Well I think it's going to be debated for a very, very long time to come, although any changes will be slow and gradual, the kind where the change is so slow that those who initially oppose it can get away with taking credit for it later. In the short term, IMO, at minimum they need to screen psychiatrists for personality disorders of their own- from the stories I've heard, and the various professionals I've spoken with in various fields, some of these people are horribly unsympathetic, and treat their patients like ungrateful insects under the microscope.
actually my experiance of the ambulance service, the nursing proffession and A&Es (my experiance is all front line apart from my own treatement) is that the oposite problem exists. Rather than over treating the issue is getting these people to accept that mental illness is a legitimate part of there work load rather than a "WOFTAM" ( Waste of Time and Money, and saying that will get you fired from the ambulance service if Hugh hears you). Some are really good but some see there job as the easy trauma cases and ignore the fact that mental illness is the biggest single catigory of illness in the community and one of the biggest causes of distress and that makes it a legitimate use of the ambulance service and the health care system. Its another form of stigma against the mentally ill and it can be one of the most distructive because the ambo crew which turn up could be someones last hope and if they dont care, just want to go back to bed or get off shift and dismiss the pt, leave them at home and turn there backs on them, they could well be the last people to see that person alive
Another analogy I thought would be interesting for consideration: Suppose someone was a homosexual, living in an overwhelmingly heterosexual society which not only fails to identify with their wants and needs, but goes out of its way to shame them for their preferences and lifestyle. If a medication existed with the potential to induce an attraction to the opposite sex, should that person accept the drug in order to change their fundamental perceptions and gain a sense of fulfillment and acceptance in their society? Is it better than remaining homosexual and possibly experiencing depressive episodes leading to suicide?
Previous versions of the DSM say yes (homosexuality was only removed as a mental disorder in the 1970s). I think that current practice says that such a patient should be offered treatment for depression (and possibly involuntarily hospitalised). If a sexual-preference changing drug existed, administering it would require informed consent - ie it would have to be the patient's choice, and a doctor would be wrong to apply pressure to make that choice.
And the reason I ask is only for purposes of analogy. I question whether the imposition of mind-altering drugs (the threat of hospitalization can be a form of coercion to take said drug), is not basically equivalent to asking a homosexual to change their sexuality in order to gain a sense of happiness and fulfillment. The medical system is asking/coercing them to change the fundamental way they think, the features that make them the unique individual they are. I think it's far more clear cut when they can't tell circles from squares.
It's not supposed to happen that way. Mental health treatments are not supposed to make people fit an ideal mould, they are supposed to restore that person's normal functioning. In practice... I'm sure there are cases where the wrong thing happens.
But to "function normally", there is a number of beliefs that a person is expected to have (not only behaviors and activities). Some of those beliefs may be completely opposite to what the person currently believes. For example, in some societies, even just being a vegetarian or believing that meat-consuption is not necessary, is considered pathological.
I said that person's normal functioning. I.e. normality as defined by the individual, not by social and cultural norms.
No, a person's normal functioning is the way that they normally function, i.e. it's defined by their past functioning, and their past and current preferences.
Um, depression is miserable in itself. No outside condemnation needed, although the "Smile, be happy!" shiat I have to put up with as an American doesn't help matters...please don't tell me what kind of day to have... Being a queer is faaabulous, until somebody else makes fun of you for it. Rather a qualitative difference there... I'm bisexual, therefore being married to a woman's a choice...I just happened to find someone whom I love and who will put up with my morbid a$$ wearing a female body. But, yeah, depression is miserable. Of all the mentally ill, depressives are most likely to comply with treatment, because you are motivated. Full-blown major depression is evil. I read an article about schizophrenics who stopped taking their meds-30% did it because God told them to...
Where I go to therapy there was a psychologist there who used his position to induce younger girls to become his prostitutes and were making him money . The company found out and he was arrested but I just wonder how many other professionals are doing the same thing with their clients. Being young and naive with mental health problems you become very susceptible to those professionals you trust to help you but they sometimes can hurt you just as easily.
I'm only one person at one office and there's millions of offices around the world. Rare, I hope so. :shrug:
Maybe people don't have enough braincells, don't apreciate life enough or are in a certain position where they think death is the answer.
Yeah, that's quite an interesting take on it. I'll have to brush up on Canada's mental health laws, but from the people I've spoken with, it never seemed like a comparison with past functioning was taken into account. Many former patients I've spoken with were having long-term issues, but it's also possible they themselves might have acknowledged some form of disorder and at least some basic intent to treat it. Definitely it seems like a reasonable criterion to me. If the person was functioning well for long, sustained periods, and then they suddenly slumped in recent months or weeks, that would be a good indicator of some kind of condition interfering with their own sense of what they truly want in life. Over the long term, I don't personally think it's so clear cut, but I'll check how our system handles it (it also varies a bit from province to province).
But what about those who are dying of a disease and are in constant pain and are given only a few months to live?
Then, for example, children and young people who have been depressed from early on should not be classified as depressed and should not be treated. They are too young to actually have established a "normal functioning". Or, another example, take someone who grew up rich, without working much or not at all, and then suddenly their family goes bankrupt. Or someone who was healthy and self-sufficient their whole life and then ends up in a wheelchair after a car accident. For that person to define "normal functioning" by their past functioning will, obviously, be counterproductive.
Hmmm... I guess in some medical systems, at least the system I'm personally familiar with, they're just sh*t outta luck. Nice world we live in, ain't it?
That's pretty extreme, not what I had in mind... someone who does what you described belongs in prison regardless of their official profession. I was more just saying they need to get the assholes and sociopaths with bad attitudes out of the profession, those kinds of people are of no use whatsoever and there are a lot of them who gravitate to the field.
