Mental illness vs. physical illness

[Vort]

I approach this topic with trepidation, since I run the risk of alienating many here whom I like. But if we can't discuss such topics, you have to wonder if it's worth participating in a "discussion" board.

Mental illness is often compared with physical illness, as with Elder Holland's recent General Conference address and Eowyn's comic. This comparison makes sense to me, since after all our mortal mind arises from chemical interactions in our brains, just as our body is the product of chemical interactions. From this comparison, we can draw many true and possibly useful conclusions:

• No one is perfectly mentally healthy, just as no one is perfectly physically healthy.
  
• There exist certain mental disorders that cannot be healed, just as there exist such unhealable physical disorders.
  
• Having a mental disease or disorder does not make one evil any more than having a physical disease or disorder.
  
• We ought not wrongfully discriminate against those with mental disorders.
  
• In some cases, discrimination based on mental disorders is not wrongful.
  
• Our daily actions and habits impact our mental health, just as they do our physical health.
  
• We ought to protect ourselves from harmful interaction with those with mental disorders just as we do with those with physical disorders.
  
• On the other hand, the Savior did not refuse to interact with lepers, and so we ought to extend true love and charity toward those with mental disorders that do not present overwhelming immediate danger to us, even when those disorders are scary.
  
• Compassion toward the sick, mentally or physically, is almost always the best immediate response.
  

The leprosy observation bears examination. Leprosy, or Hansen's disease, has been a scourge to humanity throughout history. Yet basic hygiene is usually enough to prevent infection. Of course, today's Western standard of "basic hygiene" vastly exceeds what our ancestors ever knew, so to them leprosy was an infectious scourge, and those who had it were very literally unclean; contact with them was a potential sentence of lingering, painful death. But as infectious diseases go, leprosy is not very virulent; only its horrific consequences made it as feared as it was.

The reason mental disease is so feared is that, unlike most physical diseases or disorders (broken bones, cancer, even infectious sicknesses), our mind is who we are in a much more intimate sense than our bodies. When you see mental disease, you appear to be seeing a change in the person, not merely in a physical condition.

Furthermore, some mental disorders present danger to those in the vicinity. This is well-known in cases of physical illness, which is why we quarantine those with infectious diseases, even forcibly in some cases. This is why we look so harshly upon those with AIDS who continue to infect others by their irresponsible, selfish, sometimes consciously intended actions. Why would equivalent harm from mental disease be thought of differently?

Because our mind is who we are, at least in the popular view. Even in law, a person's (real or imagined) mental disease is often invoked as a disculpating factor; we even have a "not guilty by reason of insanity" defense. This is remarkable. A person commits a criminal action, perhaps even murder, and we say that the perpetrator is not guilty of his actions because his "state of mind" was altered by a mental disease. It is difficult to come up with a true physical equivalent. I can't think of a case where we might say, "Yes, he beat the crap out of So-and-so, but it's not his fault because he twisted his ankle and had the flu."

So while we might compare mental and physical illness, I believe it's important to see that they are different phenomena, or if not, at least that they are and must be considered separately because the effects are separate.

But as long as we're making the comparisons, let's do so in other ways. If a person smokes for twenty years, are we surprised when he comes down with lung cancer? We may be very sympathetic to his plight, but does he immediately go to the top of the donor list? Or do we tend to say, look, he made his choices and brought it on himself, and the young man with lung cancer is simply more deserving of a lung transplant? I do not know how transplant lists work, but I suspect most would agree that, all other things equal, someone who is more "innocent" in requiring a transplant ought to receive it before someone who seemingly "brought it on himself."

So is it wrong to make exactly the same observation with regard to mental health? If a person consistently chooses to live in a way that tends to cause mental dysfunction, is it wrong to observe that he has made his choices, and that to some degree, his mental disease is a natural consequence of his own decisions?

Ah, but wait! The Book of Mormon says that those who say "he brought it on himself" are wicked and condemnable! Well...no. Actually, it says that those who withhold their help because they judge someone to have brought it on himself are wicked and condemnable. It never condemns the judgment itself. Especially when that judgment is true, it must sometimes be useful to point out the facts.

Eowyn's comic is surely often true. But what if the friend is not saying to the bleeding amputee, "Walk it off. You can't just lie around in bed all day and expect to feel better," but "I told you not to stick your hand into the wood chipper to clean it out! You need to stop doing that!"? Perhaps not helpful at the moment, but it's a true statement. The problem is the timing of the statement, better made perhaps in the emergency room after the bleeding has stopped. Similarly, what if negative thought patterns and unpleasant actions and choices are causing the mental anguish? The moment of crisis might not be the time to point it out, but it might be perfectly true and useful to point it out before or after the crisis point, even if it seems "judgmental" or "unkind".

Physical diseases often build on each other. You don't eat well or exercise, so you become overweight. As a result, your joints hurt and you become diabetic, each of which leads to further complications. A well-meaning friend says, "You know, if you would just drop 100 pounds, all or most of these problems would go away." What is your response? "How DARE you say such a thing when I'm suffering so!"? "Keep your judgments to yourself, you prig!"? "Who are you to lecture me, when you have never had to put up with such pain?" Wouldn't a simple, "You are right; can you help me with that?" be better? And doesn't the same apply to mental disorders?

People didn't used to understand microbiology and germ theory. They thought that scarlet fever came from eating watermelons or some such thing, and bad air or public wickedness caused bubonic plague. So we can't hold our ancestors morally responsible for lack of hygiene that led to diseases. But we have no such excuse. Similarly, when we know or have reason to believe that bad lifestyles and actions lead to mental weakness and disease, we are more culpable when we ignore that and pursue such things anyway.

I am not arguing against Elder Holland's (or Eowyn's) point, at least if I understand them correctly. But at the same time, if we are going to create a parallel between mental and physical illnesses, let us not ignore the corresponding ethical and moral comparison. If a man sits in a drafty room and gets sick, he may be the unfortunate victim of circumstance. If he gets better, then chooses to go back and sit in that same drafty room again, his illness is just as real, and perhaps our compassion should also be just as real, but it is now a different matter; he is no longer a simple victim of circumstance.

[NeuroTypical]

If a person smokes for twenty years, are we surprised when he comes down with lung cancer? We may be very sympathetic to his plight, but does he immediately go to the top of the donor list? Or do we tend to say, look, he made his choices and brought it on himself, and the young man with lung cancer is simply more deserving of a lung transplant? I do not know how transplant lists work, but I suspect most would agree that, all other things equal, someone who is more "innocent" in requiring a transplant ought to receive it before someone who seemingly "brought it on himself."

So is it wrong to make exactly the same observation with regard to mental health? If a person consistently chooses to live in a way that tends to cause mental dysfunction, is it wrong to observe that he has made his choices, and that to some degree, his mental disease is a natural consequence of his own decisions?

I knew a psychiatrist who once opined about his patients. I'm paraphrasing here, but he said something to the effect of "I sit here and listen to the dumb things some of my clients do to themselves as they're explaining why they're depressed, and I think to myself 'well of course you're depressed - what did you expect?'"

I think your observation is good, but we must take care to not exercise unrighteous judgement. Causal links, while sometimes seeming obvious, may be beyond our actual grasp.

Some smokers get lung cancer as a result of smoking, some do not.

Some folks experience mental issues as a result of their choices, some do not.

Some nonsmokers get lung cancer as a result of being exposed to 2ndhand smoke, some do not.

Some folks experience mental issues as a result of others' choices, some do not.

Some nonsmokers get lung cancer, and nobody can point to any reason why.

Some folks experience mental issues, and nobody can point to any reason why.

Don't judge, unless you have all the facts and there's a situation within your stewardship. And don't judge people, judge situations.

I don't know how organ recipient lists work either, but from my layman's perspective, if there needs to be a ranking, I'd prefer it was based on probable futures, not pasts. For example, I would rank a smoker with a 20 year history of smoking differently, than a nonsmoker with a 20 year history of smoking.

[Guest]

Also, an important distinction as in the case of the insanity plea...

A mental illness drastically affects your capacity to choose the right. A physical illness does not.

[Vort]

A few comments and clarifications.

I think your observation is good, but we must take care to not exercise unrighteous judgement. Causal links, while sometimes seeming obvious, may be beyond our actual grasp.

True and worthwhile observation. But as the old saw goes, don't be so open-minded that your brain falls out of your skull.

Some smokers get lung cancer as a result of smoking, some do not.

True as written, but misleading to use "some" in both contexts when referring to very differently sized groups of people. It would be more precise to say: A vastly disproportionate number of smokers get lung cancer, and almost all long-term smokers exhibit symptoms of poor health that trace back to smoking.

If the same is true with people experiencing mental issues, it would be helpful to say so openly rather than always dance around the topic. Just as a smoker can never prove that Illness X resulted from smoking and that, if he had never smoked, he would not have contracted Illness X, so a person might dismiss any possible causal factor relating to mental disease. If our purpose is to find a reason to disclaim that any action has specific consequences, this might be a good course to take; if our purpose is to avoid mental disease, we would do better to face the probabilities.

Some nonsmokers get lung cancer as a result of being exposed to 2ndhand smoke, some do not.

I understand that in most cases, "second-hand smoke" does not constitute nearly the threat to health that it is sometimes portrayed as being. I doubt the same is true about e.g. being a child of someone who exhibits debilitating mental disorders and perhaps suffering abuse or neglect from him or her. But I have no expertise in this, just a guess.

