Redefining Mentally Ill

[shimmerz]

Child abusers and the DSM - why they are not included as disordered.

[DLMURL]http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-child-does-not-have-bipolar-disorder/201402/dsm-5-and-child-neglect-and-abuse-1[/DLMURL]

 

[shimmerz]

@Ayesha, no, in fact I am not putting you in with abusers. I am asking that we look at the terminology of mental illness as it stands. I am asking those that are not held accountable to be accountable. It is a tall order yes. If our parents were considered and treated as being disordered first and foremost (or our abusers) according to the DSM could we not perhaps save a generation of victims of crimes committed?

I am not certain how you have gotten to

You are putting me with your abusers only becasue they didn't have awareness and chose to ignore the damage to others.

How am I putting you with them? I would like to understand this.

I am actually trying to (forget the mental illness label) distinguish between those who seek help and those who refuse to see what they are doing to others.

Seriously - if you look at the issue of pedophilia and child abuse not being seen as a 'disorder' in the DSM - does that not seem wrong to you?

 

[Lady of Longbourn]

I am confused, really I am.

If our parents were considered and treated as being disordered first and foremost (or our abusers) according to the DSM could we not perhaps save a generation of victims of crimes committed?

This is medical. Even though you said to forget the label later in your post...

distinguish between those who seek help and those who refuse to see what they are doing to others.

Okay this I understand. I am mentally ill and I seek help.

But you were still saying last night:

Is that mentally ill? I know we accept this label but really, are the people who have no awareness of themselves and the effect they have on others (or choose to ignore the damage they do to others) not mentally ill?

So are saying that all those that hurt you are mentally ill, by the DSM, (as you said above)? Because they hurt you?

I think you are simply looking for answers why so you can heal, which is understandable.

 

[joeylittle]

Seriously - if you look at the issue of pedophilia and child abuse not being seen as a 'disorder' in the DSM - does that not seem wrong to you?

I can't answer for Ayesha. But the DSM lists paraphilia as a category of disorders including pedophilia. One of the criteria is either having distress over the disorder; or causing distress in others by acting on the disorder. http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraphilic Disorders Fact Sheet.pdf

The DSM covers child abuse in the "V" codes (not to be confused with roman numeral 5) Link Removed . These are not considered to be disorders per se (with criterion established) but are considered to be of clinical significance. Looking at the list, I understand why; these are all behaviors. "Child Abuse" is an action; looking at things, it could be considered with the conduct disorders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSM-5_...lse-control.2C_and_conduct_disorders_in_DSM-5)

The Conduct Disorders are also where Antisocial Personality Disorder can be found, along with just Personality Disorders. This is how sociopaths are diagnosed.

So, these horrible behaviors are all possible to categorize, according to the DSM. And I agree, it would have been more than great for these offenders to have been identified (if presenting symptoms) or self-identify and seek help. But an offender who doesn't do that, one who shows no remorse for their actions, I would not settle for calling them a sociopath (antisocial personality disorder); I would call them a criminal, pure and simple.

Perhaps that's the distinction? Offenders are criminal; it is a crime. It is not, however, a crime to be mentally ill. That's my objection with generalizing the terminology.

Edited to fix actual facts; edited portion in bold

 

[Pencil]

How am I putting you with them? I would like to understand this.

@shimmerz, forgive me if I'm trespassing by speaking for you. @Ayesha, Shimmerz is saying that the categories are f*cked up, and they are. You have a chemical disorder, which is similar in a way (let's not split hairs about this too, please) to diabetes, in the sense that it is a physiological problem. Too much of this or too little of that other whatever. What Shimmerz is trying very hard to say is that the medical / moral / psychiatric world categorizes people / sufferers / victims / perpetrators according to the wrong criteria. And while we are arguing, the world of psychology actually agrees. Example: In South AFrica, there are many black people who would be diagnosed as schizophrenic according to the western model, while the African culture sees it as something else altogether, such as the spirits of the ancestors communicating with the person. This is a dilemma in psychology in SA, and no-one knows the 'right answer'.

So, instead of arguing about whether Shimmerz is saying you belong or don't belong to this, that or any other group, try to understand what she is saying, and what she is saying is that the lines are drawn in the wrong places. Bipolar is a physiological problem, not a moral or emotional or psychological one. But you are lumped with the 'mentally ill' who might be morally corrupt, or cognitively deficient, or just plain evil, simply because the categories are not properly conceptualized.

I firmly believe in evil, but I fully understand that 'evil' can never be considered in psychiatry - and so psychiatry cannot fully explain the full range of human phenomena. And we see the constant rearranging of disorders and symptoms in the DSM - the point is, not too long ago homosexuality was a 'mental illness', and lobotomies and bloodletting were considered to be good practice. In the current DSM, 'grief' is seen as a disorder, a 'mental illness'. OMG. Psychology really is in its infancy.

 

[shimmerz]

@joeylittle that is exactly what I am trying to get to. Get to the people who feel no distress over hurting others. They are the ones that damage society over and over again. That is all I have been saying. Call them mentally ill, disordered whatever you want, but I am not them. I do not want to be painted with the same brush.

A criminal has to commit a crime and be caught and who knows if they will be held accountable? By then the damage is already done - maybe many times over. Many times the system doesn't care if someone does commit a crime. Child services identified that my parents were committing crimes against me - and as a result they were damaging me - a psychiatrist ordered me back - just to be taken away again 19 times! They would not force them to seek help. Why not? I was starved and near death as an infant. That is criminal but no charges laid?

I have to ask why everyone is so attached to the mental illness label....

@Ayesha Perhaps my using the word criminal as @joeylittle mentioned would have been better than disordered, but I have an issue with this as stated above in this posting. Can we not seek help without a mental illness label attached? Can we not seek help because we have been damaged? Wounded? I am saying that those that hurt me without regard or with pleasure need to be held accountable in order for this cycle to cease. Others have hurt me, of course. It is the disregard that I am trying to point out here as being in a category unto itself.

 

[Pencil]

Offenders are criminal; it is a crime. It is not, however, a crime to be mentally ill

Yes, this is the distinction. But what MAKES criminals behave in a criminal manner?

The original question was: Is it not more 'mentally abnormal' to inflict suffering than it is to suffer (which should signify mental health)? In other words, if someone bleeds from a stab wound, do we punish the injured for the mess on the floor, or the stabber?

 

[Lady of Longbourn]

I have to ask why everyone is so attached to the mental illness label....

Because it's in your title.

 

[shimmerz]

@Ayesha, so is the word redefining

 

[Lady of Longbourn]

In regards to post above: No, I don't see the change at all.

@shimmerz I have a mental illness and if I didn't get help for it, would that make me a possible abuser?

 

[joeylittle]

Is it not more 'mentally abnormal' to inflict suffering than it is to suffer (which should signify mental health)? In other words, if someone bleeds from a stab wound, do we punish the injured for the mess on the floor, or the stabber?

It's just language, but language matters.

It is not hard to read this as though you are suggesting that the mentally ill must be punished, and sufferers (or survivors) are not mentally ill.

I understand that this is the binary of many people with PTSD.

Some of us are dealing with three things: mental illness, PTSD, and offenders.

Offenders can be diagnosed as mentally ill. I have no problem saying that I am mentally ill and a pedophile is mentally ill. Different illnesses of the mind that manifest chemically and physically. I have a problem with suggesting that the labels are backwards, because that limits things to two categories.

Can we not seek help without a mental illness label attached? Can we not seek help because we have been damaged? Wounded?

Sure, I guess. But can we also seek help because we were not damaged by another person, but rather by our own chemistry?

Something you might not know about having a mental illness diagnosis along the lines of a mood disorder. It can be unbelievably saddening, maddening, frustrating to have really no solid idea where it came from or what it is doing within your brain specifically. I don't think I'm generalizing when I say that we all struggle with some level of this.

Coming to terms with a diagnosis of depression, or bipolar, or schizophrenia, or any of these: it is very, very hard; just as hard as accepting a PTSD diagnosis. And so, when someone says "we aren't mentally ill, they are" - those of us who have worked hard to come to terms with the fact that we are mentally ill and daily work to see no stigma in that - we suddenly can feel ostracized. Part of a witch hunt.

Does that make sense? I'm not looking for agreement, just understanding of the opposite point of view.

 

[shimmerz]

But the DSM lists paraphilia as a category of disorders including pedophilia. One of the criteria is having distress over the disorder; so I am certain that there are many, many pedophiles who experience no remorse and therefore would not be considered under this diagnosis:

@Ayesha, I will say it again, the above is what I have an issue with. It is the lack of awareness or blatant disregard for damaging others. It is societies need to deal with such people swiftly and surely that will stop, imho, many crimes against humanity that cause people wounded by them and therefore to a life of trauma-esque behaviours.

with the fact that we are mentally ill and daily work to see no stigma in that

I am not looking to stigmatize anyone except the people who are blatantly victimizing others. Many people believe that trauma is the root of many co morbid diagnosis'. I happen to be one of those. Perhaps that is where the confusion lies here. Many articles on this are available through google.

I have a mental illness and if I didn't get help for it, would that make me a possible abuser?

I am attempting to see if redefining the phrase society uses that is 'mental illness' would help empower those of us who have been victimized by such people. Are you wounded first or are you mentally ill first? Are you blatantly hurting other people with total disregard? I think not as you are here each and every day supporting others. This is absolutely not the MO of the people I am speaking of in this posting.

Whew! Keep it coming.....!