’re choosing well.

Listening Isn’t About Giving Advice

I cringe a little whenever I hear some well-meaning person say “I’m planning on going into social work—people tell me I give great advice”. Or when someone applies to volunteer at my crisis hotline and says “well, I love giving advice, so this seemed like a great fit”.

See, I think that listening and giving advice are fundamentally different.

Listening involves helping others to tell their stories. It is essentially a receptive process, whether done with “active listening” skills or passive ones. Listening involves becoming a vessel into which others can pour their worries, their passions, their joys, their questions, their hopes, and their fears.

Listening isn’t really about changing the other person. That’s not the goal. The point of listening is to understand better, to connect with the other person, and—perhaps most important—to leave him feeling understood. Sometimes that may lead the person toward new insights or set the stage for potential changes, but the interpersonal connection is the main event.

Feeling understood, feeling heard, feeling like you’re not dealing with things alone, feeling like you matter to another person… these are the hallmarks of good listening.

The paradox is that good listening is simple to grasp and quite difficult to do. In principle, it’s easy: get the person talking, get out of the way, and help them along if they stumble.

In practice, it’s more challenging. It takes experience to know when to offer help, to tell the difference between a person who needs a conversational nudge and a person who’s just searching for the right word. There are all kinds of skills you can learn to help draw out people’s stories, put them at ease, or help them clarify their thinking. But the essence is this:

When you listen, you let the other person fill you with their story. It’s not about changing their story, telling them what it means, telling them what they ought to do about it, or saying what you think. At its heart, listening just involves sharing another person’s story for a while and giving them a chance to tell it.

Giving advice is different.

Advising people involves sharing your knowledge, wisdom, or opinions. Rather than being receptive like listening, giving advice is a dispensing process in which you pour forth your own ideas into the listening vessel of the other person.

That’s still valuable sometimes. Sometimes people want help figuring out what to do about their problems, and they may approach you because of the knowledge and experience you possess. People may genuinely want your advice.

Listen first, though.

Have you ever been to a doctor and found them writing a prescription before you’d finished saying what was wrong? Told a friend about a problem and been told what to do about it before you had even gotten to describing the real issue? Ever had to grit your teeth while someone advised you to do a bunch of things you’d already tried because they didn’t bother to ask what you’d already done?

Then you know what it’s like to receive advice from someone who isn’t listening. It stinks.

Listen first. Help the person tell their story. Invite them to pour it out and share it with you. Let yourself receive, let yourself be the vessel, let yourself be filled.

If, later on, they want advice, they’ll ask. They’ll ask to receive your knowledge, they’ll open themselves to your wisdom. They’ll make themselves the vessels, and they’ll ask to be filled. Once that happens, share what you know. You’ll probably find that, by focusing on listening first, you have a deeper understanding of the situation and can give better advice.

Receiving a story is different from dispensing knowledge, and that’s why listening is pretty much the opposite of giving advice. Both are valuable, but it’s important to start by listening.

Remember, too, that listening matters in its own right, not merely as a prelude to giving advice. Sometimes hearing the stories is enough.

Doublethink in Obama’s ISIS/ISIL Declaration

“Taking out” ISIS / ISIL

President Obama spoke to the nation last night (full text here) and announced that the US is going to “take out” the Islamic State “wherever they exist”, “through a comprehensive and sustained counter-terrorism strategy”. He went on to say that we’ll be carrying out many airstrikes against targets in both Iraq and Syria.

We’re going to war in the Middle East. Again.

ISIS/ISIL is terrible. Most of the world agrees. Something needs to be done about them. Most of the world agrees with that, too. And the US is going to “lead a broad coalition” into war to stop it. They say it’ll be quick; they say it’ll be clean. I’ve heard that before, but maybe they’re right this time.

Obama isn’t seeking Congressional approval for this, and that makes me really uneasy. Technically he needn’t, since he gave notice tonight and it (for now) falls within the 60 days of military action allowed by the War Powers Resolution, and yeah, Congress can’t agree on anything anyway—but the checks and balances are there for a reason. If Congress can’t agree that going to war is necessary, is it necessary? Should it be?

Asking Congress to provide money for training rebels in Syria isn’t the same as asking for a declaration of war, and asking for bipartisan support after announcing what we’re going to do isn’t really the same as asking Congress to participate in the process.

Maybe it’s not really a “war”. Maybe it’s just a police action or something.

Doublethink

George Orwell coined the word doublethink in his novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and described it thus:

“The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed…” — George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four

I think Obama is asking us to hold two contradictory beliefs when he justifies immediate military action to address threats to our nation and then says ISIS hasn’t threatened us yet.

In tonight’s speech, Obama said (emphasis mine):

“I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are . . . This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.”

and continued:

“This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.”

Threaten us and you will be bombed. ISIS is threatening us, so we’re going to bomb them. Right?

“If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond that region – including to the United States. While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies.”