Some nonsmokers get lung cancer, and nobody can point to any reason why.

Some folks experience mental issues, and nobody can point to any reason why.

This I agree with wholeheartedly. All illnesses, mental or physical (or spiritual), have causes, but we may never know what those causes are. So black-and-white thinking on such matters usually does not produce good results.

Don't judge, unless you have all the facts and there's a situation within your stewardship. And don't judge people, judge situations.

What does this mean, exactly? What does it mean to "judge" someone? If I refuse to leave my child in the care of someone whom I consider unfit, does that constitute a personal judgment? After all, s/he has not actually abused my child (yet), so I'm not judging his/her actions.

What is the functional difference between saying, "I don't want to associate with you because your deeds are evil" and "I don't want to associate with you because, due to the evil things you have done, I think you are evil"? I agree that it is best to leave what Elder Oaks referred to as "final judgment" to God, but aren't we required to make such "intermediate" judgments on a daily basis?

Serious question. The whole "judge the sin, not the sinner" mantra leaves me nonplussed.

I don't know how organ recipient lists work either, but from my layman's perspective, if there needs to be a ranking, I'd prefer it was based on probable futures, not pasts. For example, I would rank a smoker with a 20 year history of smoking differently, than a nonsmoker with a 20 year history of smoking.

That makes sense to me.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Vort

[Vort]

Another thought:

Suppose someone loses a leg in an automobile accident. Can that person ever possibly be physically healthy again? Well...yes, in the way we define health. Such a person might even be an athlete, and/or might find all sorts of interesting, clever, and inspiring ways to compensate for the lack of a leg. But if we take e.g. the ancient Greek view of health as physical perfection, then no, such a person cannot ever be healthy. The Greeks would not even allow circumcised Hebrews to enter their schools and training facilities, because they were not whole.

Our modern view of mental health more closely represents the ancient Greek view of physical health than the modern Western view of physical health. People suffer psychic traumas that leave permanent emotional scars, perhaps sometimes even "amputating" sections of their emotional response. What does it look like for such people to be "emotionally healthy"? What is the psychological analogue to an athletic amputee? How does one cleverly and bravely compensate for having one's capacity to love children (or adults, or women, or babies) permanently diminished?

Here again, we come on what may be a fundamental difference between mental health and physical health -- and again, the difference appears to stem from mental health being much more a measure of "personhood" than physical health. Dealing with someone who lacks a leg can be unnerving and even scary for anyone not used to it (especially for children), but dealing with someone with an obvious emotional disturbance can be downright terrifying. Who are you dealing with? If the person's PERSONality does not define him, what does?

[Bini]

What does this mean, exactly? What does it mean to "judge" someone? If I refuse to leave my child in the care of someone whom I consider unfit, does that constitute a personal judgment? After all, s/he has not actually abused my child (yet), so I'm not judging his/her actions.

In my mind you're still judging the situation and not the person. If someone has a proven history of stealing, I wouldn't leave valuable possessions accessible to them, even if he or she appears to be a lovely person. Common sense would tell me to use caution and only allow them access to valuables with supervision, at least, until they were able to show good character and earn my trust. Then, I might reconsider based on the person and the progress made.

[Quin]

I'll post more later (shocking, I know)... But just wanted to give you a physical "get out of jail free" card (although, in all fairness, not guilty by mental defect etc. usually entails incarceration in a psychiatric facility, and not a get out of jail free card).

Seizures & heart attacks often happen while driving.

Often causing fatal or Injury motor vehicle accidents.

While those same accidents would be charged with criminal offenses if the driver was reckless, under the influence, etc (vehicular manslaughter, vehicular homicide, etc)... A driver who has caused -even a fatal- MVA due to a physical condition outside of their control* is NOT charged criminally.

Drivers who have a known "predictable is preventable" physical impairment and CHOOSE to drive anyway, however, are often charged.

As a case in point, if a person has a seizure, their drivers license in most states is revoked for 6 months... Or until their doctor signs off that the likelihood of a reoccurrence is slim to none / aka the same probability of anyone else. If that person drives anyway, they get charged.

Q

[Praetorian_Brow]

I am baffled at the attitude that mental illness is a mystery to people, as if they need to distance themselves from an infectious disease and they themselves are incapable of being ill. All one has to do to understand, is to imagine an unrelenting nightmare for some psychosis and remember a perpetuation of their worst emotional state for some depressive states.

