Psychological Problems are not a Form of "Illness"

ADHD is a joke condition, you were just a wee cunt, face up to shit.

someone who shoves carrots up their arse could be thought of as mad. But they could be thought of as just horny....there are no boundaries when it comes to thought patterns so there is no point in even trying to find them.

My earlier example of frostbite also fits into that definition, but it's clearly not an 'illness'. To try to make out that the 'symptoms' of schizophrenia are caused by an underlying illness are at best useless, since noone has ever found it, and at worst lead to an over-reliance on biological 'cures'. There is no underlying disease or illness - the 'symptoms' are all there is.

Hmm while I think there are some anti-psychiatry arguments that deserve sending up in this fashion I also think there is an element of truth to the idea that psychiatric diagnoses serve a purpose to the status quo in terms of social control. For example if someone is sacked from their job, and as a result can't support their family and gets evicted from their home they are likely to feel extremely stressed and depressed as well as blaming themselves for letting their family down etc etc. All sorts of harmful and debilitating depressive and psychotic experiences/feelings could result from this traumatic series of events, which are clearly tied up with issues of class and power. In comes a psychiatrist and tells them that their problem is not that capitalism has driven them mad but rather that they are sick, abnormal and have bad genes, and that the cause is a mysterious 'illness' which the problems they are experiencing are symptoms of - clearly he is acting as an agent of social control.

Perhaps I'm missing an illuminating insight, but a large part of this debate seems to be splitting hairs over what people consider to be an "illness".

magnifico states that, e.g., bipolar disorder is not an illness because it is not a disease that can cured. At best this is an argument from ignorance: we don't know that bipolar disorder isn't caused, perhaps only in some cases, by a disease. Bipolar disorder may be a condition which naturally emerges in a properly functioning body. The same is true of haemophilia or cystic fibrosis.

It is also argued that drugs are a fundamentally unsatisfying solution because they don't treat the cause of the disease, but merely the symptoms. Although treating causes is obviously better, this inability of medical science is not a unique feature of mental illness.

Referring back, haemophilia has no cure (yet). All that can be done is to treat the symptom. Diabetes cannot be (yet) cured: only the symptoms can be treated. The underlying causes of cancer cannot usually be cured: treatment consists of destroying tissues which have turned cancerous, rather than correcting the genetic errors which accumulate in all cells and enable cancer to start.

Few people would argue that haemophilia, diabetes or cancer are not illnesses, even though they have no cure.

Does the pharmaceutical industry medicalise mental illnesses, pushing for the use of drugs as a treatment even where the evidence of their efficacy is shaky at best? Of course they do. There's money to be made, and the pharma industry is capitalist.

It should be clear that this trend isn't limited to mental illnesses. The health industry is keen to medicalise many undeniably physical conditions which perhaps shouldn't be considered worthy of medical treatment. The growth of the "health supplements" industry is a simple example of people selling "drugs" as a solution to self-diagnosed illnesses which may not even really exist in a particular patient, and where they do will usually be more effectively treated by a change in diet.

No doubt it's easier to push this kind of fakery in the field of mental illnesses. It's hard for a doctor to disprove that a patient has an illness which has no known physiological cause and symptoms that are entirely subjective. It's also relatively easy for a suggestible patient to be tricked into thinking they have those symptoms.

But none of this should be misinterpreted as an argument against the medical treatment of mental illnesses in general. Many people have a genuine need for supplements because, for whatever reason, their body is unable to extract or synthesize the nutrients they need in the quantities required. The fact that, say, 99% of people who take supplements are wasting their money doesn't lessen the effect they have on the 1% who do.

The same applies to mental illnesses. Studies which prove that a certain class of anti-depressants are not significantly more effective than placebo for mild to moderate depression but are effective for more severe depression, may mean that 90% of people who are taking those anti-depressants are wasting their money: but it doesn't mean they don't work on the 10% with severe depression. (In the UK, at least, 90% is probably too high an estimate: NHS policy has discouraged the use of SSRI anti-depressants for mild to moderate depression since 2004.)

TLDR: The fact that many or perhaps most cases of mental illness are bogus -- where the chief cause of symptoms is the availability of a treatment -- does not mean that mental illness in general is bogus. The fact that drug treatments for mental illness, genuine or not, only treat the symptom and not the cause does not mean that drug treatments for mental illness in general are bogus.

LOL

Does anyone these days think that mental illness is caused by genes? The nature/nurture debate is so over, everyone knows mental illness is caused by the complex interactions between the two. As for saying that someone who is depresed and psychotic is sick and abnormal, I have to agree with the \doctor here.

I wish it was true that psychiatrists couldn't wait to label me with a diagnosis in the name of social control - maybe then I'd get moved up the waiting list.

Also, prescription charges? bastards.

