Comments on: On the Ethics and Implications of Outing a Child in the Media: The I Am Adam Lanza’s Mother Debacle

By: Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg

Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:57:31 +0000

Yes, my concern was that she wrote about it in the media without using pseudonyms for all concerned. I would have had no problem with the piece if she had written it for the benefit of professionals required by law to protect her son’s privacy and sense of safety.

By: JustMe

JustMe — Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:25:46 +0000

If she hadn’t written about this in the media but instead written something similar to a team of mental health professionals, and specifically pursued solutions out of concern not just for her child, but for her own safety and the safety of her other children, would you have a different reaction?

What if she described this whole experience pseudononymously? I have a feeling a lot of people read that article and thought to themselves, “Wow. I’m not the only parent who lives like this!”

By: A strangely vulnerable place | Broken Brain – Brilliant Mind

A strangely vulnerable place | Broken Brain – Brilliant Mind — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 14:33:18 +0000

[...] a ton of comments, apparently a lot of them were not that great. She followed up with a great post: Debriefing: On the Ethics and Implications of Outing a Child in the Media and she touched on many of the things I was thinking, myself. I hope you’ll read her piece [...]

By: Kathy Schnell

Kathy Schnell — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 00:43:16 +0000

Thank you for this article. I hope others will read it and learn. No matter how much one might identify with or applaud this woman for at least trying to address her son’s problems, to do so in such a public forum seems very cruel.

By: Elise Ronan

Elise Ronan — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 22:39:45 +0000

Perfect piece Rachel. Could someone please worry about this child, instead of telling us how “brave”this narcissistic sad excuse for a parent happens to be. Also just out of curiosity, why does everyone think that what she is saying is the honest truth? What makes everyone think that she is not only culpable in the child’s issues, but that she is doing everything she can to help him simply because she says so?

Also where is the boys father in all of this? Where is social services? Where are the police? Where is the juvenile system?If this child is as dangerous as this mother alludes why is there no intervention from the state? A child with issues does not act out only at home where no one else sees it. We all know that behavioral issues are not controllable and don’t only shows itself at specific times during the day preferably when there are no witnesses to the problems. Could it be that the reason there are no services for this youngman because all he is, is an adolescent acting out against his parents own self-centered narcissistic existence?

By: Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg

Rachel Cohen-Rottenberg — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:46:27 +0000

Dorit, I’m not sure what discussions you’ve been reading, but I’ve been reading comments that suggest that the woman’s child should be lobotomized, institutionalized, locked up, and drugged; I’ve read others saying that he was a genetic mistake who should never have been born because people like him wreak havoc on society; and I’ve read still others that suggest that all people with autism and mental illness should be put away — and worse. And I have not yet heard the woman publicly defend her son (or anyone else) and say, “Stop saying such horrifying things about my beautiful child, and stop saying such horrifying things about people with autism and mental illness.”

Those kinds of comments are very much along the lines of the “mentally ill people are dangerous” variety. On my own blog, people said that it was important that mothers break anonymity so that “we know who these people are,” with the clear implication that they are a danger to society. The I Am Adam Lanza’s Mother article drew a clear and direct line between mental illness and school shootings — a correlation that has yet to be proven by anyone. In so doing, it added to the store of stigma against mental illness. It didn’t subtract from it one iota. And it had that effect not just because of its content, but because it was published at the exact moment that people were frightened and in shock. That is not the moment in which people are going to be able to have a thoughtful discussion.

If we’re going to reform the mental health system, we can’t do it because we think that mentally ill people are going to grow up to be school shooters; we have to do it because mentally ill people deserve to live decent and fulfilled lives. If the whole basis of reforming the system is that mentally ill people are potentially dangerous (which is true for only a very, very, very small fraction of people with mental illness), then the reforms are going to go in the wrong direction entirely.

By: Dorit

Dorit — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:22:28 +0000

I just read your original point, and I wanted to reemphasize: I think you’re right. Completely. This should not have been done to the child. His life will never be the same again, and in a horribly bad way. I take back the “probably not”. But I still say, this is the ONLY piece I’ve seen that led to comments of the “let’s fix our mental health system” variety rather than “mentally ill people are dangerous” variety. But doing it on the back of a child is very distressing.

By: Dorit

Dorit — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:17:18 +0000

Look, I agree with your points. The piece would have been much better anonymously and without the child’s name. And I don’t see why she could not have done that. Doing this to her child is really probelmatic. But unfortunately, I do feel the only way people will currently have a constructive conversation about public health – i.e. the kind of conversation where people are saying “we need to improve the treatment of mental health” and not “the mentally ill are dangerous, let’s beat them up” is by putting a face on it and by a cry of help. I’m hearing a lot of the latter, but that article is the only one I saw generate a discussion of the former. It’s working. Does that justify doing that to the child? Probably not; but please let some good come out of it.

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 05:31:20 +0000

This seems to be a trend in the world today. You need to post your personal and private information on the internet for the whole world to see. To those of us who are rational we just shudder to think how many people are out there doing that exact thing. I truly feel sorry for the trails this women has obviously been through; but I feel even more for the young man who now (more than likely) feels worse than before. Maybe one day we’ll learn, along with the National Media, that EVERYTHING under the sun does not need to be published.

God bless you for what you’ve said, I for one know that it helped me know what I was feeling.

By: Ruth

Ruth — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 03:13:46 +0000

Thanks for writing this. I think you are spot on regarding the privacy issue. She could have expressed her concerns anonymously to protect her son, without sacrificing any of her honesty. (I have to say that when I first began reading the piece, I assumed he was dead. But even then, it would be troublesome to write about your child this way.)

I wonder, though, if you have concerns other than the effects on her son. Do you object to the content of what she wrote? It sounds like you do. Even if she wrote it anonymously, she is still sounding the alarm about volatile children like hers son, who (unlike Lanza, apparently) has a history of violence. Can you say a bit more about what you would find objectionable if she wrote her piece completely anonymously, so that her son could not be identified?

I have my own worries, but I would be interested to hear yours.

Ruth

PS Very nicely written, BTW.