As with most things, it is far easier to distance ourselves and rationalize someones situation as product of their environment and undeserving of our regard. I applaud that you are approaching the subject Vort and impressed that your tone is trepidatious and bordering on sympathetic, but I can't help but be reminded that your idea of mental illness is a throwback to conversations I have had with my father. My father at one time, told me that if only I was to fix myself, I would be more responsible. This is the same man, who believed if only his wife got help, that his marriage would be healthier. The really sad part of the situation with my family and mental illness, is that my father is living self denial, believing that he himself is incapable of being ill. He has serious unresolved baggage from his childhood that impacts his emotional and mental well being, but has convinced himself that he is incapable of whatever stain his children has. Sadly, he doesn't seem to understand that his behaviour and who he is, contributed to his children's mental health issues, more than so than my mothers.

The comparison between mental health and physical health is a comparison that is attempting to dispel the social stigma that mental illness is taboo and is also seeking to promote that people should seek help when required, not suffer in silence. Unfortunately, promoting the issue like that seems to inadvertently lead people to assume that mental illness is as curable as the common cold. If anyone knows anything about the influenza virus, they will laugh at that statement. Therapy is not simply a six week event, where a person will walk away healed like a broken leg, it is a life long process for most people.

I honestly believe, everyone is and is capable of being mentally ill on some level, realized or not, as our collective interpretation of mental stability seems to change over time and with the culture. Not too long ago, melancholia was a common malady and was even written by Aristotle. Today, we call it depression, but as always, the human condition has changed little in thousands of years.

I pray for the day that mental illness of any degree of severity receives the same compassion from Jesus, as did leprosy. As always, empathy is usually lacking in those who fear what they are capable of.

[Finrock]

Hi Vort. I hope you're doing well! :)

Our modern view of mental health more closely represents the ancient Greek view of physical health than the modern Western view of physical health. People suffer psychic traumas that leave permanent emotional scars, perhaps sometimes even "amputating" sections of their emotional response. What does it look like for such people to be "emotionally healthy"? What is the psychological analogue to an athletic amputee? How does one cleverly and bravely compensate for having one's capacity to love children (or adults, or women, or babies) permanently diminished?

Consider the following:

22 Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?

Then, later in Jeremiah the narrative seems to continue...

11 Go up into Gilead, and take balm, O virgin, the daughter of Egypt: in vain shalt thou use many medicines; for thou shalt not be cured (Emphasis added).

There is a physician in Gilead. He is Jesus Christ and the balm is His atoning sacrifice. Until we exercise complete faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ we will in vain use many medicines and not be cured.

The atonement of Jesus Christ can completely and utterly heal both mental and physical illnesses. There is no way for mankind to compensate "for having one's capacity to love...permanently diminished" except through the atonement of Jesus Christ. This power is real and it can heal us completely and if not in this life, His atonement will sustain us and compensate for our weakness if we exercise faith in Him.

Lastly, we can say what we want, but in the end if we are filled with charity we will have no fear. We will not judge. We will look to heal, to uplift, to help. Sins and weaknesses never diminish the value of a person. Each is a precious child of God. If I am hurt in any way because I am acting in love for the benefit of another, then my being "hurt" is a blessing.

-Finrock

[Guest]

My point was that mental illness (and I'm talking mainly about clinical, medically treatable imbalance) is stigmatized as a weakness or a choice, where things like the flu or diabetes or dismemberment (heh) would be treated without as much implied need to justify the treatment. Even now I'm feeling like I need to explain and justify why one would need help for clinical depression, or even under times of extreme stress. I'm going to skip that, though, and just say that there IS a need for some, just as much as some people need an insulin pump or thyroid medicine.

I said nothing of responsibility for actions.

Just because I suffer from depression doesn't mean I excuse myself from treating the people around me well (like I've seen some in my family do). It makes it more of a challenge, and therefore sometimes means I need to skip family gatherings if particularly "triggery" people will be there and I don't feel I'm at my best; or if I go, I find a way to insulate myself from it (like staying near safe people and away from jerks).

Just because I suffer from depression doesn't mean I shouldn't care for my family, or do everything I can to give myself the best chance of being well (exercise, sunshine, scriptures and prayer, etc.). It DOES mean that my best will change every day. So on bad days, the kids might be in their PJ's and only necessary housework gets done, and food is very simple. On good days, I get more deep cleaning done, the kids get played with more, and meals are better thought out and executed.

It's about doing one's best according to ability.

[Vort]

I am baffled at the attitude that mental illness is a mystery to people, as if they need to distance themselves from an infectious disease and they themselves are incapable of being ill.

For my part, I'm baffled that anyone could find it baffling that a condition unfamiliar to someone might be considered mysterious by him.

All one has to do to understand, is to imagine an unrelenting nightmare for some psychosis and remember a perpetuation of their worst emotional state for some depressive states.

