It seems appropriate that I would introduce myself...this being my very first blog. I am John Trepp. I'm still not quite sure what it means to blog. I think it's where I can call bullshit, bullshit.
I have worked for Tasks Unlimited for the last 30 years. Tasks is a non-profit based in Minneapolis serving adults with mental illness. We follow the Fairweather Model which creates an environment where people with schizophrenia and bi-polar disorders can manage their illnesses and lead productive, “normal” lives. I am constantly amazed by the accomplishments of Tasks clients – people who have been told they can’t work or lead normal lives because of their illness, but do so anyway.
Along the way, I have been involved in The Barbara Schneider Foundation, the Coalition for Community Living, the Minnesota Association of Community Rehabilitation Organizations, the Minnesota Extended Employment Advisory Committee, the Hennepin County Mental Health Advisory Committee, the Task Force for Redesign of the Civilian Review Authority, and other related activities. I also wrote a collection of short stories, Lodge Magic, and a stage play (a dark comedy) by the same name, which was a big hit at the Minnesota Fringe Festival.
Through my years, I have found our public mental health care system dysfunctional – mostly because it is designed to meet the needs of staff, not the needs of the service consumer, nor the interests of the general public. My hope is to influence and empower those interested in mental health care to make real change. My passion is to see those with mental illness find what they want most in life, a good job, a nice place to live, and meaningful relationships. My dream is a system which is accountable to those served and those who pay for it.
Posts
3 comments:
Hi John,
You have been involved in a different level of the mental health system than I have, but I have similar concerns about how the system all too often seems to focus on the needs of the provider. Of course, changing the system is a huge project, but it seems to me that changing it to better serve the consumers would be worth doing; primarily because of the benefits for them, but also because of the benefits to society, and also I think that it would be a more cost-effective approach.
Dick Sethre
Hi John, You bring up some good points. Yes, all of the stakeholders should be looking at the welfare of the subjects. the IRB does some good things, but I agree about the compensation part and the issue of true informed consent. Having done research with the population with whom you work, the IRB expects that you obtain consent with people who are not currently psychotic.
It would be good for panel members on the IRB to have a better understanding about the context and the population with whom research is conducted.
It's good that you raise these points. Esther
John,
I am glad you are adding your unfettered voice in this blog - not that your voice has ever been terribly fettered.
Mindy Greiling
Post a Comment