The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
LetterFull Access

The Cost of Not Treating Serious Mental Illness

Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.50.8.1087-b

In Reply: Dr. Torrey misunderstands the point of my article. I think it is commonly believed that money spent on persons with serious mental illness is not as well spent as it might be on other forms of mental illness. His own statistics suggest how great the need is—and how far we are from meeting that need.

Perhaps Dr. Torrey is correct in saying that if we had all the necessary figures, a perfectly good case could be made for treatment, on the grounds of the "greatest good for the greatest number." But I do not believe in that principle anyway, nor did I mean to invoke it in my article. Instead, I was trying altogether to avoid that kind of numbers game. I wanted to argue that, regardless of the numbers, the claim of the seriously mentally ill was a perfectly strong one, not needing such backing. Indeed, I said that group should have the highest priority. I made the argument on the grounds of what I consider the appropriate goals of medicine, a case that does not need cost-benefit arguments to sustain it.