How do you suppose I am to know that a psychosis is like "an unrelenting nightmare", or that a depressive state is like "a perpetuation of [one's] worst emotional state"? You have now told me that's what they are, but even so, how do I know to believe your description? How do I know that, for example, a psychosis is not exactly what it might look like -- a violent tantrum by someone who wishes to hurt me? I'm not saying you are wrong, but how am I, or how is anyone else, to know that what you say holds any water?

Assuming that people are morally lacking who do not have the knowledge you have or who do not take the viewpoint you take is not merely incorrect, it is counterproductive. Trying to shame me for what you consider my ignorance is not likely to win me over to your way of thinking.

Perhaps you think that what you state is obvious. But there are lots and lots and lots and lots of things that some people find obvious but that somehow completely escape me, and I am not alone in this. I don't have tons of up-close-and-personal experience with psychosis and other serious mental disturbances, but the experience I do have is not pretty, and does not immediately suggest that those who suffer from such conditions are victims of cruel brain chemistry. They might be just that, of course, but that is not obvious from my observations.

As with most things, it is far easier to distance ourselves and rationalize someones situation as product of their environment and undeserving of our regard. I applaud that you are approaching the subject Vort and impressed that your tone is trepidatious and bordering on sympathetic, but I can't help but be reminded that your idea of mental illness is a throwback to conversations I have had with my father.

I am sorry your father was unsupportive. I am not your father, so whatever your issues are with him, please do not pin them on me. If you think my analysis is flawed, then by all means explain why. That's one of the reasons I started the thread. But don't just say, "Hey, you're just like my stupid old dad, who said blah blah blah."

The comparison between mental health and physical health is a comparison that is attempting to dispel the social stigma that mental illness is taboo and is also seeking to promote that people should seek help when required, not suffer in silence. Unfortunately, promoting the issue like that seems to inadvertently lead people to assume that mental illness is as curable as the common cold. If anyone knows anything about the influenza virus, they will laugh at that statement. Therapy is not simply a six week event, where a person will walk away healed like a broken leg, it is a life long process for most people.

So, in other words, you are saying that what I wrote is...right...

I honestly believe, everyone is and is capable of being mentally ill on some level, realized or not, as our collective interpretation of mental stability seems to change over time and with the culture.

Interesting observation. Did you happen to read the first point on my bulleted list?

I pray for the day that mental illness of any degree of severity receives the same compassion from Jesus, as did leprosy. As always, empathy is usually lacking in those who fear what they are capable of.

I am confident that Jesus has as much compassion on the mentally ill as on the leprous. I am not sure what you are trying to convey in your final sentence; do "those" and "they" have different antecedents? If so, does that mean that one must ignore what "they" (the mentally ill) are capable of doing in order to feel empathy? I think that cannot really be what you meant, but if that's the case, I'm not quite understanding you.

[person122]

Mental illness

Is situational MDD being lumped in as "mental illness"?

[Praetorian_Brow]

You're human are you not? I am incredulous that you yourself are baffled. Apparently you are seeking an understanding of the subject, greater than what you know, which I gathered was a perpetuation of the attitude that somehow the human condition is foreign to you. Do you really want to know what its like? Or do you want to be one of those spectators who can classify who and what are to be done with those people you deem mentally ill.

I was inferring that you have distanced yourself from the subject, meaning that your distance itself is thinly veiled perpetuation of the stigma. If you really want to know what its like, go visit the mental ward of the local hospital. Or visit a nursing home, or visit your neighbour. I promise you that if you were to listen, rather than classify people, you would be astounded to learn what real despair is for people. I have visited mental wards for family and friends and considered admitting myself, so if you want proof, its personal.

I resent your tone, that you can seek the solution for your rationalization of what mental illness is, therefore quoting me, correcting my grammar does not detract from my interpretation that your stance on the subject is less than enlightening. Sure, my points are counter-productive to your aims, but I do get the satisfaction of knowing that I identified that your stance on the subject as callous.

I read your initial post and I interpreted the thesis as a declaration that the mentally ill are at fault for themselves and you cannot understand why they don't fix themselves. Perhaps I misunderstood your tone and I am in error for my assertions, however from personal experience, telling someone they are counter-productive rarely results in the person coming to an epiphany that the person is simply in error.

I gathered that you are confused on the subject, as it took an apostle for you to rearrange your stance on the matter. Forgive my offense.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Praetorian_Brow

[Dravin]

I have visited mental wards for family and friends and considered admitting myself, so if you want proof, its personal.

Proof of what? That mental illness exists? That people suffer? If you think Vort doesn't believe mental illness exists, or that people suffer, then you are misunderstanding him.

I read your initial post and I interpreted the thesis as a declaration that the mentally ill are at fault for themselves and you cannot understand why they don't fix themselves.

