Month: March 2020

Intro/Thesis/Questions for my Issue Brief

Sydney Mccarthy 2 Comments

Title: Establishing Facilities for US Adults with Mental Illness

Intro:

A survey conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) division of the United States Department of Health & Human Services in 2018 showed that approximately 19.1% of the US adult (18 years and up) population experienced any mental illness such as mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder (AMI) during the 2018 calendar year.(https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.pdf) This percentage includes 23.9% of adults (with AMI) who had serious mental illness (SMI) and 7.2% of adults who had a major depressive episode (MDE). In fact, MDE is, sadly, the second most common mental health disorder prevalent in US adults each year(right behind anxiety which an estimated 48 million–or 19.1%– of US adults suffer from each year). (https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.pdf) These numbers correspond to 1 in 5 adults with AMI, and 1 in 25 adults with SMI (https://www.nami.org/learn-more/mental-health-by-the-numbers). While these numbers may seem shocking, they aren’t all that different from the percentages SAMHSA has gathered over the past decade (Figure 48?).

https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-reports/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.pdf

And, even if you are not directly impacted by AMI, you probably know someone who does, possibly in your own family. If we were to step back and look at the broader picture, it is remarkable to see just how much mental illness shapes the world we live in today. Providing a place for adults with mental illness will improve millions of US adults’ quality of life, will make for safer streets, ??. Also, by providing a place for adults with non-severe mental illnesses to talk either one on one or in a group environment would be a great help to those in need. It may also help stop mental illness from getting worse.

 

My overall outline (I reference it in questions):

1st – Background paragraph

  • Why isn’t there a place for mentally ill patients to go

2nd – Mental Illness in the Homeless Population

3rd – Quality of Life of Adults Living with AMI

  • discuss the suicide rate for those with AMI

4th – Why Now?

  • Discuss that this is a huge issue plaguing society and the reason we should do something about it now is because it is an issue we can solve now. The world has many problems going on right now, but not everything has a feasible solution at this time. However, right now we can do something about mental illness by establishing these facilities.

5th – Addressing Objections: The Cost

  • The solution to the cost issue is not as hard as one may think
  • I go into SAMHSA’s funding and the millions of dollars they receive each year for programs that are trying to provide relief to many of the groups who would be helped with the construction of these facilities. I go into this in more detail with exact numbers on my brief.

Conclusion

 

 

Questions:

  • How much detail should I give in the background of the paragraph?
  • The graph I have in my intro paragraph already has a figure number in it’s title. Should I edit it to take out the number, or leave it as is and reference it as “Figure 48”?
  • Should I take out the paragraph entitled “The Quality of Life of Adults Living with AMI” and instead write a paragraph about mental illness and the criminal justice system? I will way over exceed the word limit (which I am already struggling with) if I write both.
  • What do you think my infographic should display? I was considering doing something with the money and funding SAMHSA receives and what it could all be added up to be. I already have a chart that shows all the totals of the funding but I could make one that shows the money I think should go to this idea, but I’m worried that’s too repetitive.
  • As I was writing this post I also thought of another way to prevent cost objections through explaining how the government could buy abandoned buildings or closed hospitals to speed up the process. Should I bring this up?
  • Any other ideas of things you think I should change/do?

 

Issue Brief – Exigence and Rhetorical Situation

Sydney Mccarthy 4 Comments

Thank you all for your feedback to my last post! It seems like you all think that #1 is the best idea and I am excited to do some more research about this subject.

 

I believe that my audience would be the public, particularly members of society who can relate to the issue at hand. I believe that in presenting my brief to the public, I will be able to get more support and draw more attention to this issue. I also believe members of the population who are struggling with mental health themselves would really appreciate having somewhere to go and having some say in what should be done. Gathering support for this and bringing the opinion to someone who can do something about this would be very helpful in getting some potential progress in solving the issue.

 

I think I can frame my argument to make people see how big of an issue this is, especially in today’s fast-paced, interconnected, stress-ridden society. I also should bring up the issue of the growing homeless population in major cities and how providing some relief for those with mental illness could help potentially decrease some of these numbers.

Deliberation reflections

Sydney Mccarthy 3 Comments

Deliberation Nation was a very unique and exciting assignment. I enjoy leading discussions and speaking with new people and through these deliberations, I was able to do so!

