Redefining Mentally Ill

[Recovery4Me]

@Go Hungry
Wow! Just gotta say that post #94 rocks!!! I mean like you jumped in with both feet and I could have listened all day!
So I had to share that you went from your scared to post thread to elaborating here with such finesse that I have to ask,
"IF you do write those other pages..."

(I could go on another 5 pages about this one thing, but I'll resist the temptation.)

"...can I please read them? " ;)

 

[shimmerz]

Okay, so back to @jocko 's posting and my response. I am harassed, terrorized, followed, called mentally ill by my brother in law the lawyer. There are multiple 911 calls where I am a sobbing mess in my house with utilities and phone cut off, I am frantic and hysterical calling 911. Police come. They say 'prove that you didn't do this'. They do nothing because they think I am mentally ill because a 'high standing' member of society tells them so. They refuse to hear me because I am, in their mind, mentally ill. I eventually get to a woman's shelter and am flushed out of the first one because lawyer dude serves them papers there and they accept them. I will be flushed out of places 3 times after that within the first 6 weeks.

Eventually I am taken to hospital because I am terrified with no place to get away from them. They are getting me at work, at the shelters, following me in my car. They will not leave me alone. I tell the doctors my story. They say that my story is too 'out there' to be believed. Based on my reactions to this pathetically real situation, I am considered mentally ill. They do however listen to my 'not mentally ill friends' (thank god). They ask my friends if they believe me and they all give a resounding YES. Clearly then lawyer dude and posse are damaging me.

What do the medical professionals and police do about it? Well, the police do nothing. Doctors give me drugs so I can sleep and not 'worry about it', they pat me on the head and send me off to CBT where I am told that I am making myself ill by worrying about this. I can't think on the drugs which puts me more at risk. I don't consider this reaction a mentally ill one - I consider it normal for the situation. This is the first time ever that I am dismissed so totally and completely. On the drugs I almost start getting used to this attitude but when off the drugs I fight those who attempt to impose this attitude on me when they don't like what I have to say/ They simply pull the mentally ill card. Conversation over.

Maybe had I had mental health issues all of my life I would be used to the condescending, dismissive, pile a kak people were throwing at me - maybe it is similar to being in a pot of water that someone just keeps turning the heat up on until it is boiling and oen doesn't notice. I am going to tell you, I noticed.

Were the drugs meant to make me complacent? 'There, there, go along now. Nobody wants to hear your silly stories. You are mentally ill remember?'

What a completely different life! Why? Because this 'dangerously mentally ill' dude has targeted me and is driving me insane with fear and nobody will listen to me! Does this not sound wrong to anyone else but me? I am not just talking about my story here. I am speaking of what the mentally ill label does to us and how we are treated.

 

[shimmerz]

What might be scarier is that it doesn't bother me as much as I think it should. All that is a complex topic...... Am I in the group of people you're talking about?

This is what I mean about the pot of boiling water. Yes, I believe there is a process out there to have us and society as a whole to be conditioned to accept that we are no different than the dangerously mentally ill.
No, @scout86, you are not one of the people I am speaking of. Those people wouldn't be on this board and certainly wouldn't take the time to be introspective or help others. They would laugh at the pain in these postings.

 

[scout86]

Maybe had I had mental health issues all of my life I would be used to the condescending, dismissive,....

Mental health issues or not, I think it's safe to say you'd get used to being treated dismissively and condescendingly, if you'd been raised that way. I'm always more surprised when someone takes me seriously than I am when they don't.

Now I think I get what you're talking about. The people you're describing, in my world, are a special type of evil. Your situation is a special type of complicated, too! You've considered, I imagine, that a fair percentage of the population with stories like yours IS "mentally ill", delusional, paranoid, etc. It's got to be hard for the powers that be to tell the difference. (I'm glad you had friends to back you up, even though that didn't totally solve the problem!)