Then you interpreted his thesis incorrectly, if nothing else you've ignored rather critical qualifiers.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Dravin

[applepansy]

You're human are you not? I am incredulous that you yourself are baffled. Apparently you are seeking an understanding of the subject, greater than what you know, which I gathered was a perpetuation of the attitude that somehow the human condition is foreign to you. Do you really want to know what its like? Or do you want to be one of those spectators who can classify who and what are to be done with those people you deem mentally ill.

I was inferring that you have distanced yourself from the subject, meaning that your distance itself is thinly veiled perpetuation of the stigma. If you really want to know what its like, go visit the mental ward of the local hospital. Or visit a nursing home, or visit your neighbour. I promise you that if you were to listen, rather than classify people, you would be astounded to learn what real despair is for people. I have visited mental wards for family and friends and considered admitting myself, so if you want proof, its personal.

I resent your tone, that you can seek the solution for your rationalization of what mental illness is, therefore quoting me, correcting my grammar does not detract from my interpretation that your stance on the subject is less than enlightening. Sure, my points are counter-productive to your aims, but I do get the satisfaction of knowing that I identified that your stance on the subject as callous.

I read your initial post and I interpreted the thesis as a declaration that the mentally ill are at fault for themselves and you cannot understand why they don't fix themselves. Perhaps I misunderstood your tone and I am in error for my assertions, however from personal experience, telling someone they are counter-productive rarely results in the person coming to an epiphany that the person is simply in error.

I gathered that you are confused on the subject, as it took an apostle for you to rearrange your stance on the matter. Forgive my offense.

I'm having a hard time with your condemnation here. Vort is seeking to understand. I don't understand your need to classify and belittle instead of seeking common ground to understanding.

I can see and feel that your emotional response here is because this subject is close to you. I don't believe you're going to be able to have a calm discussion until the emotions are dealt with. I hope you can do that without adding more conflict to the discussion, because I think you have something valuable to contribute. Its not being heard through all the emotional clutter.

Edited December 6, 2013 by applepansy

[estradling75]

I think the reason people have such a hard time with mental illness is really brought home in the comic Eowyn posted.

We are visual creatures and we understand (generally speaking) visual cues faster then other cues. If someone is bleeding or vomiting or plugged into hospital equipment... we can see it and quickly realize that there is something wrong and we can respond more correctly to the situation (which is the point the comic is making)

But the simple fact is mental illness does not show up like physical illness does. It can lack the visual cues that can tell someone very quickly that something is wrong. They simply aren't there. Many times we can't tell the different between someone that has simply had a bad day, and someone that has a mental illness. At least not at a glance... It usually takes more prolonged exposure to begin to suspect that something isn't right. And if you are trying to help a person recover from a bad day (because you don't know any better) many people are going to say the kind of things that are found in the comic...

[Vort]

You're human are you not?

Last I checked.

I am incredulous that you yourself are baffled.

I am incredulous at your incredulity.

Apparently you are seeking an understanding of the subject, greater than what you know, which I gathered was a perpetuation of the attitude that somehow the human condition is foreign to you.

Then you were mistaken in your gathering.

Do you really want to know what its like? Or do you want to be one of those spectators who can classify who and what are to be done with those people you deem mentally ill.

I think I made my motives utterly transparent in my OP. If you have specific questions, feel free to ask, and I will happily respond. But lobbing unwarranted criticisms won't help.

I was inferring that you have distanced yourself from the subject, meaning that your distance itself is thinly veiled perpetuation of the stigma.

Then you would do well to infer less and instead read more carefully.

you would be astounded to learn what real despair is for people.

You keep changing your story about me. Am I feigning an unfamiliarity with the human condition, or would I actually be astounded to learn what constitutes "real despair"? Am I abysmally ignorant or am I a hypocritical liar? Or do you think I'm both simultaneously?

I resent your tone, that you can seek the solution for your rationalization of what mental illness is

Dude. Seriously, chill out. I wrote nothing approaching what you're screaming about. Try rereading my OP without all your preconceptions of me. Just read what's there, and don't infer a whole bunch of attitude and other stuff.

therefore quoting me, correcting my grammar does not detract from my interpretation that your stance on the subject is less than enlightening.

1. I never corrected your grammar. I asked for clarification (which you have not given).

2. What part of "my stance on the subject is less than enlightening"? Please be specific.

Sure, my points are counter-productive to your aims, but I do get the satisfaction of knowing that I identified that your stance on the subject as callous.

Then you may wish to identify my nose as a cabbage, to give you even greater satisfaction. But when you want to engage in actual discussion and not indignant ranting about imaginary offenses you have inferred, please come back.

I read your initial post and I interpreted the thesis as a declaration that the mentally ill are at fault for themselves and you cannot understand why they don't fix themselves.

Thank you for providing an actual description of what you understood, rather than just making an inference and attacking. Let me assure you: You read the OP wrong. Please do us both a favor and go reread it.

I gathered that you are confused on the subject, as it took an apostle for you to rearrange your stance on the matter.

Again, I believe your gathering is mistaken. I feel no confusion, nor did Elder Holland's talk substantially change my understanding of the topic. It was a jumping-off point for discussion.

Forgive my offense.

Very well. In return, please consider critically reading what I write, both now and in the future, rather than piling on inferences. I think we'll both be much happier.

I hope your day goes well.

[applepansy]

Thank you Vort for starting this conversation. I think its an important one to have. Because mental illness in misunderstood even by those with a mental illness, its difficult to have the conversation without strong emotions, which of course will color words.

Also, for those of us who have experienced mental illness to whatever degree even the smallest reference that doesn't sound supportive becomes an insult. This is sad but its real.

I was healthy until I wasn't. Age 30 and four children. And suddenly I couldn't physically do what I needed to do for my family. After struggling with the misunderstood physical issues for many years and trying to take psychotropic meds for a physical ailment, I became clinically depressed. (FYI: Still today 26 years later the first course of treatment for Fibromyalgia is antidepressants... still baffles me.) Taking psychotropics for a physical problem made my depression worse than it should have been. I think having an unrecognized physical issue has helped me better understand the misunderstood mental issues so many face. I even learned more when I worked as an Intake Coordinator in Psych. (Not a job I would do again because it wasn't right for me.)

Society is trying hard to understand mental illness in a time when Society is also preaching that there is no personal responsibility. Eat, drink and be merry.

I have come to believe that most mental illnesses are the result of childhood emotional/physical trauma or bad choices. I do not know the exact percentage of patients who truly have a mental illness with no cause, but its small compared to the number of people being treated.

There are medical codes now for behaviors which 30 or 40 years ago were treated with love and discipline at home. (before someone says mental illness hasn't been treated with love, I'll say Yup! I know that... but not the behaviors we classify today.) In an effort to justify the existence of their specialty and the exorbitant fees, they have "discovered" more and more and more "mental illnesses." Half a century ago families were left on their own to either deal with mental illness or institutionalize a loved one. While its helpful to understand why little Jimmy is misbehaving, labeling little Jimmy as ADHD when he's only an exuberant 6yo does a disservice to little Jimmy and his family.

One of the reasons working in psych wasn't a good match for me was because no one, ... not the doctor, not family, not friends, ... will say to someone diagnosed with a mental illness that personal responsibility may play a role. I worked with doctors who saw patients just long enough to write the script for another 30 days of mind altering chemicals instead of helping the patient overcome or recognize their problems and fix them. The more patients seen the bigger the pay check. The more patients seen the bigger the profit for drug companies. Its a system where doctors are making money and drug companies are making money... a lot of money ... on patient suffering. Its a flawed system.

I'll get off this side of my soap box and get up on the other side.

I appreciated Elder Holland's talk and I appreciate Vort for seeking to understand. Mental illness is difficult to understand even for those afflicted. I don't believe you can say a psychosis is like a nightmare that never ends. Its not an adequate analogy. Until you live in a mind that can't determine reality you can't understand. The nightmares of people with relativity healthy brains are tools to keep the person healthy. One doctor told me that dreams/nightmares are a persons way of filing the experiences of the day. Made sense to me and when I've had nightmares which got filed properly the nightmare didn't continue. Mental illness is difference, its not a matter of filing experiences. Its more that experiences aren't perceived correctly to begin with.

Depression bites! As do other forms of mental illness. It really hurts physically and emotionally to have the light of life sucked out of everything a person does. Once the spiral starts it is difficult to get out of it without help. Sometimes meds are necessary and sometimes helpful trusted people are necessary and sometimes both. What I have experienced and what I saw when I was working was that the patients who sought to understand, then take personal responsibility for their mental illness, got better and stayed better. The patients who left out personal responsibility and had the attitude "somebody fix me" never got better. This doesn't apply to psychoses with a physical component.

There was an article in Newsweek several years ago. It explained the studies which showed that our thoughts change the chemistry in our brain. It was something I knew but I didn't have the studies. I was pleased that a national magazine had spotlighted these studies and I hoped that the article would make a difference. It didn't. Not many people even heard about the studies. Only those researching and looking for answers saw it. I thought that was very unfortunate. A partial answer to some mental illnesses and it was mostly ignored.

I don't have all the answers, but I know without a doubt that Jesus Christ is the answer on all sides of the mental health issue. Patients and caregivers, friends and neighbors all need to treat each other with charity. Sometimes that charity means we say, in a kind way of course, "your actions might be causing your issues". That's hard to hear when you're in the middle of depression or other more serious mental issues but its important to hear. Not from everyone but from those who are close enough to the situation to love and help. Christ did treat the mentally ill (he cast out demons). He also treated everyone with truth, love, and compassion.

If we all try to understand and communicate through the filter of Christ the issues of mental health will be resolved.

[Bini]

Where is this comic?

[estradling75]

Where is this comic?

Follow the link

Mental illness is often compared with physical illness, as with Elder Holland's recent General Conference address and Eowyn's comic.

[Bini]

Follow the link

Duh! I did see that but it didn't click. Thanks.

[NeuroTypical]

What does it mean to "judge" someone? If I refuse to leave my child in the care of someone whom I consider unfit, does that constitute a personal judgment? After all, s/he has not actually abused my child (yet), so I'm not judging his/her actions.

What is the functional difference between saying, "I don't want to associate with you because your deeds are evil" and "I don't want to associate with you because, due to the evil things you have done, I think you are evil"? I agree that it is best to leave what Elder Oaks referred to as "final judgment" to God, but aren't we required to make such "intermediate" judgments on a daily basis?

Serious question. The whole "judge the sin, not the sinner" mantra leaves me nonplussed.

As I've tried to wade through the confusing, seemingly contradictory scriptures and church counsel on how we're supposed to judge and not judge, the best map I've found was Elder Holland's talk back in 1998-99, which lays out seven gates which ought be passed before someone passes righteous judgement. Miss some of the gates, and by definition, we're missing some or all of the righteousness in our judgement. Pass all the gates and refuse to judge, and we're failing in our duty.

First, a righteous judgment must, by definition, be intermediate. It will refrain from declaring that a person has been assured of exaltation or from dismissing a person as being irrevocably bound for hellfire.

Second, a righteous judgment will be guided by the Spirit of the Lord, not by anger, revenge, jealousy, or self-interest.

Third, to be righteous, an intermediate judgment must be within our stewardship.

Fourth, we should, if possible, refrain from judging until we have adequate knowledge of the facts.

A fifth principle of a righteous intermediate judgment is that whenever possible we will refrain from judging people and only judge situations.

Sixth, forgiveness is a companion principle to the commandment that in final judgments we judge not and in intermediate judgments we judge righteously.

Seventh, a final ingredient or principle of a righteous judgment is that it will apply righteous standards.

From Elder Oaks' perspective, righteous judgement is rare, peaceful, rarely condemning, and pretty much never about individuals, but instead situations. I don't think along the lines of "I'm not letting that idiot babysit my kids", I think along the lines of "I'm thinking it's wise to avoid a situation where my kids would be under the stewardship of someone who is currently known for making this and that bad choice, on this and that occasion."

[person122]

I'm still wondering. Are they calling people mentally ill if they become severely depressed because something bad happened to them? For instance : A spouse passing away. It sounded like that according to Elder Holland's talk, but I can't get my head around it. My thinking has been that mental illness is something wrong with brain chemistry or.. sorry, I'm trying to find the right words so I'm sorry if I come across wrong.. like someone who is bi-polar or someone hearing voices hearing voices. Something out of their control. I thought someone who doesn't have mental illness and then has something bad happen is going through a trial.

[Traveler]

I believe that there are many considerations - and as soon as I give an opinion (like Vort) someone will likely take offense. To begin - I generally believe that illness (both mental and physical) is related (either directly or indirectly) to corrupted influences (unclean spirits) as part of our mortal state.

I also believe that in all cases we can make personal choices to either "better" our condition or "worsen" it. This does not necessarily mean that we can "cure" ourselves through our choices - only that we have some input into changing for benefit or for determent.

What I find ironic is that for the most part those that are personally suffering from something mental, physical or even spiritual (I might add other points here - such as economical, social or any number of other such things) that they most often do not like input (criticism) of possible solutions they can personally take upon themselves. For the most part - what ever solutions we seem to seek are solutions that place the greater burden outside our personal responsibility. In the case of various illnesses - we want to take a pill and be done with it. Often with various others things, economical or social - we want either sympathy or some kind of gift. But we do not want to change our personal status quo even if such action can be beneficial.

I have suggested in past discussion that we consider repentance as a possible attitude in dealing with various illnesses - both physical and mental. Not sure I got any happy responses from that; which convinced me that very few have a similar understanding of repentance that I have learned and experienced and that they did not want any part of such thinking - despite the fact that they are expressing great difficulty currently.

The Traveler

[Guest]

I think that actually, you believe that anyone with different struggles than you needs to repent and become more like you.

I'll just say that my worst depression came during one of my most faithful times, when I was doing everything "right" and putting more effort into the Gospel than any other time in my life. I was living righteously, faithfully reading, praying, journaling, etc. I know it helped. I know it got me through. I also know that I should have been on medication at that time, because I was still deeply depressed and struggling just to get out of bed. I'm not sure what I should have been repenting of. What do you think?