Thank you Bro. Englund for your thoughtful response.
I wonder if part of the "social stigma" surrounding psychological issues stems from naming them with such foreboding terms like "mental illnesses" and "mental deseases", and by considering those suffering therefrom, as "victims".
Perhaps. But I fail to see how such terms would cause problems when heart disease, kidney disease, lung disease, degenerative diseases, cardiovascular diseases, etc., fail to stir up the same stigma. The same can be applied to “illnesses” as well (and I don't think the very name of NAMI is doing more to perpetuate the very stigma they are trying to lessen). I also don’t feel there is stigma caused due to the word “victim” for those who are a victim of abuse, a victim of robbery, a victim of fraud, etc.
These terms suggest to the mind that the psychological issues are entirely beyond the control or choices of the sufferer, and perhaps even to some degree beyond the interventions of trained professionals.
And to many, they are entirely beyond the control or choices of the sufferer. Many people who suffer from depression do not choose to do so. Many (if not all) people who suffer from bipolar disorder did not choose to do so. As far as I know, people who suffer from schizophrenia did not choose to do so. So, I fail to see the problem of such suggestive nuances. And, to some, they are indeed beyond the interventions of trained professionals as well. The success rate for treating mental illnesses is not 100%. Psychology and psychiatry are art forms as well as sciences.
To me, it wraps psychological conditions in a shroud of relative hopelessness, placing those directly affected, as well as those associated therewith, almost entirely at the mercy of the affliction. I see this perception as wrapping in on itself, and somewhat robbing the sufferers of the very hope and means for becoming mentally healthy.
What of alcoholism being labeled a disease? Does this cause alcoholics to lose hope? Does it cause them to think they are entirely at the mercy of their affliction? When in the throngs of depression, it is easy to blame oneself for everything wrong in the world (including everything wrong [emotionally, physically, and mentally] with oneself). Knowing that it is a disease can remove that portion of the blame game, and help acknowledge that intervention is indeed needed. Once it is realized that it is a disease that one is suffering from, there is no longer the need to adhere to the mantra “snap out of it” which is shouted by some who do not understand. Acknowledging that something is a disease does not rob hope. Lack of understanding of that disease, and treatment options does.
As I understand things, these terms and perception are artifacts from the Freudian philosophy which, since the mid 1970's, has increasingly been discredited.
This is possible. All I have is the anecdotal evidence from the conferences I have attended, and the treatments I have received from many psychologists and psychiatrists in which these terms have been used.
There are many in the profession (like Dr. Aaron Beck--the father of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, and Dr. William Glasser--the father of Reality Therapy and Choice Theory), who prefer to view psychological issues in terms of cognitive distortions, chemical imbalances, dysfunctions, disorders, poor choices/social skills, etc.. This view (and the interventions based on this philosopy) tends re-empowers the sufferer and often provides great hope--particularly in light of the scientifically documented track record that shows a relatively impressive rate of success in treat.
Personally, if some one told me that I had “distortions” or “dysfunctions” or that my bipolar disorder and mild schizophrenia were the result of poor choices/social skills, I would be quite offended. To me, such terms are far more damaging and cause far more social stigma than terms like “illness” and “disease.” Chemical imbalances however is a term that I favor highly, and perhaps would be a less stigmatizing word than “mental illnesses” and “mental diseases.” I’ll have to give that a bit of thought; it might be a better term for my future discussions. Thank you.
I don’t doubt the success in these treatment methods. They are essentially a “physical therapy” for an injured organ (the brain). And I can see how telling someone that their lack of mental health is due to poor choices/social skills, cognitive distortions, or dysfunctions could potentially re-empower them and give them hope. But, there can be damage in giving false hope to someone that needs a far more drastic intervention.
Just a thought.
And you have indeed given me much to think about, for which I thank you.
P.S. I once suffered from deep depression for a number of years, and I have been restored to health and happiness thanks in large part to this new philosophy and its associated interventions.
I congratulate you on your success. It is always inspiring to hear of individuals that have conquered depression. If anything gives hope to those currently in its grasp, it is knowing that there have been others that have fought the battle and won.
-Stu