But in haemophilia a problem with the body can be identified which is causing excessive bleeding, the lack of a clotting agent, in diabetes the body is unable to produce insulin properly, which causes the symptoms people get from diabetes, in cancer cells are being reproduced in a harmful fashion, which causes the various problems associated with cancer. In psychosis there is nothing but symptoms, they can't do a test to verify whether someone has schizophrenia or not in the same way they could look at insulin or levels of blood clotting agent, they have to base diagnoses on a set of randomly assembled behaviours and experiences.

And just to make it clear again I'm not saying noone should take medication, if it works for them.

I've obviously somehow really pissed you off, apologies for that. If you feel that viewing whatever problems it is that you have within a medical framework is helpful then fair enough - Asher said something similar earlier, that he doesn't want people to think that the way he feels has anything in common with what the rest of us feel and if you believe that too then I guess that's just your belief, it's too subjective a thing for us to argue about.

I just think it's not the right way to look at things, that's not supposed to be a personal attack on you or anything.

Also I'm not against people receiving mental health treatment (including medication if appropriate), I work in it myself and do a lot of campaigning against cuts to local MH services, so I hope you get up that waiting list soon - I just have some issues with the way in which it's delivered and perceived, that's all.

edit: actually, not in the mood.

The case of Josef Frtitzl is quite interesting to this thread in terms of how we label people "ill", "mad" "evil" "abnormal" etc. this CNN article starts with a question.. what drove him to do it?:

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/29/austria.cellar.profile/

yet the question isn't answered, but this quote is given by a clinical psychologist:

It is almost as if she is trying to tell us - look his condition is rare - we do not need to worry about it...you don't have to worry about your husbands.....
If you walk past any newsagent in london at the moment most likely you pass a sign saying "Cellar Monster...." and of course we all know who it is referring to - the man has been labelled according to the context of the situation. He is not called the "the ill man" or the "mad man" or "the evil man" he is called the cellar monster, which would suggest that the context of the situation is an important way to label a pathological criminal, yet the term monster is also very important.

This is the definition of monster:

a. An imaginary or legendary creature, such as a centaur or Harpy, that combines parts from various animal or human forms.
b. A creature having a strange or frightening appearance.
2. An animal, a plant, or other organism having structural defects or deformities.
3. Pathology A fetus or an infant that is grotesquely abnormal and usually not viable.
4. A very large animal, plant, or object.
5. One who inspires horror or disgust:

Each of them suggest something of the unknown - which connects it to the statement made by the american psychologist who found it so chilling and rare. This makes it very difficult to label this condition, he is described as a sociopath - due to his coldness, he committed what we might call evil. Yet not to go too deep into this and I do not wish to downplay the activities that he did - there are many societies in which activities are undertaken which we in the west might call evil...The problem lies in the lack of similitude. Could it be that those with mental conditions are identified quicker and faster if doctors can find similitude? It is likely that this man will spend the remainder of his life in a prison not a mental hospital. There are no cases to compare it to, and it is far easier to call him evil and shove him in a prison, than call him mental and consider treatment. Then we would open a whole can of worms - could the treatment ever be effective and could he ever be released, propably not.

Now to the case of conventional illness - ie. manic depression of which text books are abounded with cases of similitude, which makes it easier of course to label people. I know someone with manic depression, who is also prone to bouts of paranoia as well as schizophrenia. However he also has an abnormally huge memory as well as an excellent sense of humour. It is interesting that in terms of his relation to society he is mad - he does not work, he lives in mental housing unit etc...he has learnt not to tell people about his illness due to the stigma attached to it. Now many comedians suffer from mental illness - stephen fry - manic depression, caroline aherne - depression, woody allen - depression, harry enfield - depression, yet they are not labelled as mad in the same way - they are still labelled as funny etc, could it be that the degree to which you suffer determines the label you receive or could it be that since they are rare cases ie. in being famous that they have escaped what others are forced to endure in terms of stigma?

Surely?

And there is no treatment for sociopaths, so its prison for Fritzl.

can't they just hang him in the town square and let his victims stab him?

We've been over this, the victims are too malnourished to stab properly. And he's convinced me that he's not a monster after all. I mean, he could have killed all the children but he didn't. What a nice man.

EDIT: they're not victims, they're survivors. Except for the one that died.

It's the annoying tendency of allegedly educated people to repeat the same words twice in the same sentence that repeatedly tends to annoy me. Is she trying to explain something or is she trying to hypnotize us?

i think the fundamental point is that the use of drugs in psychological matters though at times probably necessary and useful does not generally cure such problems but only suppresses them. I think this is reflective of a general problem with the bourgeois view of consciousness. It is a view which (as with the bourgeois view of everything) sees consciousness in a mechanical and lifeless way. hence the repeated view of the brain as a computer, this view not only does not recgnognise the importance of 'knowing' that one is conscious it completely seperates consciousness from reality; computers cannot experience and are not a reflection of the outside world as the mind is.

I didn't mean to leave my post there but i got side tracked so here goes.