I see the problem here, I think, but I'm not sure that it's a question of redefining "mental illness" or trying to teach people to stigmatize a different subgroup of people. Unless you've met someone like the people you're talking about, I suspect it's hard to believe they exist. I believe they exist, mind you! They are smart, they are evil, and they know how to work the system. Are they "mentally ill"? Well, I suspect they meet the definition of psychopath/sociopath. That's a subset of "people with mental illnesses", according to the medical end of things. Legal definitions are different and it wouldn't surprise me of most of these people DON'T qualify as "legally mentally ill". Because they are smart and know how to work the system, and other people, these folks are definitely dangerous. What do you do about them? Tough to answer! (At this point, my T usually suggests that I avoid visualizing solutions to problems that involve the use of firearms.)

Can't we just call "those people" "Evil" and be done with it?

 

[shimmerz]

Yes, many do. And leave it at that. But then people develop all sorts of issues because evil is neither criminal nor is it a mental health issue in which one is forced or encouraged to seek help. That is the main issue that I see here. They wander around destroying people and it costs them so much - let alone society who pours money into repair of those people and loss of functional (usually highly) people from society. It doesn't really address the problem that I presented in the first place about these guys getting off scot free while I trudge to therapy etc (not just me but many). People know that mentally ill people exist due to media hype etc 0 why don't they understand the impact of 'evil people' on society as a whole? I suggest they have a light shone on them in society and the toll they take on our resources (people and finances).

 

[Pencil]

So we're at last back at your original point. Evil exits, but evil can't be categorized in law, in psychiatry (or anywhere else outside of morality or religion, and we don't want to go back to witch hunts). Yet it is there. And I agree with the point you've been trying to make all along, which is that the majority of people with a 'mental illness' are not mentally ill at all. I am not mentally ill- I am emotionally ill, I am damaged in some ways, but I'm not 'mentally' 'ill'. Someone who went through a major car crash and broke every bone is no longer 'ill' five years after the accident. They may have scars and difficulties, but they are no longer 'ill'. The same goes for trauma. The more 'serious' of disorders is BPD - which responds well to CBT, which just goes to show that people with BPD are cognitively and emotionally and behaviourally messed up, and with time and effort it can be straightened out.

'Mental illness' is an umbrella term that is as outdated as lobotomies and bloodletting.

The real sickos are predators, and they are never diagnosed. If society is lucky, they break a law or two, and they are then labeled 'criminal' but not mentally sick. And I agree that evil kills more people than Ebola, yet it remains invisible mainly because it is ignored.

But a solution is difficult, because when you speak of evil, people shy away. And evil can't be measured by the yardsticks of psychiatry.

From my own life: Each time my sister applies for a court order, her main argument is that I have BPD, and I quote from her affidavit:

"I submit this affidavit in the hope that, as a first and urgent step, a designated social worker will be convinced of the need to proceed under a Form 36 authority to immediately remove [child] from her mother’s care, and to place her in my interim care, pending further investigation. It sets out why, in [child's] current circumstances, an investigation is needed, in terms of in terms of section 150-152 of the Children’s Act no. 38 0f 2005, into [child's] need for care and protection; read with regulation 53, which provides for her removal to safety. The general basis for my concern is outlined below (and elaborated further in the ensuing paragraphs):


3.1 [Child] is exposed on a daily, unsupervised basis to her mother’s uncontrolled borderline personality disorder (professionally diagnosed), which has a strong violent tendency."

Each time, after the arrival of the posse, and after their return, I have the opportunity to respond with 'No, I was diagnosed with PTSD in 1997 by [psychologist].' But by that time nobody is interested in official documents I submit, as they are busy closing the case. The point is that it is on the basis of a 'diagnosis' of a mental illness that she gets them to react, even if it's fabricated. I can now try to get her prosecuted for crimen injuria and perjury. That might stall her a bit, but she might try other things, such as abducting my daughter, which is what the police have warned me about, saying she 'fits the profile'. What profile? There is no official profile for 'abductors' in the DSM or any other official system - but they have experience with sick people, and I believe them.