It was very fascinating to get two different perspectives on the deliberation. For my group’s deliberation, “Okay Scooter…,” I was a moderator for Approach 2: Banning E-Scooters from PSU’s campus. Being the speaker and controlling the way the conversation went was like a fun game because I was –hopefully– able to get the audience thinking of the issue through new, different perspectives. However, I got to sit in the seat of the audience when I attended my roommate’s deliberation “To Stan or Not To Stan: How to Make Justice Possible for Cults of Personality.”

 

The deliberation discussed what should be done to hold celebrities accountable for what they say or do, especially when they have such a strong fan following who protects them. It brought up cancel-culture, deplatforming, and other methods that society can use to properly “punish” these celebrities.

 

This deliberation took place at the Fraser Street Commons on Wed, March 4th, 2020 from 5:00-6:30.

 

The deliberation was drastically different from my own in terms of the structure, presentation, attendance, relevance, and topic. That being said, it was very cool to see a discussion done in this format, too. I also think it is important to note that the moderators did a good job especially when considering the difficulty of creating and breaking down the various approaches (as it is very difficult to come up with three drastically different approaches to such a broad and situational issue).

 

One of the differences between the two deliberations was in the Analytical Process of “Create a solid information base.” My deliberation was more grounded using facts, numbers, data, as well as what stake the issue has in the community. However, the Stan deliberation presented a more broad topic and gave examples of the issue to demonstrate its effect on society. An example of this was when the overview team brought up Michael Jackson, his immense stardom, and the multiple, strong allegations against him. They asked us, the audience, our thoughts on what should be done to combat this and punish Jackson; or, if anything should be done at all.

 

Another comparison between the two deliberations was the Social Process of “Respecting other participants.” Both “Okay Scooter” and “To Stan” did a great job of listening to the audience and ensuring that all perspectives were heard. Where the two discussions differed, however, were in the amount of perspective brought to the table. The Stan deliberation, though in a smaller space, had many more audience members than my group’s deliberation. Because of the greater group, there was more of a variety of opinions and perspectives. An example of this was when someone who had been in a fandom of Nicki Minaj (called the Barbz), had to reflect on who she was associating with after the fandom had treated those who don’t like Minaj’s music, horribly.

This is not to say, that my deliberation did not have perspective as we were fortunate enough to have three varying perspectives within our four member audience: someone opposed to having scooters be permitted, someone who had a scooter themselves and therefore had a personal stake in the situation, and someone two people who did not have any personal stake and did not have much of an opinion on the subject at all.

 

Both deliberations were successful in the Social Process of “Ensure mutual comprehension.” In “To Stan” there were times when the explanation the moderators gave to the groups was not entirely clear and the group members had to ask the moderators for a different, more clear explanation. This especially occurred with Approach #3 whose argument and suggestions were not very clear. I believe the moderators in “Okay Scooter” did a good job of clarifying any questions posed by the audience, as well as asking follow-up questions to responses.

 

There was a huge difference with the Social Process of “Adequately distributing speaking opportunities,” however. The difference was not “bad,” as it just presented the entire deliberation in a much different format than mine had. “To Stan” was set up to have a rotating approach system where the audience was split up into three groups and each of the approach moderators rotated around the room to visit each group. This method was successful in accommodating the large group. Everyone was given a better opportunity to speak their mind on the subject. The format for our deliberation was, in my opinion, very successful relative to our group’s size.

 

Another difference between the two deliberations was in the Analytic Process of “Making the best decision possible.” When I am discussing the difference, I am primarily discussions the process in which the information that came out of the deliberation can be used moving forward. Whereas our topic and deliberation as a whole was structured around possible methods of legislation for Penn State’s campus to possibly implement, “To Stan” provided a more wholistic approach to the issue, concentrating on what society as a whole should attempt to implement for their own personal lives. For example, where “Okay Scooter” suggested banning scooters, creating regulations, or allowing e-scooters on campus, –all of which would be stated in the PSU community rulebook/guidelines– “To Stan” gave general approaches for how society can demand justice and hold celebrities accountable for their actions. One of their approaches was to suggest that we “burst the celebrity bubble” that makes these people seem like they can be held above the standards everyone else has to follow. It said to teach people not to hold celebrities up on a pedestal but instead view them as a regular person. This way people wouldn’t defend them after they did something wrong, but would instead allow for them to face whatever consequences they deserve.

