Whether the young man had a politically based motive to kill Rep. Giffords or not is still speculation. But what we do know is that the alleged murderer is obviously and clearly a very troubled person. What we do know is that he lives with his parents and that others who knew him also knew that something was wrong. So the only question I have right now is this: why didn’t anyone help him?

When we know someone who is troubled, delusional, and unstable, the signs will be there. Someone with the internal rage, delusional behavior, and unstable thought process like this young man exhibited will not be able to hide it easily.  So why was he ignored? As we know all too well, if we ignore, avoid, or deny the serious mental health problems of those we know, it may only result in tragic consequences for that person and/or for others. In fact, recent research has shown the correlation to untreated mental health problems and violence…and the problem is on the rise.

So what do we do when we know someone who needs psychological help? If the problem is critical and you have reason to believe that a person is a threat to themselves or others, it is imperative to call an emergency helpline or the police. An involuntary hold may be necessary for psychological assessment and treatment. If you don’t have reason to believe that the person is a threat to themselves or others, there are other options to get them the help they need. First, call their doctor and explain your observations. If they do not have a doctor, call your State’s department of mental health, social services department, or a local hospital to get the assistance you need. The person may or may not be willing to get help, but there are resources for you to get them assistance if they are uncooperative. Make sure to be supportive towards the person and offer to go with them to their appointments. Be understanding, compassionate, kind, and respect their feelings. It is scary to get treatment for psychological problems, so be mindful of their emotions.

Signs that someone may need immediate psychological help:

1. The person cannot function well in day to day life. He or she has major problems in school, staying in school, keeping a job, or has problems creating and maintaining healthy relationships with others.
2. The person has frequent confrontations with others, outbursts of rage, or gets into fights.
3. The person has frequent mood-swings and major highs and lows.
4. The person has prolonged sadness or irritability (depression).
5. The person is anti-social, keeps to themselves, and is very withdrawn.
6. The person exhibits paranoid or obsessive behavior and has excessive fears and worries.
7. The person exhibits delusions or hallucinations.
8. The person has dramatic changes in eating and sleeping patterns.
9. The person is often confused.
10. The person has a substance abuse problem.
11. The person denies their symptoms.

Tens of millions of people in the U.S. have mental health problem and the vast majority are not a threat to themselves or others. However, there are those who are and who will need immediate care. No one can say the tragedy in Tucson could have been avoided if this young man received the psychological help he obviously needs. However, if any change can stem from this tragedy, it’s that more people will be tuned into the mental health needs of those in our lives and help them get the psychological assistance they need.

I, for one, applaud San Francisco.

Having once worked on a public health-driven task force with the SF Board of Supervisors, I wasn’t surprised about the ban. The health of San Francisco’s residents, especially among children, is a big issue among city officials. With childhood obesity on the rise and the growing number of Type II diabetes cases among children, I agree that it’s important to put an end to enticing children with a fun item for an unhealthy product.  I liken the use of toys to promote and sell Happy Meals to the use of cartoon images to sell alcohol or cigarettes. The death of Joe Camel was a good move among advertisers and I believe that an end to the inclusion of toys with unhealthy meals for children will be a good thing as well.

Some people are up in arms about the ban because they don’t want government telling them what their families can and cannot eat (doesn’t the FDA do that already?). This ban does nothing of the sort. This ban is ultimately about marketing and advertising unhealthy products towards children. As a parent, it’s also about rewards. I want to see our society go back to a healthier era when it comes to the consumption of food. Children used to be rewarded with a treat if they ate their healthy dinner. However, in the past few decades, we’ve been rewarding children with toys when they eat an unhealthy fast food meal.  If parents and fast food chains want to really reward a child, put a toy in a bag of carrots. Give a small portion of a dessert after a child eats green beans with dinner. To me, that sounds like the happiest meal of all.

What do you think about the ban? Would love to hear from you.

Should Fatties Get a Room? (Even on TV?)

Yes, the article is as bad as you might expect. Maybe worse.

In response to a new TV show called “Mike & Molly,” which is about an obese couple that meets at an Over-Eaters Anonymous meeting and falls in love, author Maura Kelly complains that she is sickened by the thought of watching fat people make-out. In her words:

“I think I’d be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other … because I’d be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything. To be brutally honest, even in real life, I find it aesthetically displeasing to watch a very, very fat person simply walk across a room”

What is wrong with the author of this blog post? Or the folks over at Marie Claire who not only apparently prompted the content of the article but decided that it was OK to publish it as well?

It’s not OK.

Marie Claire is a magazine aimed at young women and girls. It is a magazine that primarily features beautiful, very skinny, and heavily airbrushed models, actresses, and celebrities.  You will rarely find overweight or obese models in their ads or editorials. And, when you do, it is made out to be a big deal.  Just like most fashion and beauty magazines, a form of Fattism already exists in these publications by the overt exclusion of people with a BMI over 25.

It is very sad to read an article like this anywhere, but especially in a respected fashion magazine. When a publication is already a part of the vicious media world that encourages the ever-increasing problems of eating disorders and disordered eating issues, then perhaps they might want to consider helping combat the problem rather than make it even worse.

As much as the media likes to portray one standard of beauty (read: thin), it’s never been more necessary for us to recognize that health and beauty comes in all shapes and sizes. We’re not all size 0, 2, 4 or even a 12. We should never be expected to weigh a certain weight or wear a certain size solely because of the media images that inundate us every time we look at a magazine, turn on the TV, watch a movie, or go on the Internet.

The author asks if she is being an “insensitive jerk” with her attitude. I say, yes. But, perhaps even worse, you’re being a bully. For the author and anyone else who agrees with her, I have only one suggestion – maybe it’s time to work on yourself before you ask the same of others.