May is mental illness month or mental illness doesn’t live here anymore

May is supposed to be mental health month, but if you read between the lines, it’s looking more and more like “mental illness” labeling month.

The Chilliocothe Gazette has an opinion piece in today’s paper under the headline Mental health month is call to action.

Recently, two actresses — Oscar winner Catherine Zeta-Jones and teen sensation Demi Lovato — brought the issue of mental illness front and center by revealing to the public they live with bipolar disorder.

I have a dog, by the way, and her name is not Bipolar Disorder. Her name is Trixie. Bipolar Disorder is somebody else’s dog.

Good mental health isn’t just the absence of illness, it’s as much about being able to live with and excel in the middle of life’s challenges.

Right, and if you can’t do that, you must be bonkers.

May is Mental Health Month, and this year’s campaign is a call to action to help the one in four American adults who lives with a diagnosable and treatable mental health condition, such as bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression or another mental illness.

I’ve got news for you people, 1 in 4 people don’t live with a “mental illness”. 1 in 4 people have made the mistake of stepping into a psychiatrist’s office. Some of them just have to find a curb to scrape it off on, and that % will go down pronto.

Of course, there’s one born every second to paraphrase W.C. Fields I think it was.

6 Responses

  1. I agree that some people are often misdiagnosed with mental illness, especially minorities. However, there are people out there who are actually ill and need help. If they don’t they could be a harm to themselves or others or it could lead to other problems drug abuse. If they feel they need help and have access, then by all means they should get it.

    • I wasn’t saying that some people don’t need a place to go to to get their shit together. All I’m saying is that this 1 in 4 figure is all slant. The “mental illness” labeling industry must sell itself by making a much larger figure than actually applies. Most of the people who pass through the psychiatrists office have nothing seriously wrong with them. You’re talking about people who either didn’t need to go in the first place, or people whose problems will resolve themselves over time. 4.5 % or thereabouts of the population who wind up in the psychiatrists office receive “serious mental illness” labels. 4.5 % is way below 10 %, and it is certainly nowhere near 25 %. I’m also of the opinion that even a few of the 4.5 % that get stuck seriously talking to the psychiatrist need it less than the doctors think they do.

    • “harm to themselves or others or it could lead to other problems drug abuse”

      This is the same as astrology. You can not predict the future, and you can not put someone in jail who has not committed a crime.

      We have the freedom to drink alcohol and smoke , so preventive drug abuse is bull$%&$.

      “people out there who are actually ill ” who are these people? People you dont like? People who have been screwed over? People who have made bad choices are “ill?”
      Need “help”, like the criminal deserves to be in prison?
      What does “help” mean? Help is code for drugged into a stupor, a legal DRUG ABUSE for the psychiatrist or whoever forces the drugs onto a lawful citizen.

      • Good points, Mark.

        What some people don’t seem to realize is that there are “well” people doing the Thorazine shuffle in mental institutions. Why?…

        1. People are being locked up for behaving differently.
        2. People are being locked up for annoying certain other people.
        3. People have found a convenient method for getting a neighbor, an associate, or a family member out of the way.

        Behaving in strange and annoying ways is not disease. Behaving in strange and annoying ways is disease in psychiatric theory.

        Experts don’t know much about what they have pathologized into “mental illness”. They don’t have a germ, a bacteria, or a virus on a microscope slide that explains odd behavior. The pursuit of the mad gene (or genes) is being conducted because of the premises of the leading school of psychiatry today. These premises are only premises, and they are very likely to be proven erroneous over time.

        Nobody, but nobody, should be forced to take a psychiatric drug against his or her wishes! The effects of the drugs that some people are forced to take have actually been confused with the symptoms of disease. Long term psychiatric drug use is abuse that will harm anyone. If it’s to be a trade off for the person with a psychiatric label, let it be a contract that is freely entered into. Freedom of choice is one of our most sacred values, and we need to make sure that the freedoms of people in mental health treatment are protected just the same as are the freedoms of citizens outside of mental health treatment.

  2. I could write book about actresses. But it would be a waste of time because everybody knows anyway. Or they don’t want to know. Depends on the act. That’s what acting is. The customer decides what they want to believe. They have usually paid in some way ahead of time so it’s usually a done deal.

    But back to the shrinks. No wait… I was talking about shrinks… or was I talking about actresses…

    • Actresses…which brings me to my point. 95.5 % of the population haven’t been labeled “seriously mentally ill”. I would think that stat alone should offer a great deal of hope for the 4.5 % of the people out there who have been labeled “seriously mentally ill” recovery-wise. Perhaps you, too, member of the 4.5 % labeled population, can rip off your label, and who would know, huh? Maybe you could lose your “mental illness” status, and then you would no longer have to “live with” it. If a few more of the 4.5 % labeled can learn how to act more like the 95.5 % without labels we’re in business. Unfortunately, I think the direction the mental health industry is going in today is to try to increase the 4.5% (it used to be much less) and thus decrease the 95.5 %. We’re opting for more “mental illness”, in other words, rather than less, which strikes me as a little absurd, to say the least. More “mental illness”, of course, spells less mental health.

      Actors and actresses have little problem playing kooks, think Natalie Portman in The Black Swan, or Leo DiCaprio in Shutter Island. The question I’d put to people is this one; why would kooks have an incredibly difficult time playing non-kooks, say people in the acting profession, for instance, if roles were reversed? I think the idea intriguing. I also think it has a great deal of potential as far as experimentation is concerned.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: