Medicalization of Deviance?

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

rangrz I see what you're saying, but I've also seen just the reverse: people shirking responsibility for nothing more than poor choices or inaction because now they've got a bona fide diagnosis to blame it on. I think "It's not your fault, you're sick" is very much a double-edged sword. I'll definitely grant you that discoveries in psychology and medicine have empowered and dignified many people who previously would have simply been shunned, and I think that's a great thing. But on a society-wide scale, the medicalization of deviance, it seems to me, just trades one form of powerlessness for another.

I agree with ebola: we're a long, long way off from a comprehensive and universally reliable correlation of mindstates to brainstates. And part of the reason I think this remains stubbornly the case is that a refined and greatly expanded understanding of the correlations between thought and neural activity isn't really needed for helping people overcome unhelpful thought patterns.

I'll even go so far as to say I call into question the humanitarian merit of philosophy of mind and the science used as fodder for it. I question whether The Human Condition would weigh any less on most of our shoulders if we had a complete and highly detailed map of mindstates to brainstates that the general population was well-schooled in. I'm not saying it's not fascinating stuff, and that one shouldn't get into it for its own sake if one finds it interesting. But a lot of the bones it picks are wholly superfluous to the goal of helping other people live healthier and better lives.

 

[Euphio]

people shirking responsibility for nothing more than poor choices or inaction because now they've got a bona fide diagnosis to blame it on. I think "It's not your fault, you're sick" is very much a double-edged sword. I'll definitely grant you that discoveries in psychology and medicine have empowered and dignified many people who previously would have simply been shunned, and I think that's a great thing. But on a society-wide scale, the medicalization of deviance, it seems to me, just trades one form of powerlessness for another

I couldn't agree with this statement more. It is great that some people are now getting needed help. However, it is dangerous how easy it is to claim unacceptable behaviors are an illness. In some cases, I view it as a cop out

 

[Foreigner]

I don't really buy the diagnosis of mental illness in the institutionalized way. For instance, there are a lot of people in this world who hear voices and see different things perceptually, but only people who are dysfunctional with the proscribed model of society end up being labelled as schizophrenics.

It used to be that mental illness was diagnosed on people who were simply non-conformists. I think that still happens to some degree, but not as fanatically.

It would be better if we lived in a society where different ways of reality were accommodated. That would probably require widespread availability of psychedelics, or at least a normal integration of them. Most people who end up "mentally ill" are people who can't function in the proscribed model. Look at how many depressed people there are out there. The way humans live right now is not natural.

 

[ebola?]

but only people who are dysfunctional with the proscribed model of society end up being labelled as schizophrenics.

I find schizophrenia to be the key exception to the rule of the social construction of mental illness though. The syndrome presents with a similar cluster of symptoms cross-culturally, with similar rates of incidence. It is how accommodating social structures are to socially embedding the psychotic that shapes the life trajectory of their illness. Those more socially integrated tend to experience reduced frequency and severity of delusions and hallucinations, and they posses better cognitive coping mechanisms to manage their symptoms. But really, there are hardly any schizophrenics who say that they enjoy their illness (in an enduring way).

ebola

 

[trees_please]

I dunno, maybe I was getting your posts confused with Euphio's. Weren't you the one who said you once had court-ordered therapy and at another time went to a psych hospital as part of a class to talk to patients? That on top of studying psychology in college? I'm recalling this from memory and I am high, but I thought that was one of your posts. If it was your post and you are telling the truth, then no, I'm not making assumptions. Is there anything you are not sharing that would cause my statements regarding your own history (as told by you) to be false?

nope. spot on. thats the extent of my experience. i got confused when you implied i was arguing mental illness is a black and white thing. when i specifically stated it was not black and white in any way, but rather complex and on a spectrum

 

[Jerry Atrick]

nope. spot on. thats the extent of my experience. i got confused when you implied i was arguing mental illness is a black and white thing. when i specifically stated it was not black and white in any way, but rather complex and on a spectrum

I think we got our "black and whites" mixed up. I agree about the complexity of it all and how many illnesses do manifest on a spectrum. I agree that the MH system is not perfect.

I disagree with the theory/subjective versus fact/objective argument. That IS a black and white argument. For one, many believe that there is no such thing as true objectivity....that all human experience is subject to each of our own biases. IOW we are all biased and view the world through our own lens. Anyways, this is really shit for another thread.

I will admit that I am biased because I bounced around the annals of the MH system as a patient for several years. It took years of different, and progressively worse, diagnoses before finally gaining a label that stuck. It took years of trying different meds before the doctors found a cocktail that allows me to live a life with a full-time job and also allows me to maintain healthy relationships with people (most of whom I hide my illness from). I am apparently one of the few success stories. The medication literally saved my life. These are facts, not theories.

And I am in no way special. My job is in social work and I see people every day who have been through, are going through, and/or will go through everything that I have been through and often worse.

 

[trees_please]

Yes, i see your point. But just because your regimen works, doesnt mean your condition has been cured. It's been masked. The theory, however, is that mental illness is a pathology that responds to heavy medication. When, realistically, its the human brain that is responding, and its doing so in a unique and probably unquantifiable fashion. Not something that can effectively be prescribed to others with your "illness," because everyone is different, and the framework used by psychiatrists is outdated an unreliable.

 

[trees_please]

I see it like this; objective equates to observable. for example, the sun, mountains, water etc. these are objective as they are independent of and from human perception. Mental illness may be objective in certain stages, i dont know. But i know that it is probably a lot more subjective than obective.

 

[jpgrdnr]

Well to the OP, I think what you are confusing is that sociology and mental illness would be talking about how people who are "mentally ill" function as group, in the larger group of the social order.

Deviance in sociology means something very specific, and I think to answer you question that Deviance is a medical question, yes of course it is - forensic psychiatry.

Talking about whether mental illness and drug use, and medicating people is more of a general opinion issue.

Three points:

Even psychiatrists will tell you that medication is a band aid solution and that talk therapy is preferable.

Schizophrenia as a broad disorder is incredibly rare (see reply). Its a pathological problem with the brain and language. The drugs don't do much for the illness itself, but help with quality of life.

As a whole I think neurology, psychiatry, etc. is basically a quack science. We have a poor understanding of these things called "mental illnesses." The human brain is a hugely complex beast. Giving it drugs to see if it behaves differently seems bordering on the insane. Its still very stone age, I think. People in years to come are going to look back on the early years of Mental Health as a bunch of cavemen banging on rocks.

 

[ebola?]

Schizophrenia as a broad disorder is incredibly rare.

Not really. The rate of lifetime incidence is 1%, and this rate holds pretty much everywhere on earth.

As a whole I think neurology, psychiatry, etc. is basically a quack science. We have a poor understanding of these things called "mental illnesses." The human brain is a hugely complex beast.

Why? Maybe application of neurology in pop-culture is often invalid, and maybe the typology of psychological disorders is poorly justified, and maybe our therapeutic tools are very rough, but these fields are just beginning, and we're starting to find some interesting stuff. Why not continue to investigate?

ebola

 

[jpgrdnr]

To fact check from the WHO website:

Schizophrenia is a severe form of mental illness affecting about 7 per thousand of the adult population, mostly in the age group 15-35 years. Though the incidence is low (3-10,000), the prevalence is high due to chronicity.

There's a fair bit of media controversy where I've seen a trend to associate schizophrenia with random violent crime. I always get a knee jerk reaction when schizophrenia is tossed around as a buzz word. I've assumed that the rate of incidence to be quite low, and that it is more seen with onset of puberty, rather than young adulthood. I tend not to view it as a developing pathology, but as a severe disorder. Again, I've met some people who were labelled as "schizophrenic" and I doubt very much they were. Its tough as well as there is a tendency for labeling and self-identifying and that defeats the whole purpose. I think people should start thinking of it in a similar light as using the term "nigger" as "black slave," as an overall taboo word. There's a bit of cultural tension that has nothing to do with the medical aspect of it, and I've seen it used as a slur as well as other disorders, autism for one. Which is part of why we are in the stone age with Mental Health.

But investigate how? The methodology used by these disciplines is repulsive. Its historically, I'm sure you agree, basically has the reputation of a mad science. The concept of a frontal lobotomy is absurd. We even have a front page article on Bluelight as some forms of "Mental Health" being akin to torture. ECT strikes me as beyond ridiculous. I mean inducing seizures?

I think, to be honest I would rather in this instance make use of an actual shaman rather than some academic fake one with a piece of paper. Its funny, but for all the barking of evolution being the way to go in schools this is one area where science falls remarkably short and religion might actually have some worth. I think its high time other disciplines and approaches to take a stab at therapy. I would much rather talk to a philosopher than a doctor in instances of crisis.

 

[ebola?]

There's a fair bit of media controversy where I've seen a trend to associate schizophrenia with random violent crime.

The studies I've seen suggest the rate of violence among schizophrenics to be similar to that of the general population. Granted, when they do turn violent, many may do so for different reasons from what is typical among the general population...

 

[qwe]

^ i have schizophrenia, and i'm pretty sure schizophrenics are on average less likely to be violent

Why? Maybe application of neurology in pop-culture is often invalid, and maybe the typology of psychological disorders is poorly justified, and maybe our therapeutic tools are very rough, but these fields are just beginning, and we're starting to find some interesting stuff. Why not continue to investigate?

ebola

money