This view of consciousnes means that they target isolated parts of the brain which may or may not have a central role in producing certain sensations and 'ideas' (you are always hearing in the newspapers that they've dicovered the part of the brain that does this or that). This view completely ignores the 'whole' of the mind and body as well as reality generally and this is why drugs are at best a way to cope with mental problems not a cure for them, anyway i'm not sure if this adds anything to the debate but its my two cents.

dumdumdum. i shouldn't be here but it's rare to see a thread that affects me [you working class dogs].

i think illness is about responsibility - if you're ill you are not responsible for not working. that's how the it works for the state - i see absolutely no need to reclaim the word

as to Joesf Frtitzl, he could never be excused so he is categorically not ill.

i have no problem with people marketing pills to change ones state of mind. who would? the more effective the better! is the person who is in pain thru arthritis so spends their life stoned, being oppressed? maybe it's the coercive use of medication that sets it apart from anti-malaria tablets.

how can it be wrong or oppressive to treat a state of mind as a brain state? is it oppressive to treat the state of mind of a normal happy person as a brain state? what's the difference? only that when psychiatry offers an alternative interpretations of events in ones life, they are do so coercively through sectioning, labeling, etc..

fwiw i think jess has behaved somewhat like an idiot on this thread. e.g.

is she tougher than these crazies, or are the crazies just lying about it upsetting them? or a break with reality about what they like? it can be upsetting to be labeled as ill, schizophrenic, because of what people associate that with. because it can allow treatment without consent, because it replaces your own narrative. jess, do you think that these things aren't happening?

no, i think that you think they're a good thing.

do i want to take medication under the british state? yes. do i think that not taking my medication will change those conditions so i can live without medication. no. but at the same time, i don't want to be labeled as ill, because i don't want to live a life labeled as ill on benefits. so shut up with calling me ill. science doesn't decide what the term means to people, society does. if you mean "failure of some physiological mechanism to perform its natural function" or whatever, just say that, and everyone can have a good laugh about how much of themselves is a "failure of some physiological mechanism to perform is natural function". words are silly, they come with so much baggage.

anyway admins you can ban me again now, i've had my say.

eta maybe that didn't make sense to you.

Hi lem, I'm trying to see what you're getting at there, not sure I really understand....

I just don't see whats wrong with admitting to being ill. It implies that its not your fault, that you can recover. People make all sorts of assumptions when they hear the word 'schizophrenia', doesn't mean the word shouldn't be used, it means the stereotypes should be challenged. Same goes for the whole idea of mental illness, imo.

My point lem is that I get annoyed with radicals complaining that mental health services are oppressive, when an immeasurably larger problem with it is that its underresourced. For every schizophrenic being forced to take medication against their will, there are probably many more people with mood, anxiety, eating disorders, suicidal feelings, self-harm, anger management issues etc. who are being told to 'come back in a few months if it doesn't get any better', being chucked out of A&E without even seeing a psychiatrist, and lingering at the bottom of waiting lists.

You can PM me if you're worried about getting banned for posting on threads, I'm interested in hearing about your experience with medication, sectioning etc. and do you think no one should ever be sectioned?

One problem with this is that the medicalisation of distress may be precisely what contributes to stereotypes and stigmatisation: there is evidence that people with biogenetic understandings of distress tend to be more fearful of sufferers. Also, rejecting the medical model of personal distress as 'illness' does not imply that sufferers can't recover or that they are necessarily to blame for their condition.

On the wider point, I really don't think that the posters challenging the medical model here (with the possible exception of the OP) are saying that mental health services are inherently oppressive (although it is worth bearing in mind that in many global contexts they function that way - Russia still uses Soviet-style incarceration and forced treatment for political prisoners, it seems, as does China and many other states).

it is also worth remembering the power of the state in indirectly victimising people, this can form images of disgust in the average citizens mind - labels are important here - in essence the victimised lose their identity entirely and fit a construct. ie. after world war II and the bombing of Japan to the cold war era, and finally throughout the bombing of North Korea, America entered a period of hysteria, in which communism signified danger - chaos, a breakdown of the family, a breakdown of emotional ties, it signified many things and so had to be obliterated - hence the usage of the atom bomb. If you have seen images of the chaos achieved after the atom bomb it couldn't have been a more ironic gesture. The atom bom will completely flatten everything in it's wake - the ground will be completely flat, it will be unusual to see the remnants of walls. Throughout the cold war era, the Americans were completely in what psychologically you would call hysteria, - communist Americans were automatically termed as "Mosco's spies" there was no middle ground, and in hysteria things are perfectly black or white.

Hence the case of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, two Jewish communists who executed on grounds of conspiracy of passing on information about the atomic bomb to the soviet union. In reality there was little evidence to convict them - a few typed notes etc.

Here is an interesting account of what happened, the emboldened bits give an idea of how the state can have an indirect influence on how you might perceive a certain situation: