Autopsy of a “Mental Illness” Epidemic
The 2005 widely publicized debate between Matt Lauer and actor Tom Cruise demonstrated the sheer “schizophrenic” nature of mental health advocacy itself.
The one fact advocates seem to agree upon is the number of people in the U.S. entering our mental health care system is skyrocketing. Unfortunately, many advocates, experts and mental health journalists are at odds speculating on what is causing this epidemic of “mental illness” and what it will take to remedy the situation.
Many advocates see the insurmountable human suffering as a critical agenda and are especially concerned over the increasing mental health needs for our military veterans in the near future.
The fact that mental health advocates are at each other’s throats is complicated by conflicting research, skeptical published information, the stigma of mental illness, persuasive public lectures, selective story telling from journalistic perspectives, money-making objectives, personal agendas, personal experiences and flawed interpretations.
Public opinion and the decision-making process regarding forced treatment are greatly influenced by a variety of mental health advocates, a few of which dominate the media more than others.
The internet is playing a critical role in the advocacy agenda for individuals considered to be suffering from severe “mental illness”, many of whom are among a marginalized population and do not have access to the internet. Advocacy must be met with equal and fair representation for the voice of those who can not speak for themself and do not have access to what is being said on their behalf.
The conflict among mental health advocates is extremely questionable as many advocates are paid large sums of money for their work as an advocate. The impact of best-selling books must also be considered as journalists do not hold the same credentials and liability as mental health professionals.
The topic of “mental illness” is very broad, there is a critical need for advocates to clearly define what it is they are advocating for and for whom.
“Treatment advocacy” must be defined, otherwise is it should be considered advertisement promoting the use of psychiatric medications.
The value of accurately assessing and treating the underlying medical conditions and substances known to cause psychotic/manic states is a common sense position for advocates to take. It is unethical to advance anything less than best practice standards for individuals suffering from psychosis/mania.
Mental health advocates and invetigative journalists need to stop butting heads, bullying each other with opinions and put their heads together in order to make medical necessary, cost-effective treatment available to individuals suffering from psychosis/mania.
A good analogy to consider is the story of the Elephant and the Blind Men.
Once upon a time, there lived six blind men in a village. One day the villagers told them, “Hey, there is an elephant in the village today.”
They had no idea what an elephant is. They decided, “Even though we would not be able to see it, let us go and feel it anyway.” All of them went where the elephant was. Everyone of them touched the elephant.
“Hey, the elephant is a pillar,” said the first man who touched his leg.
“Oh, no! it is like a rope,” said the second man who touched the tail.
“Oh, no! it is like a thick branch of a tree,” said the third man who touched the trunk of the elephant.
“It is like a big hand fan” said the fourth man who touched the ear of the elephant.
“It is like a huge wall,” said the fifth man who touched the belly of the elephant.
“It is like a solid pipe,” Said the sixth man who touched the tusk of the elephant.
They began to argue about the elephant and every one of them insisted that he was right. It looked like they were getting agitated. A wise man was passing by and he saw this. He stopped and asked them, “What is the matter?” They said, “We cannot agree to what the elephant is like.” Each one of them told what he thought the elephant was like. The wise man calmly explained to them, “All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all those features what you all said.”
“Oh!” everyone said. There was no more fight. They felt happy that they were all right.
The moral of the story is that there may be some truth to what someone says. Sometimes we can see that truth and sometimes not because they may have different perspective which we may not agree too. So, rather than arguing like the blind men, we should say, “Maybe you have your reasons.” This way we don’t get in arguments. In Jainism, it is explained that truth can be stated in seven different ways. So, you can see how broad our religion is. It teaches us to be tolerant towards others for their viewpoints. This allows us to live in harmony with the people of different thinking. This is known as the Syadvada, Anekantvad, or the theory of Manifold Predictions.
The public is looking for answers to the “Mental Illness” Epidemic.
Advocates need to work together to find best practice solutions.
What is causing the skyrocketing number of individuals to suffer psychotic and manic symptoms?
Is it being caused by Invisible Plagues, Toxic Exposure, Medication Mis-management?
Where can we find the solutions to our Mental Health Care Madness?
As an advocate, it is my belief that all individuals labeled with and treated for psychosis/mania are entitled to informed consent, accurate assessment and treatment options.
No individual should be forced to contract the services of facilities or providers without having the benefit of integrated care and integrative psychiatry. In cases of psychosis/mania, determining the cause of the symptoms means an overall healthier life for the forcible “treated” patient and a movement towards Participatory Medicine in mental health care.
It is my hope that advocates from all organizations will support a United Advocacy Agenda in favor of Best Practice Assessment of psychosis and acceptance of participatory concepts for those labeled “mentally ill”.
It is my goal to create a clear and convincing position that carefully considers all other dominating perspectives on the treatment of psychotic symptoms.
I welcome comments, suggestions and constructive feedback.
Here is a list of some popular books that make a critical assessment of the “mental illness” epidemic and should be held to strict scrutiny:
Invisible Plague: The Rise of Mental Illness from 1750 to the Present by Dr. E. Fuller Torrey