So, they might threaten us at some point in the future, but not yet. But we’re still going to bomb them.

Doublethink is believing two things that contradict each other. Isn’t it doublethink to say that terrorists are threatening us, could threaten us, have threatened us, and have not specifically threatened us, all in the same 15-minute speech?

So what?

Mr. Obama, if there’s a clear case for going to war against the Islamic State, make it. Tell us why. Be specific about what you plan to do and why it will help.

If you won’t bring it to Congress, acknowledge that and tell us why. We’re smart people; tell us why you think this is necessary.

But don’t ask us to go to war to defend against a threat that you aren’t sure exists. If we’re fighting to protect ourselves, tell us about the threat to the USA. If we’re protecting other people, tell us that—and justify it.

Saying we’re going to destroy ISIS because they threaten us even though they haven’t threatened us yet? Not good enough.

Don’t ask us to kill people just because they might threaten us in the future.

 

(Conor Friedersdorf says many similar things in his article for The Atlantic. Jack Goldsmith does the same in Time.).

Slow Tunes Down with REAPER for Learning By Ear

I play and teach traditional music, and I’ve found that students often struggle with learning tunes by ear—the music is really fast, it’s intimidating, and it’s hard to get started. Picking up music quickly by ear is a skill worth developing, and I’d like to help you do it.

It’s really valuable to slow the music down at first. Eventually, you’ll be able to sit in a session and pick the tunes up on the fly, but let’s start small. Technology can help you a lot here!

We’re going to use REAPER, an awesome digital audio workstation software package, to slow down music while keeping it at the same pitch. The “at the same pitch” is important because most software lowers the music’s pitch—its key center—when it reduces the speed. That means you can’t play along with it anymore, and that’s not useful for us.

Get yourself a copy of REAPER at www.reaper.fm and then come back to this tutorial.

Watch how to slow down the tunes

I recommend watching the video, since it shows all the steps and lets you hear the results.

( you may want to watch the video in full-screen mode, or see it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_9KLaCNB_Q&feature=youtu.be )

How to slow tunes down (walkthrough)

Open REAPER

Open the REAPER application and start a fresh project if needed. If you’re just getting started with REAPER, it should open a blank project automatically.

Insert Media File

Go to the “Insert” menu and select “Media file…”.

This will allow you to add an MP3, MP4, or other audio file to the project. If you’re using iTunes or some other digital audio player on your computer, its default music files ought to work just fine.

Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 12.12.48 AM edited Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 12.13.12 AM edited

Here’s what you’ll see after you select a file to insert.

Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 12.13.41 AM edited(You can also click-and-drag a track directly from iTunes into REAPER. Just click on the track in iTunes and switch windows to REAPER. You’ll see a dark box appear under the cursor. Drag it to the left, to the beginning of the project, and release the mouse. REAPER will import the file automatically for you. Slick!)

Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 12.13.55 AM edited

Press space bar (or the play button) to test your audio setup and make sure you can hear the audio. You may need to press the rewind button (farthest left) first.

Find the “Rate” slider

Look at the right side of the control bar that has the stop/play/pause buttons in it. You should see a horizontal slider with the word “Rate” above it, and a number (probably 1.0). This is the current master playback rate in REAPER.

Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 12.14.10 AM edited

If you just drag the Rate slider right now, the music’s speed will change, but its pitch will change too. So if you’re trying to learn a tune in E major, you’ll hear it slower but now in D or C or even A major. That’s usually not desirable; we want to keep the pitch stable and keep the pitch the same.

Right-click on the Rate slider

This brings up a context menu. If you’re on a MacBook Pro like I am, you can either hold control while you click or, much easier, click with two fingers on the trackpad.

Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 12.14.13 AM edited

Select “Preserve pitch in audio items when changing master playrate”

Make sure there’s a checkmark next to the “Preserve pitch” menu item. You can ignore the rest of these options for the moment.

Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 12.14.49 AM edited

Drag the slider to set your new playrate (playing speed)

I like to do this after starting the music again (press space or click the play button), so I can get a sense of how fast I want it.

Each time you change the playrate, the music will drift to a different key momentarily, but it’ll snap back to the original key after a half-second or so.

Screen Shot 2014-09-10 at 12.15.06 AM edited

And hey presto, you’re playing in E major, but at 85 beats per minute instead of 175!

I guess that makes it “hey andante”.

Recommendations for learning by ear

This technology gives you a powerful tool, but it can become a crutch if you overuse it.

Practice trying to pick up the tunes at their original speed, and only use the slow-down technique when you’ve tried the quicker tempo and have found yourself needing a little extra help.

After you’ve gotten the tune figured out, keep bumping the speed back up until you’re playing it at the original tempo.

I’ve found this useful for learning the bagpipe and fiddle tunes I hear on albums, but it’s also good for figuring out what kind of ornaments a favorite musician uses. I sometimes use it to record my own playing and then listen back at a slower speed so I can diagnose problems and figure out where I’m falling off a tune or playing with bad technique. Slow practice is really valuable.

