The Case of Mental Illness
Introduction
Mental disorder or ailments is a collection that contains numerous conditions, which can be depicted by various symptoms. These symptoms are linked to the way an individual behaves as well as the manner in which they portray their feelings. Judgments based on cultural norms and contexts are useful especially in identifying symptoms that show that an individual is mentally ill. Therefore, emotions and behavior play a significant role in the identification of these symptoms. The emergence of mental illness has led to a rise in psychiatrists who examine and diagnose patients with mental health problems. However, "madness" is a mental disorder that offers much challenge when it comes to its treatment. This paper aims to argue and support the claim that there is a decline in self-agency and empowerment as a result of adopting the biomedical model of mental illness, which fosters stigma and builds barriers to seeking and receiving effective treatment.
Critique of Biomedical Model: Mental Illness
The biomedical model for the mental disorder has been criticized in some ways; this model tends to indicate elements of a passive look of individuals (Frude, 1998). Biological accounts of research suggest that persons who are undergoing mental illness, ‘are living organisms that favor the composition of their neurochemistry as well as their genes’ (Frude, 1998, p.14). This implies that individuals with physical illness can as well be referred to in the same manner and that they tolerate the biological processes that are responsible for their ill-health regardless of the negative impacts especially when it comes to personal view.
The existence of mental disorder in most cases is determined through judgments based on the manner in which an individual behaves. If a person's behavior is taken to be diseased, the probability that the impacts of this judgement will deteriorate how the victim feels about himself/ herself as a member of the society is very high. The medical model fails to acknowledge individual meaning and the existence of experiences in a person's life, which might be enormously more important and concrete to patients as compared to an impersonal argument concerning disequilibrium within the chemistry of their brain. According to Fisher, regard a person as chemicals dehumanizes an individual and makes them feel powerless, this makes one think all he/she is capable of doing is just but the efforts of the chemicals, (Fisher, 1999, p.131).
The validity of biomedical psychiatry process is questionable, (Johnstone, 2008). As in the case of general medicine, the biomedical diagnostic process encompasses the identification of symptoms that shows the existence of an ailment. With diabetes as an example, there are a means to validate the existence of diabetes through testing of blood, alongside the symptoms. In as much as these symptoms may not validate the presence of the disease since they do not offer sufficient reason for diabetes diagnosis. The result of the blood test is used instead to approve diagnosis, unlike diagnosis from psychiatrists.
In as much there is an assumption linking biological disorders to mental ill health, there exist no concrete physical symptoms for mental illness health that can be used to validate the specifically and accurately existence or inexistence of mental disorder. Testing an individual's serotonin level to evaluate the degree and existence of depression is impossible, neither can someone conduct a blood test nor x-ray to conduct psychosis diagnosis. However, the diagnoses undertaken by psychiatrists are based on the subjective look and judgmental symptoms based on what patients say or do. An example is a symptom related to depression disorder as depicted in DSM-IV where a reduction in overall interest or taste in things is used as an indicator of depression, which is purely a subjective explanation, based on mere observations. (APA, 2000 p.327). This type of symptom does not allude to much any physical illness symptom. In the (How Mad Are You-youtube video1), the professionals thought that Yasmin was an entirely healthy person because their conclusions were entirely based on observations, whereas Yasmin was suffering from mental disorder. Therefore, the limitation of subjective analysis of disease signs for a diagnosis process is the unavailability of a survey instrument that the identified symptoms truly depict absence or presence of mental disorder, but are just allegations that are used to associate these symptoms with the disease, (Johnstone, 2008).
There are no acceptable limits and clear outline of pleasure or interest that an individual should have in the activities they indulge in, furthermore pleasure and interest differ from one person to another depending on environmental factors. Therefore, it is very evident that diagnosis from psychiatrist is based on principles which are purely socio-cultural, yet terms the diagnosis process as medical. People who are diagnosed with mental disorder are referred to as the last group of minors of whom; socially it is conventional to discriminate, isolate, and stigmatize, (Thornicroft, 2006). The impacts of stigmatization, isolation and rejection are very adverse. Nevertheless, these cases are very common in every social setting. Because of mental illness diagnosis, one can lose a job, abandon education, housing, and even social functionality, (Sartorius and Schulze, 2005). The implications of the above outcomes affect both the community and the victim.
The medical model assumes the relational process of stigmatization and the fact that it is the society, social differences, and prejudice that facilitates it, (Dovidio, Major, and Crocker, 2000). Further, the medical model ignores the likelihood that stigma could be as a result of limited resources useful for social multiplicity, (Neuberg, Smith, and Asher, 2000). Various critics of the psychiatry isolate the services from psychiatrists and blames them all alone, without considering other medical practitioners. Psychiatry is hindered by pseudoscience, and their diagnosis is not affected or altered by social and political factors, or economic desires. The psychiatrists adopt an entirely medical role, yet not considering the fact that mental illness has its roots beyond biology.
The health sector that especially mental health department has been of no help, the adoption of psychological problem-solving techniques in everyday life has erased the normality of human beings, it has disempowered individuals to handle their personal life setbacks, it has however turned assistance into a professional relationship, and it has also looked down upon the traditional techniques of dealing with mental disorders where meaningful connection existed between people, (G. A. 2006). Psychiatry has led to the stigmatization of individuals due to harmful medications and wrong diagnosis, making victims become excessively traumatized via intimidating health practices. The psychiatry has done so much damage since it being a section of medicine, it conforms to the medical model.
The Harm of Stigma
The adverse outcomes related to the stigma of mental illness include marginalization, social isolations, worsening psychological symptoms, increased dependence, substance abuse and poor interpersonal relationships (Clement et.al., 2015). Despite the public awareness campaign of suicide risk as a result of stigma which has been linked the news coverage of mentally ill celebrities' suffering and despair of suicidal ideation and attempts, the stigma of mental illness prevails(Koschorke, 2014). Untreated psychological symptoms lead to increased severity of symptoms and the inability for current treatments to be efficacious (Corrigan, 2006). Thus, early detection and treatment have been noted to be the strongest preventive measure against suicide (Corrigan, 2006).; and stigma is by far the most robust barriers to the achievement of such. Stigma is the only modifiable barrier to increased access to mental health care (Clement et.al., 2015).
Figure 1: Impact of Stigma (Koschorke, 2014)
Considering that over 4 million children and young adults are suffering from psychological conditions (Koschorke, 2014) the need to de-stigmatized mental illness and empower individuals to seek treatment (Corrigan,2006), is vital for the future of the health of society. Regardless of genetic components related to psychological conditions, the social aspects are certainly just as, if not more critical to enhancing the lives suffering from such conditions. Figure1 highlights just how devastating stigma can be, and over half report stigma being just as harmful than the illness itself (Koschorke, 2014). Increasing knowledge of early signs and efficacious medication and psychotherapy treatments built into the current education system is one of many ways pubic health officials can lead the way to de-stigmatizing psychiatric disorders(Koschorke, 2014).
Though it takes courage to speak about one’s mental health, such is necessary for the wellbeing of this afflicted population. Once one person stands up, others will be inspired to as well, and no longer feel shame or guilt for their suffering. Such empowering initiatives will hopefully result in the earlier identification (Corrigan,2006), increase in support for health care coverage and treatments (Clement et. al, 2015) that will allow one's condition to no longer prevent one from living a fulfilling life.
The use of the medical model of mental health frames psychological illness as a biologically rooted disease, which may prevent individuals from seeking treatment as they feel it is a heritable and invisible illness that one must suffer. In contrast, a more social model approach would address the social stigma to increase access to therapy (Clement et. al, 2015). Stigma is clearly is a significant problem, just as severe as mental illness and the debate of it's roots. Thus an integration of both models is necessary to create a comprehensive understanding to diagnosing, creating and constructing meaning relating to mental health. Failure to do so will perpetuates stigma and lead to higher risk of suicide due to being a barrier to seeking and furthering research of efficacious therapies (Clement et. al, 2015).
Conclusion
References
APA, (2000), Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV-TR. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Adame, A. & Hornstein, G. A. (2006), Representing Madness: How are subjective experiences of emotional distress presented in first-person accounts? The Humanistic Psychologist, 34, 135-158 215
Coughlan, M., Cronin, P., & Ryan, F. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: Quantitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(11), 658-663. http://dx.doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2007.16.11.23681
Clement, S., Schauman, O., Graham, T., Maggioni, F., Evans-Lacko, S., Bezborodovs, N., Thornicroft, G. (2015). What is the impact of mental health-related stigma on help-seeking? A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies. Psychological medicine, 45(01), 11-27.
Corrigan, P. W., Watson, A. C., & Barr, L. (2006). The self-stigma of mental illness: Implications for self-esteem and self-efficacy. Journal of social and clinical psychology, 25(8), 875-884.
Dovidio, J., Major, B. & Crocker, J. (2000), Stigma: Introduction and Overview. In The Social Psychology of Stigma (eds T. Heatherton, F., R. Kleck, E., M. Hebl, R., et al. ). New York: TheGuilford Press
Fisher, D. (1999) Hope, humanity and voice in recovery from mental illness. In From the Ashes of Experience: Reflections on Madness, Survival, and Growth (eds P. Barker, P. Campbell & B.Davidson). London: Whurr.
Johnstone, L. (2008) Psychiatric Diagnosis. In Critical Issues in Mental Health (eds R. Tummey & T.Turner). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Koschorke, M., Padmavati, R., Kumar, S., Cohen, A., Weiss, H. A., Chatterjee, S., & Balaji, M. (2014). Experiences of stigma and discrimination of people with schizophrenia in India. Social Science & Medicine, 123, 149-159.
Neuberg, S., L., Smith, D. M. & Asher, T. (2000) why people stigmatize: toward a biocultural framework. In The Social Psychology of Stigma (eds T. Heatherton, F., R. Kleck, E., M. Hebl,R. , et al. ). London: The Guilford Press
Frude, N. (1998) Understanding Abnormal Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OW3Gzas3DI
