4 ms·

Sure, Whatever, Let's Try Another Contra Caplan on Mental Illness

3 points by feross 3y ago

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
Society has a real problem when it comes to mental illness, because society doesn't know what to do with it. In times and places with established Churches and theocracies, behavior was dealt with, sometimes harshly. You could be a heretic or a witch or a village idiot. Generally, anyone who would fit a "mental illness" diagnostic was stigmatized and ostracized in some way. Now, of course there was plenty of treatment. The Church provides a path to salvation for anyone to follow with the proper discipline, and even for the invincibly ignorant there is hope. Sin was understood in a particular way. It was the family that would provide support and care for those who had trouble. Unfortunately the genesis of mental illness is often in the family or the community. People are subjected to trauma, or abuse, or just a poor upbringing, and this will often engender problems. But now you've disestablished the Church and you've ensured that families are as fragmented, small and weak as possible, so what do you do with your outcasts and dangerously crazy people? You can't condemn them morally. So without a moral framework to label these outcasts, it makes sense (no it doesn't) to extend the medical discipline to the mind and the behavior. Simply diagnose disorders on the basis of symptoms and treat them with medication. Everyone already trusts (no we don't) that Western medical interventions produce great outcomes for those who are sick, so we can deem people "sick in the head" and worthy of medical treatment despite having healthy bodies (for now, until the side effects kick in.) So "mental illness" is established as a morally-neutral framework for dealing with witches, heretics, and village idiots. The lens of "behavioral health" widens scope to anyone who acts out for unexplained reasons. No, it's not a choice, it's not a preference: that's a strawman, but what is it? It is often the result of making one small choice after another, for decades. My psychiatrist informed me that I am literally brain-damaged, that my brain has sustained physical damage that will never be undone, and that's why I'm on medication for life. And I bristled at this suggestion, but I actually know it's true. I have made life choices. We all make incremental life choices according to our preferences, and some of us repeatedly make irrational choices which send us down a path where there is no turning back. Therefore it is important to separate children from abusive and traumatic situations, and it is important to intervene with therapies that can help people make better choices, incrementally, and return to a good path, and stay there, however the community might define that recovery. It is possible.

3 points by feross 3y ago

Society has a real problem when it comes to mental illness, because society doesn't know what to do with it. In times and places with established Churches and theocracies, behavior was dealt with, sometimes harshly. You could be a heretic or a witch or a village idiot. Generally, anyone who would fit a "mental illness" diagnostic was stigmatized and ostracized in some way. Now, of course there was plenty of treatment. The Church provides a path to salvation for anyone to follow with the proper discipline, and even for the invincibly ignorant there is hope. Sin was understood in a particular way. It was the family that would provide support and care for those who had trouble. Unfortunately the genesis of mental illness is often in the family or the community. People are subjected to trauma, or abuse, or just a poor upbringing, and this will often engender problems. But now you've disestablished the Church and you've ensured that families are as fragmented, small and weak as possible, so what do you do with your outcasts and dangerously crazy people? You can't condemn them morally. So without a moral framework to label these outcasts, it makes sense (no it doesn't) to extend the medical discipline to the mind and the behavior. Simply diagnose disorders on the basis of symptoms and treat them with medication. Everyone already trusts (no we don't) that Western medical interventions produce great outcomes for those who are sick, so we can deem people "sick in the head" and worthy of medical treatment despite having healthy bodies (for now, until the side effects kick in.) So "mental illness" is established as a morally-neutral framework for dealing with witches, heretics, and village idiots. The lens of "behavioral health" widens scope to anyone who acts out for unexplained reasons. No, it's not a choice, it's not a preference: that's a strawman, but what is it? It is often the result of making one small choice after another, for decades. My psychiatrist informed me that I am literally brain-damaged, that my brain has sustained physical damage that will never be undone, and that's why I'm on medication for life. And I bristled at this suggestion, but I actually know it's true. I have made life choices. We all make incremental life choices according to our preferences, and some of us repeatedly make irrational choices which send us down a path where there is no turning back. Therefore it is important to separate children from abusive and traumatic situations, and it is important to intervene with therapies that can help people make better choices, incrementally, and return to a good path, and stay there, however the community might define that recovery. It is possible.