Have fun, and happy playing!

Get REAPER at www.reaper.fm, and please—pay the money to register it if you like using it. It’s not expensive.

Voting for ‘Unviable’ Candidates

Unviable Candidates

I’m tired of being told to vote for a candidate who’s “more electable”, as if that’s somehow a valuable proxy in favor of a candidate whose values I share, whose wisdom and judgment I trust, and whose plan I support.

I’m tired of being told not to “throw my vote away” by voting for people I’d actually like to see elected.

I’m tired of going to war because the pacifist guy wasn’t “electable” enough.

I’m tired of watching climate change become irreversible because doing anything meaningful to stop it hasn’t made it to the top of the political expedience dung heap yet.

And most of all, I’m tired of telling myself that I’m doing my civic duty by voting for people I don’t want merely because they’re better than the likely alternatives. When I do that, I’m part of the problem. If the point of having citizens vote is because there are a lot of us and we’ll work to make sure the best ideas filter up into government, voting against our own interests is violating the trust the system places in our hands. Governing is done by those who show up, and I’ve been showing up in the wrong camp.

So today, I’m resolving to change that. I cast a ballot today for Zephyr Teachout and Tim Wu in NY’s gubernatorial race, not because I think they’ll win, but because I think they should.

If enough of us throw away our votes on unviable candidates, we win. Let’s get started.

Victory for the Lobster Boat Blockade!

There’s a lot of celebration in my corner of the world today.

Last year, my friend Jay O’Hara and his friend Ken Ward bought a lobster boat, christened it the Henry David T, and used it to blockade a harbor at Brayton Point in southern Massachusetts. Their enemy wasn’t the invading British, or an advancing navy—they were staving off the arrival of the Energy Enterprise, a freighter carrying 40,000 tons of West Virginia coal. They called it the lobster boat blockade, and plastered the boat with a sign saying #coalisstupid.

Why?

Because that coal, when delivered to the Brayton Point Power Station, was destined to be burned, releasing huge quantities of greenhouse gases and contributing to the climate change that may well make the earth uninhabitable by humans. Dr. James Hansen, NASA’s climatologist, says it’s utterly imperative that the coal stay in the ground if we’re to have any chance of slowing climate change.

So they blocked it. Not forever, but for a day. In so doing, they broke a bunch of laws, broke a bunch of unwritten rules, and got a lot of attention for the cause. People started paying attention to Brayton Point, and they started making noise.

They, with others, got the plant’s owner to agree to close it in 2017. This is the largest coal-burning plant in the Northeast, and it’s going away. Thanks to the movement they kindled.

What about the trial?

Last year, Jay and Ken started working up their legal defense, and they decided to use a necessity defense: asserting that their actions were ethically mandatory because, basically, a livable planet is necessary for us all.

Jay O'Hara-2013-10(thanks to Alex Krogh-Grabbe, who shared that image for my tune: Jay O’Hara of Bourne)

Jay and Ken explain the necessity defense, and their reasoning, really well.

Lobster Boat Blockade / Climate Trial

Today was the trial. I had a lot of hopes and prayers for it, and here’s what I wrote last night:

Friends, please think and pray for Jay O’Hara and Ken Ward today, as their trial (the soon-to-be-infamous Climate Trial for the ‪#‎LobsterBoatBlockade‬) begins Monday morning in MA.

They blocked a coal delivery to Brayton Point Power Station by anchoring their lobster boat in the docking slip last year. Their quiet, peaceful, non-violent direct action sparked a movement that has led to Brayton Point’s owners announcing plans to close it.

Now they’re on trial for breaking the law to protect the planet. They’re using a necessity defense, which basically says that the harm of inaction outweighs the harm of action.

Jay is one of the most humble, faithful people I know. He’s a dear friend, and I desperately wish I could be there with him in the courtroom. Please send light and prayers and energy for Jay, Ken, their friends and families, and for the jurors who’ll be asked to consider their case.

http://www.lobsterboatblockade.org

Today, the news was shocking.

The District Attorney, Sam Sutter, dropped the conspiracy charges and reduced everything else to civil infractions, carrying a $2,000 fine and no jail time. The trial is over, and the DA implicitly accepted the necessity defense by choosing not to prosecute.

But there’s more.

The DA said, in his press statement, “The decision that … I reached today was a decision that certainly took into consideration the cost to the taxpayers in Somerset, but was also made with our concern for their children, the children of Bristol County and beyond in mind. Climate change is one of the gravest crises our planet has ever faced. In my humble opinion, the political leadership on this issue has been gravely lacking.

The DA also announced that he plans to attend the huge climate rally in NYC in two weeks. Allies in unexpected places. But it’s wonderful to be reminded that, in a world full of terrifying wars and anguishing news, a world where individual people are ground beneath the boots of hatred and oppression, a world of fear and anxiety and hopeless disconnection, that it’s still possible for a few people to plant the seeds of change together.

There is, of course, more to be done. There will be other direct actions, other trials, and other tough choices to make. But today, for the first time, there’s legal precedent for the idea that sometimes peaceful, non-violent direct actions to save the planet aren’t just admirable…

… they’re necessary.

Read more about the #lobsterboatblockade and #ClimateTrial at www.lobsterboatblockade.org.

Ten Years of Progress on Suicide Prevention

It’s Suicide Prevention Week/Month right now, and a lot of people are still talking about suicide in the wake of Robin Williams’s death. There are a whole lot of lifeguards working to make our world safer from suicide. We have farther to go, but it’s appropriate to take stock and honor how far we’ve come.

My work on suicide prevention really began in 2004 when I took a full-time job as a program director at a suicide hotline in northern NY. Our field has done a lot in the last ten years. Here are some of the things that make me glad, and some thoughts about where we should head next.

People are openly talking about suicide more than ever

This is the biggest one. We talk about suicide a lot more than we ever used to. If it’s necessary to reduce the stigma of talking about suicide before we can reduce suicide itself, we’re making progress.

You see forums on the net, press conferences, media guidelines, support groups, task forces, and counseling guidelines. There’s more research being funded, and more research being done, than there was 10 years ago. That’s huge.

People who struggle with thoughts of suicide have a much broader selection of ways to find help. Whether they want anonymous or personalized help, it’s out there.

And people are talking. People say the word. If we can’t talk about the problem, we can’t fix the problem, and our world has started talking in a big way.

Suicide awareness coalitions are growing

Our regional coalition here in St. Lawrence County, northern NY, has been meeting for at least a decade, but that’s pretty unusual. NY’s Office of Mental Health is actually paying staff to go around and support regional coalitions all around NY, based on the idea that local people often have the best ideas about how to organize and change the local cultures.

Disseminated groups and coalitions are a fantastic way to advance the ball on suicide prevention because they’re small enough that they usually do their work based on real people who actually know and care about each other personally.

We’ve organized awareness walks, funded dozens of suicide intervention trainings, and helped thousands of people to talk directly about suicide. Not bad for a tiny group in a county of 112,000 people!

Coalitions are on the rise across the country, and I hope we’ll see that trend continue.

Crisis hotlines are alive and kicking

It’s probably obvious by now that I love crisis hotlines. My resume and my blog both speak to that. Part of the reason I love hotlines so much is that they’re among the most efficient ways to reach vulnerable people. Our hotline offers 24/7 coverage, with an additional professional staff of mobile crisis counselors, on about $250,000 a year. For a county that’s bigger than Delaware and Rhode Island put together.

There are crisis hotlines all across the country, and many have fallen on hard times as state governments have chosen to fund different kinds of initiatives. That’s hard for us because we’re really effective and we’re embarrassingly inexpensive, but we keep slogging. The field is chock-full of dedicated, caring people who keep doing the work despite all the hurdles.

Hotlines are better trained than ever, thanks to a host of initiatives aimed at providing tools and training for things like ASIST (Applied Suicide Intervention Skills Training), QPR (Question, Persuade, Refer), the Lifelines curricula, Connect Postvention, and more. Hotlines across the country are leading the charge to make sure that people who work with the public should be trained in talking about thoughts of suicide.

I believe the average crisis hotline volunteer in this country has more suicide intervention training, on average, than the average therapist with an MSW or Master’s in Counseling. That’s something to be proud of.

We need to do a better job funding hotlines, because too many are going out of business due to budget shortfalls. That needs to be a focus of legislative, public health, and community advocacy, and we need stabilized funding soon.

Training is available for caregivers

Training matters. It makes a difference. And there are a lot more options than there used to be.

I’ve taught suicide intervention trainings for potential caregivers in many states, and there are too many people like me to count. There are a lot of people learning how to do a better job of caring for people at risk, for populations at risk, and for people who’ve lost loved ones to suicide.

We’re still learning what works. Sometimes we get it wrong, and we fix it. We keep learning, and we keep teaching people the best of what we know. But there’s a lot more demand for my classes than there used to be, and that’s fantastic. We need tons of lifeguards.

Governments are helping

All across the country, governments are helping with the suicide prevention mission. They’re working to improve access to care, providing training (and training for trainers—New York’s government paid some $14,000 for me to have the instructor training I’ve received, and I could never have done it without them. Thanks, Melanie, Fred, Gary, Pat, Cassandra, Sam, and all the rest!) and support, improving surveillance of deaths, providing support for research, and connecting concerned people in disparate fields.

This is great. It’s important. And it’s a role no other kind of organization can really play.

Everybody complains about government sometimes, but they deserve our recognition and thanks for their support. They’re doing a lot more than they were a decade ago, and I hope it continues to grow.