I don’t think that either of the deliberations’ approaches to solving the issue was better or worse but it was interesting to note the comparison.

 

Lastly, another key difference was the Analytic Process of “Identifying a broad range of solutions,” particularly when evaluating the style of the approaches. In my deliberation, our approaches followed a scale of sorts that ranged from a complete ban of e-scooters, to a complete equality to bikes, giving e-scooter riders a lot more freedom. In comparison, “To Stan” had a variety of approaches that didn’t have any sort of range or scale.

Issue Brief Ideas

Sydney Mccarthy 6 Comments

I actually have three ideas for my issue brief and hope that you, my readers, can help me decide which of the two is better, or has a more solid foundation.

 

Idea #1: Lack of proper care for adults with mental illness

  • Problem
    • With Mental Health becoming such an accepted aspect of society, it is a surprise to find that there is still not proper places for adults with mental health issues. While children experiences symptoms of any variety of mental health difficulties have many options for care, families with an adult with the same issues, don’t.
    • This problem has existed for decades. The lack of a place for mental care stems from President Ronald Regan’s order to close all mental health facilities. “Why would he do that?” you may be wondering. Well, this order was put into place due to the terrible ways the patients were being treated –which goes to show that mental health systems for adults have been failing almost since their beginnings.
  • Effects
    • The lack of somewhere for these patients to go has caused a variety of issues from high suicide rates to high homelessness rates, both of which I will discuss in detail later in my brief.
  • Solutions
    • Possible approaches to this problem include:
      • Keeping the overall situation the same, and attempting to fix each issue on its own. For example, providing more homelessness support outlets and having more education in the adult world like company wide mental health promotions.
      • Providing more accessible, clinic-like opportunities for adults to attend for free.
      • Lastly, an additional solution would be to reinstate facilities for adults to go, but require more restrictions and regulations as to what the facilities can and cannot do with regards to the pacients
        • However, a drawback to this is whether or not this could be mandated, and the cost this would be to contract and maintain.

Idea #2 – The impact a lack of sports (due to the corona virus) has on society

  • Problem
    • Due to the rapid spread of the coronavirus, the sports world as a whole has come to a complete standstill. This stoppage is unlike anything the community has ever seen before.
    • In my brief, I will discuss what has caused the sudden stoppage (in terms of what triggered the athletic leagues to move so quickly in shutting everything down), what this message says to fans and athletes alike, and what the ramifications are on the sports world and on the fans who are left with nothing.
    • One very interesting factor in the sports world shutdown is the effect on viewers and fans of the games who are left with nothing. This may seem silly at first glance, however, when looking at it through a real, first-hand perspective, it is clear what watching their team every week does for the psyche of a person: it provides a relief, and an escape from the mundane, stressful world they live everyday.
  • Effect
    • I want to investigate the effect a lack of sports have on society, and on the fans who depend on their teams as an escape from the stress and hectic nature of their everyday lives
  • Solutions
    • Have the sports networks show old games and matchups to provide some stimulus for the fans
    • Encourage the sports talk and speculation to continue on the various sports networks
    • Encourage the leagues to continue playing but with enforcing corona virus tests for every player
    • Broadcast e-sports on the networks

 

Idea #3:

This one relates to my one post relating to players in professional sports leagues and their charity and advocacy about issues close to their hearts. I think that I could discuss the controversies surrounding whether or not players should be permitted to speak their minds and protest, and use their platforms (including on live television) to promote those beliefs. There is a variety of situations and examples I could draw from including the Hong Kong controversy and the methods professional sports are implementing advocacy within their league. I could also discuss Colin Kaepernick and other players who have taken such drastic measures to promote their issues.

I also think it would be interesting to approach this from the perspective of the players and through the perspective of the leagues, to not allow for any of my bias to influence the paper. This could have a mandate policy, where players could be punished for their actions should the league deem their actions harmful.

I think this could be a good issue brief because whether people are aware or not, the sports world has a great influence over society, the economy, and the well-being of the country. With these factors in mind, I believe I could investigate each one individually and create a paper with a lot of substance.

 

Please let me know your thoughts on these ideas, I look forward to hearing them! Currently I am leaning towards my 1st idea and my 3rd idea (as my 3rd idea relates to my civic issue theme), but let me know what you think. Thanks!

 

Also, I hope you, your sister, and your family stay safe and get better soon Dr. O’Hara!