So, I get your frustration. And I get your point. I am not mentally ill, she is, but her particular 'sickness' might not even be in the DSM. I've always wondered where in the DSM Ted Bundy would be found, or Jeffrey Dahmer, or .... the countless others responsible for unspeakable horror. And I don't fall for 'Narcissistic' or 'Anti-Social' the two terms that are supposed to signify the worst of the worst. I've known narcissistic sociopaths who are a pain in the ass but would not kill and eat people for breakfast. They might con you out of your underpants and your retirement, but not much more.

 

[shimmerz]

Because the minute someone says 'mentally ill' society dismisses the right of the so called mentally ill person to have a voice. And dangerously mentally ill people know this. And they run with it and (as in my case) post bumper stickers on cars in a small town so that people 'don't want to get involved' (isolation) or tell police (the only ones that I can be protected from these people by) so that my concerns will be ignored. Dangerously mentally ill people don't react out of fear. They don't have any because they know that if they pull the 'this person is mentally ill card', nobody will look at them. All eyes are on me.

 

[shimmerz]

I think it's safe to say you'd get used to being treated dismissively and condescendingly,

Or if you fight it people label one as mentally ill. I fought and fought to have people see what was actually happening. I was called paranoid. That is a mental ill diagnosis. It just takes that one thing to disarm so quickly, so adeptly, one who is fighting another who is dangerously mentally ill.

 

[Eleanor]

Wow, interesting thread. Here is my two cents: I like distinctions. I mean I really really like distinctions. I like words to MEAN something. I particularly like them to REFER to stuff or patterns in the real world. I can get quite snippy with people whose words don't refer, or who insist on meaning different things by the same word without drawing big boxes with red arrows around them to indicate that they are using the same word in different senses.

Needless to say this means I get annoyed ALOT in real life. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

But perhaps my little obsession can help a bit here. I think part of the difficulty in even talking about this coherently, even with very bright and well intentioned others who are very possibly mostly of a like mind, is that context determines meaning. So when I write "Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana." most people find it confusing or funny. Because "flies like a" can't mean the same thing from the beginning of the sentence to the end. Context determines meaning. I would suggest that "mental illness" is a troubled term because it means different things in different contexts. And when people are not writing for philosophical or medical journals they tend to be a bit sloppy about the context they are using, and sometimes they even switch (impressively, no one that I saw in this thread actually did that! Good work, friends!)

So here is the thing, "mental illness" means one thing (or set of things) when we contrast it with "physical illness." It means, I think, quite a different thing when we contrast it with "mental health." It can mean yet another thing when we contrast it with "mental/emotional injury." And something really quite different when it means "not morally responsible." And here is where a lot of the really egregious trouble starts.

In different contexts when used for different ends people will tend to muddle up different senses and not even notice they are doing it! Which is a hell of a problem for anyone trying to say anything or do anything about people who suffer, and figuring out what to do about people who intentionally and knowingly cause suffering.

Family systems therapists (do those still exist?) talked about the "identified patient" in a family. The theory being that if you found a certain degree of disfunction in one person in a family, you were sure as bears shit in the woods going to find more disfunction in the others. My grad school T gave me a really really useful category. My mom came in once, and they talked. And at our next session he said "She presents very well." I had no earthly idea what he meant. So he explained it: She seems very nice and normal, but in reality she is bat-shit crazy. Ok, he didn't use those exact words but that was the gist. Then he went through and explained to me what she had said and how disconnected and irrational it was. "Wow! I thought. She is not normal!" I should have said "healthy" but I didn't actually have a concept of mental/emotional health at that point. I'm still kind of sketchy on the concept, never having actually met such a creature (at least as far as I know.) That opened up a little space for me to start to look at how my family operated and to see how... mutilating/deforming it was. Which explained a lot, once you saw it. And explained why everyone always thought everything was fine. Because we all presented well. A perfect illusion.:angelic:

But what to do about abusers physical and emotional and I would include moral? I'm not sure. A lot of things I think at the end of the day. There is a book about ending violence called "The Third Side." In it the author makes the analogy with fires. Cities don't burn anymore. They used to tho. What happened? Lots of things. Building codes, sprinklers, fire departments, new materials, set backs, limiting fire sources, fire prevention efforts. A ton of little incremental changes. I think we are in the early stages of doing that with violence. My H suffered a lot of physical abuse from his parents and step mother (and some sibling violence as well.) I don't think this would go as completely unnoticed and unremarked today as it did then. I'm not sure if he had told anyone if they'd have... been concerned. He was fed, and clothed and housed. So his folks beat the crap out of him. So what? There is at least a chance someone might intervene now. They did for my step daughter. It took a long time, but eventually they figured it out and took some action.