Live Through This and voices for attempt survivors

For a long time, the suicide prevention world didn’t like to talk about attempt survivors—people who’d attempted suicide in the past, but survived. They were made to feel like black sheep in the community, often shunned, sometimes feared, rarely welcomed.

This has to stop. And it’s beginning to. A lot of us are talking about lived experience.

Thanks to courageous people like Cara Anna, Dese’Rae Stage, Leah Harris, and others, the voices of suicide attempt survivors are getting heard. There are projects like Dese’Rae’s LiveThroughThis.org that give attempt survivors a chance to tell their stories.

Our community desperately needs the knowledge that comes from people who’ve faced suicide and chosen to attempt it—they’re the people who know what that feels like, and by definition they’re our best chance to understand how to help people standing at the edge of the same cliff. By including them, our efforts and credibility get a whole lot stronger.

The American Association of Suicidology also deserves a lot of credit for choosing to support these people in telling their story, both by using its media presence to amplify the signals and by providing space and sponsorship for attempt survivor groups to write.

#SPSM

In each of my fields, professionals have started using Twitter to meet for distributed, open weekly gatherings. We talk, we share stories, we disseminate good ideas.

It’s all about speeding up the rate at which we share our best ideas so others can pick them up and run with them. Last week, I got to be interviewed on #SPSM (Suicide Prevention in Social Media), the Twitter chat for this field. It meets at 9pm Central on Sunday nights, at the Twitter hashtag #spsm. Join us!

NSPL and Veterans’ hotline

The National Suicide Prevention Lifeline is a free suicide hotline that’s available at 1-800-273-TALK from anywhere in the USA. Ten years ago, there wasn’t any such hotline in wide use. Now, there are several. There’s a hotline just for veterans that’s embedded within the NSPL line; just press 1 after NSPL picks up.

I still believe really strongly that local hotlines are important—many people feel more comfortable talking to folks from near where they live, people who understand some of what life is like. But the NSPL is a stupendous achievement, an invaluable backup that’s available for everyone in the country. It’s a huge deal.

I have some concerns about the centralization of power and funding in the hands of a few giant hotlines because I think it weakens our network’s resilience for dealing with problems, and some of these big organizations do threaten the funding of smaller ones. But on the whole, they’re a really good backup for smaller regional organizations.

CrisisChat and CTL

This may come as a shock, but a lot of people prefer texting or chatting over talking on their phones. Calling someone on a phone is uncomfortable for some people, and our field has gotten on board with that. If you can’t beat ’em—and why would you try?—join ’em.

I served on the national board of Contact USA for four years, and I was part of the team that got CrisisChat.org rolling. (big thanks to Jill Wolski and Shye Louis for their leadership there!) CrisisChat was one of the first groups to offer SMS- and text-based crisis counseling and suicide intervention to people living anywhere in the country.

Now CrisisTextLine is carrying the torch forward. More and more, we’re doing a good job of making sure that people can get help even if they don’t want to speak.

This is important partly because of generational issues—kids and teens think of suicide too, and many of them can’t or don’t want to talk about it in places where others might hear.

Speaking for myself, if I’m really upset I often find it hard to make any words come out of my mouth—but I can always type. I’m glad that we’re finding ways to help people like that.

Mandated suicide intervention training for clinicians

We tell people to seek out trained caregivers if they’re thinking of suicide, and that’s a good idea—but the embarrassing truth is that most states don’t require any suicide intervention training at all for people earning degrees in social work or counseling.

In my years as a suicide intervention trainer, I’ve lost count of how many times clinicians have come up to me to offer thanks for the training, saying it was more than they had received in their entire graduate programs. This stops me in my tracks when I hear it at the end of a 16-hour ASIST program, but it leaves me gobsmacked when I spend 2 hours teaching QPR and find that it blew clinicians’ hair back.

California and several other states are talking about mandating suicide intervention training for professionals who work with people with mental illness. (I’m not wild about making suicide intervention all about mental illness, but it’s a place to start.) We train teachers on reporting child abuse, we require doctors to learn to identify cancers, and it’s right for us to expect mental health professionals to be prepared for helping suicidal people.

American Association of Suicidology and the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention

It’s no secret that I prefer local initiatives over national ones when it comes to helping individual people, but I think it’s critical to have national frameworks in place for helping to share ideas, disseminate experiences, debate approaches, stabilize funding, and pay for research. I think local groups do a lot of things really well, but we’re too close to the problems to do a great job interacting with federal systems, insurance, research grants, and the like.

So there’s a big role for groups like AAS and the NAASP to play. By taking the 30,000 foot view, they can bring smaller groups together, advocate for their needs, swim in the shark-infested waters of Congressional lobbying, and work to identify and address broad trends in the field.

It’s fantastic that these organizations exist, and even better that they’re strong. They’re supported by government funding, by private donations, and by networks of professionals. We need staunch advocates, and it’s a privilege to work with the people who make up these groups.

So what’s next?

We’ve done a lot. It’s good to recognize that. We should celebrate it, and the people who’ve made it happen, even while we keep our eyes resolutely fixed on the future.

So what comes next?

Here are some of my thoughts and concerns.

Funding stability

As I’ve said, I think funding stability is the Achilles’ heel of our field. A lot of the organizations are near the edge financially, and there isn’t always enough money to keep the lights on. Budgets get trimmed and then slashed, and programs melt away.

More tragic is that when that happens, the people in the field—people with wisdom and experience earned in the trenches—often leave and don’t return. We have a brain drain problem, and it’s exacerbated (and sometimes outright caused) by the fact that our funding bites.

Expanding roles of hotlines and support organizations

Our field now sees suicide less as its own issue—like domestic violence, or sexual assault, or substance abuse—and more as the continuation of any issue when taken too far past a person’s coping skills. Push anybody hard enough and some of them are likely to start thinking about death.

Suicide hotlines take calls about a cornucopia of issues, and people aren’t always thinking about suicide when they call. We’re being asked to support larger and larger groups of people on smaller numbers of dollars, and eventually the dam will break.

It’s wonderful that we’re encouraging so many people to call hotlines. I think that’s great! I think it’s amazing that people feel good about calling suicide hotlines about such a wide swath of issues, and I want to be very clear that I want that to continue.

But without additional funding and supports in place, eventually mistakes will creep in. We need support, and we need money, and we need it now.

Wrap-around care and coverage

I want to be able to interface with the broader world of health care and mental health treatment. I want to be able to help put supports around callers who want them.

It would be great to be able to make appointments for people, help them follow their treatment plans, and be sure that we’re following the guidelines of their therapists or psychologists. In many cases, we can already do that because of existing relationships with treatment providers.

But really, until health care is available to everyone, and available at a price everyone can afford, people are going to keep slipping through the cracks. While price remains a sticking point, we’re going to keep talking to people who cannot afford to get psychiatric treatment, and people will continue to prioritize buying food for their kids over buying antidepressants for themselves.

With universal health care, I expect to see a lot more tools available for helping people with thoughts of suicide.

Self-care for caregivers

This is dumb. You’re probably rolling your eyes right now. I’m rolling my eyes as I type it.

But God, do we ever need to figure this one out. I’ve been here ten years and already I’ve seen too many people burn up, burn out, and turn to ash amid the constant pressure of this work. People get into it because they’re passionate, because they’re smart, because they really care. There’s so much beauty in that.

But we, both within the suicide prevention world and in our culture at large, lionize people who work too hard and don’t take care of themselves. We make them our poster children, we talk about their incredible dedication, we compare ourselves against them, and we hold them up as examples of what success needs to look like. I have envied the workaholics, and I have also been one. I have stood on both sides of this issue. And I probably will again.

But until we look at this and change ourselves, as a culture, we’re going to keep valuing short-term work output over long-term sanity and survivability. We’ll keep seeing the best minds of our generation dragging themselves out into the streets at dawn so they can get a few extra hours of work done.

As long as we consider it more worthy to work 70-hour weeks than to work 35-hour weeks, this will continue. As long as we encourage people to feel guilty for taking care of themselves, this will continue. And as long as it continues, we’ll keep losing caregivers to the relentless depredations of stress, exhaustion, and overwork.

Suicide is preventable, and so is burnout.

Access to care

We need better ways of making mental health care available across the country, especially in rural and poorer areas. This plays into the universal health care argument, but it’s also different.

In my area, a lot of people work multiple jobs. A lot of those jobs are hourly ones, and people can’t routinely take time off without losing their jobs. How the heck are they supposed to go to medical appointments and counseling sessions?

I see it as one of the great failings of our professions that the treatment model and context still looks much the same as it did in the 70s. You still come to an office in a central location during business hours and make an appointment with a professional to sit in their office for 30-60 minutes and talk.

It’s a great model as far as it goes, but it structurally and systematically excludes a lot of people whose lives make it impossible to walk in the door: hourly workers, stay-at-home parents, people without access to transportation, and more. We can and should look for ways to make all forms of mental health care more accessible, and I’ve got more thoughts on that (coming sometime soon). Breaking down these barriers to care needs to be a priority for the next ten years.

Let’s do it.

Spirit Airlines Doesn’t Care About Being Offensive

The other day, I wrote about my complaint about Spirit Airline’s ridiculous, offensive email making funny of the Jennifer Lawrence (et al) stolen nude photos thing.

Here’s what I sent to them on September 3rd:

Hi friends,

I was really upset by the promotional email you sent today aping the Jennifer Lawrence photo thefts. Here’s my response, with thoughts about what you could do to fix this.

https://www.holliseaster.com/p/spirit-airlines-wants-cash-jennifer-lawrence/

Thanks for your attention. I would like to fly with you again.

And here’s their reply on September 6th (from Sylvia S., 75 hours later), emphasis mine:

Dear Hollis,

Thank you for contacting Spirit.

At Spirit, we’re all about saving customers money. Our innovative approach of promoting our ultra-low fares and charging for optional services helps us keep costs low and pass the savings along to customers. Because we don’t spend millions of dollars on advertising like other airlines, our email promotions are often attention-getting. Our intent was not to offend, simply highlight a great low fare in an off-the-wall manner.

We appreciate you letting us know of your displeasure; please know your comments, questions and concerns assist us in providing increasingly better service.

Sincerely,
Sylvia
Spirit Airlines Support

The non-apology apology

Boiled down, their response reads like this:

“We’re a business. We’re a great business. We’re a cheap/poor business, so we use attention-getting tactics. We didn’t mean to offend anyone; we’re just zany. We get it that you’re upset; we’re ignoring your complaint but are providing increasingly better service anyway.”

They don’t think they did anything wrong. They think it was cute and “attention-getting”. Yep.

Notice that “we apologize”, “we regret”, “we’re sorry”, and “we promise not to do it again” don’t appear anywhere in their response.

Disappointing to say the least.

Nested Quotation Marks

Our standard usage rules for quotation marks drive me nuts. I want to replace them with simpler ones.

I sometimes get email from people saying “I have a question for you”, and sometimes they say “I think I found a problem with your punctuation”. Their English teachers felt, as mine did, that closing quotation marks should come last in a sentence. Note the positions of comma and period in my first sentence.

So they’d frame that sentence this way:

I sometimes get email from people saying “I have a question for you,” and sometimes they say “I think I found a problem with your punctuation.”  *

Note that the comma now comes before the quotation mark, and the final period is enclosed within the final quotation. That’s the standard way.

It gets more complicated if we enclose this thing within a larger statement and use parentheses or brackets or braces or other paired marks; should we write:

I sometimes get email from people addressing literary style questions (usually beginning with “I have a question for you”, or “I think I found a problem with your punctuation”).

Or:

I sometimes get email from people addressing literary style questions (usually beginning with “I have a question for you,” or “I think I found a problem with your punctuation.”)

Which is clearer? To me, the first example wins on clarity of expression. I can easily tell which marks refer to what.

The history of punctuation is against me in this, albeit without clear justification. Will Strunk and E.B. White, in their classic Elements of Style, say of quotations (emphasis mine):

“Typographical usage dictates that the comma be inside the marks, though logically it often seems not to belong there.” — Strunk & White (2000) p. 36

Seems like they’re kind of ambivalent about the standard rule’s value. When it comes to parentheses, another form of paired marks, Strunk and White take my view (emphasis mine):

“A sentence containing an expression in parentheses is punctuated outside the last mark of parenthesis exactly as if the parenthetical expression were absent. The expression within the marks is punctuated as if it stood by itself, except that the final stop is omitted unless it is a question mark or an exclamation point.” — Strunk & White (2000) p. 36

In that long sentence above, we run into a problem with the standard approach because we don’t know where to put the period at the end. Does it go inside the quotations? At the end of the larger sentence? Where does it go? Which rule is pre-eminent?

Toward logical quotation marks

I think paired punctuation marks, including quotation marks, should be nested.

I’m basically arguing that we should extend Strunk & White’s rule for parentheses to all paired marks. In essence, they suggest that we should consider paired marks as nested punctuation, literary matryoshka dolls that fit together without crossed boundaries.

If we punctuated the earlier sentence the way Strunk & White advocate doing, exactly as if the nested-punctuation expression were absent or removed, it would start like this:

I sometimes get email from people addressing literary style questions.

And expand to:

I sometimes get email from people addressing literary style questions (usually beginning with QUOTATION, or OTHER_QUOTATION).

Is it such a long, convoluted, stylistically-incorrect leap to expand it to this?

I sometimes get email from people addressing literary style questions (usually beginning with “I have a question for you”, or “I think I found a problem with your punctuation”).

It all makes sense. It all nests. Everyone can still understand. It’s easy to teach because there are no special cases to teach, no gotchas, no caveats scriptor.

This approach will be familiar to anyone who’s studied math, science, or coding. It’s hard to come up with an example of non-nested punctuation for these things because it wouldn’t make sense.

(x,y) = [sin(ø,) cos(ø])

$str = concatenate(“purple,” “red,” “green.”); // or perhaps
$dictionary[“pizza]” = “A delicious baked flatbread with piquant toppings;”

It just wouldn’t make sense. We’re teaching people to express concepts with nested punctuation in STEM classes; why are we contradicting it in English class just for historical consistency?

Doing it the non-nested way requires writers and readers to spend energy debating which rule supersedes the other, and sets up a distinction between quotation marks and other paired marks that has no logical value. It contradicts the usage of punctuation marks that’s taught in math, sciences, and coding.

On a deeper level, I think that illogical rules disproportionately burden people learning English as a second language. They are a small but significant social justice issue. They impose a typographical shibboleth on people whose schools weren’t great or whose home languages punctuate differently. These rules serve as filters that place invisible barriers in the path of language learners, and they force writers to use cognitive energy to figure out which rule to follow.

It’s work for no purpose.

So I don’t do it. When I’m writing for myself, you’ll mostly find that I just say “farewell”, or perhaps something less polite, to that rule. I’ll make quotations (like “this” and “that”) into self-contained entities that don’t interfere with the broader punctuation of the sentence.

Nested punctuation is a small thing. It’s not a huge deal. But I think it’s one way we can make our language more logical, easier to learn, and simpler to understand.

*: Some people also feel that a quotation mark always requires a mark to its left, so they’d write … from people saying, “I have a question for you,” … rather than omitting the comma after ‘saying’. I mostly omit it, feeling that it doesn’t add much value for clarifying the sentence’s meaning.

Identifying Dandelions in Autumn

You’ve still got plenty of time to make yourself some dandelion tincture before the snows fly. Although it’s best to catch dandelions when they’re flowering so you get those tasty flowers into the mix, it’s fine to make the tincture without them.

In late August and early September here in northern NY, there are still plenty of healthy dandelions to be found. So let’s get looking!

How to identify dandelions

Dandelions, French for dents-de-lion or lions’ teeth, have several characteristics that help you identify them. You need to see all of these to have a positive ID.

  1. Large, dark green leaves with toothed or lobed edges. They sort of look like someone took a plain leaf and cut teeth into it with pinking shears. If it’s a straight edge, it’s probably not a dandelion.
  2. A basal rosette. That means a bunch of leaves and things issuing from a central point and radiating outward from it in all directions.
  3. If flowers are present, they are bright yellow with lots of short, straight petals. The key point is the flower stem: it is thick, hollow, breaks easily, and exudes a whitish sap when broken. Usually the stems have a reddish or purplish shade, at least around here.
  4. If you dig up the plant, does it have a taproot? That’s a thick, long, central root that plunges deep into the soil.

If your prospective plant doesn’t fit these guidelines, don’t use it.

Dandelion or not?

Are these dandelions?

2014-09-02 14.41.06 edited

Let’s take a closer look.

not-dandelions, annotated

Okay, so they look kind of like dandelions. Let’s apply the key:

  1. Toothed/lobed leaves? No. I can’t even tell whether there are any leaves attached to these things, but they’re certainly not large with toothed edges.
  2. Basal rosette? No. Again, I don’t see leaves at all, and I certainly don’t see a basal rosette pattern.
  3. Yellow flowers? Yes. Thick hollow reddish/purplish flower stem that breaks easily and has milky sap? No. Look at that big tall center flower and its obviously green stem. Its stem is also whiplike and strong.
  4. Taproot? Unknown. If a plant has failed the earlier tests, leave it alone. No need to kill it just to check its roots.

So I’m gonna go ahead and say this one isn’t a dandelion, because it fails several points of our tests. I think they’re actually some Asteraceae relative, if memory serves.

What about these?

dandelion, annotated
Looks like a dandelion to me. Let’s check.

  1. Toothed/lobed edges? Yes. Both of the large plants in this picture have leaves with in-cut edges. They’re a bit different from each other; genetic drift is like that. But these both pass the toothed-edge test.
  2. Basal rosette? Yes. Do you see how all the leaves tend to issue from a central point, as if they’re clustered around in a circle? That’s what a basal rosette is*.
  3. Yellow flowers? No, but there aren’t any other kinds of flowers either. Thick hollow reddish/purplish stem that breaks easily and has milky sap? No, but there aren’t any flower stems.
  4. Taproot? Yes. If we dug these up, we’d find that they had taproots that looked kind of like this one:

2013-09-23 00.04.31

At this point, I’m pretty confident calling this a dandelion.

Final thoughts

If you’re not confident about your plant identification, use common sense: don’t eat that plant. Ask someone who knows, or compare against known samples.

You can look up Taraxacum officinale, the scientific name for the common dandelion, and you’ll find tons of pictures. Or you can look for videos. You can learn to use a dichotomous key, which is a botanical tool for characterizing plants by the ways they differ from each other. The short checklist I gave above is an example.

This checklist is the one I use in identifying dandelions to use in making dandelion tincture. I hope it helps you!

If you’re confused or want more pictures, check another source before you go eating wild plants. Here are some good ones.

*Random factoid: basal rosettes are thought to have evolved as a defense against grazing animals, since their lack of main stems and low-to-the-ground habit make them harder for a cow or sheep to get their teeth around and destroy the whole plant. They might lose some leaves, but the plant survives.