I would only add that I think there are some people who are addicted to violence and conflict. And there are some of those who embrace that addiction and "sign on" intentionally. I am pretty comfortable calling folks who sign on intentionally "evil." Some of them might have an organic mental illness. Some might not. That is a separate issue. We aren't even talking about those folks, policy wise, but we will have to before we can get any kind of handle on the problem. (Who is throwing all those bodies in the river that we keep fishing out down here?:watching:)

It is hard to talk about such things without being incredibly long winded. Because setting context takes a lot of wind. This is why people invent "technical lingo." People who intentionally share a context will invent technical terms with a fixed meaning. The problem is that if you are not part of that language group, you are likely not to understand what the heck they are saying. Because they are, in fact, speaking a different language.

I will say that I think the people who have the greatest chance of emotional healing are those with a good "moral compass." And that I think "moral harm" is not yet a common category and it should be.

 

[shimmerz]

@Eleanor - really great post. I also would like to state that the reason behind this posting is to attempt to bring to light that those with a good 'moral compass' have little or no chance when they are involved with those who have little or no moral compass. My contention is that that is how many people are damaged. Evil people can present as the most upstanding people ever, that that is part of the 'evil'. Until we who are damaged can make that distinction, understand the signs of those to keep clear of, those with grounded morals may well fall trap to those without over and over again. People, unfortunately are not all evil nor are they all good, however, the key is in being able to see the signs of those who are worried more about what they want than how that can damage others irreparably.

 

[Pencil]

I teach my daughter to 'do the right thing' under all circumstances. At first she asked me what the right thing was, and quickly understood that we always instinctively know. But I've just been through a series of incidents that made me start questioning the wisdom of always doing the right thing. I'm beginning to feel that I set myself up for exploitation and abuse. I'm really thinking very hard about this.

One thing I've learned is that 'we' try so hard to prove our mental health, and taking responsibility, and being 'not guilty' etc that we lose the ability to strike when it is really necessary. This is really a major theme and challenge at this point in my life.

 

[joeylittle]

One thing I've learned is that 'we' try so hard to prove our mental health, and taking responsibility, and being 'not guilty' etc that we lose the ability to strike when it is really necessary.

Something that really strikes me about this statement, and I believe resonates with this thread: The struggle to prove to others that we are not bad or wrong etc. is a really misdirected thing. Going back to the basic - you can't change others' thoughts or behavior, you can only change your own - struggling to prove ones' own rightness can be coming from insecurity and self-hate. Accepting that others may think what they will, but not allowing it to affect your own emotional or mental health - that might be the harder path but it's the only one we can succeed in.

Even in a horrible circumstance where one is being targeted by sociopaths and absolutely no-one believes the targeted person, and dismisses them - there is nothing the target can really do about it, in terms of changing the points of view of others. What they can do is remove themselves entirely from the situation.

Small example: I was picked upon in school very badly. I wished from the deepest bottom of my heart that someone would get the girls who were hurting me. I wished someone would tell them they were wrong. I began to believe that they were right. Inside of all that, the only thing I could change was whether or not I ever had to see them. So i changed schools. I'm not saying I was an emotionally genius kid, no, no, no - what I'm saying is getting tangled in trying to make it "right" involved changing other peoples' thoughts and actions, and that was (unfortunately) not going to happen.

I know this is an emotionally sensitive subject. But we really do all have to remember that we can choose to not think/feel there is a stigma; fighting against it for society is one thing, but learning first to not absorb it as true is a personal project, and no-one else can or should be expected to do it for us.