Redefining Mentally Ill

[Pencil]

mentally ill must be punished

Weren't we talking about criminal behaviour?

 

[joeylittle]

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.

Absolutely.

But I had depression (dysthemic type) before I had trauma. And so, trauma is not the root of my depression diagnosis; heredity is.

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.

Sure. But let me give you a different kind of example: As a depressive, in adult life, I isolated to the extreme. Still do, but I'm working on it. My sister, who is the only one in my family I can really deal with, is a wonderful person. She's generous, kind, and perceptive. She eventually told me that my treatment of her - isolating, dismissing, not connecting - was the topic of a years' worth of her therapy. I damaged her through my illness.

My brother had a total psychotic break in the middle of a major city. He was med-compliant, but the mix wasn't right and he couldn't get help (no insurance and on the waiting list for public aid). As part of his break event he smashed a storefront, causing two people to be cut with flying glass, and also physically assaulted random strangers who were trying to restrain him as he attempted to slit his own throat with the glass. He very likely caused someone trauma that day.

Should he be dealt with "swiftly and surely" for his "crimes against humanity"?
Should I be?

And if you want to say yes, I'll absolutely accept that. This is debate. Personal, yes, but debate. I've got a thick skin, no worries.

Do you understand the complication? Again, you are seeing it as trauma and offenders. You have to take into account that there is mental illness separate from those two categories.

And I'm suggesting that there is no shame in being ill. There is no shame in having a disorder, if you cop to it. There is punishment for those who engage in criminal acts against others, whether there is a pathology or no.

(Though I have to add that, by default all such actions have a pathology if you choose to look at them that way. The DSM literally covers every aspect of disordered, clinical, and aberrant behavior)

 

[joeylittle]

@Pencil: absolutely we are talking about criminal behavior. Within that, we are saying that those who engage in criminal behavior should carry the diagnosis of "mentally ill" - and those of us who are mentally ill and not criminals are just not sure what you are suggesting about where we would then fit in.

 

[Lady of Longbourn]

Are you wounded first or are you mentally ill first?

Why are you asking this question?

They are two very different things Shimmerz. One is chemical that I inherited and one is not. I can not compare them and I think you are asking that I do.

 

[Pencil]

Should he be dealt with "swiftly and surely" for his "crimes against humanity"?
Should I be?

No, we are talking about INTENT, and culpability. Even the law makes a very very clear distinction between people who can distinguish between right and wrong but choose not to, and those who can't - whether permanently or temporarily.

 

[shimmerz]

Last time.....I am speaking about people who blatantly refuse to see how their actions affect others. Chronic abusers. And if they can't see what they are doing the powers that be in society need to make sure that they keep others from harm.

Absolutely a person being switched from med to med and affected badly by such does not fall in with what I am speaking about here.

We are talking about INTENT and culpability.

@Ayesha, they are not always two different things.

lol - @Pencil - you and I know what we are talking about - even using the same words! lol. Not ignoring anyone but heading out for the day.

 

[Kas_Can_Fly]

Some criminals/abusers are right handed and I am right handed as well, that doesn't mean that the shared right-handedness means we are the same the same goes for mental health good or bad.

I think for many mental health problems, the amount of suffering experienced by the, well, sufferer is a part of what diagnoses it. So then psychopathy must play a part in your definition as abusers tend not to feel guilt for their actions. There are people with diagnosed psychopathy however that don't choose to hurt others, so really the only defining characteristic here is some people are bad and that the vast majority of abusers are bad. Therefore it's not mental illness that drives one to do bad things, it's someone desire to do bad things that causes it.

Also I don't see why it's not possible for for both elements to play a part. Someone can be bad and do bad things and they can be mentally unwell, but the mental illness isn't the badness, the badness is.

As for dropping the label of being mentally ill, do you consider yourself to be mentally healthy? Like it or not I struggle with day to day life and everyday occurrences, I cannot function as part of society and that in itself is a sign I'm not OK. It isn't down to a physical impairment, therefore it must be psychological, ergo I am mental unwell, can you in a similar manner say that you are not unwell? And why does being unwell have to be a weakness or something wrong, why can't it be the truth and "just be" like left or right-handedness, diabetes or any other physical trait. Why just because it's invisible does it have to be bad, why can't bad just be bad. Surely that should be the deciding factor. I don't see why mental health and choosing to make bad decisions that harm others have to be inextricably linked.

 

[Lady of Longbourn]

Frankly, even your title confuses me. You did not mention in your title about this being only about your abusers. Which makes me believe it wasn't your intention when you first started it. What I am seeing is an argument full of holes and an argument that is changing becasue you were called out on wording and honestly, I see prejudice in your postings.

Your first post, and you say this in various wordings:

The ones who feel so powerless that they need to victimize their own children or someone else's. Is that not mentally ill? Why are they not being labelled as such?

I speak to doctors about what they did and they say I am mentally ill?

Because you don't want to be with your abusers (you are saying this) and people like me; the mentally ill. But if your abuser was a teacher and you were a teacher would that make you less of a person? It's okay to have health problems, there is nothing wrong with that...are you at peace with that? I question it.

And Justmehere calls you out:

Mental illness doesn't = hurting people, victimizing others, etc. The majority of people with mental illnesses do not do those things. People who hurt people, and do all those horrible things, may also have a mental illness, but mental illness doesn't = all those horrible things.

And I call you out:

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

I am trying not to feel you are putting your abusers into the same box as me.

First page:

I think what I am trying to say is that I am mentally unwell (obviously) but mentally damaged by those who were mentally ill.

Point is...over and over you use the term in a blanket statement, generalizations and not until post 21 do you start saying things like this, you are backtracking IMHO:

I am speaking about people who blatantly refuse to see how their actions affect others.

I'm bowing out of the discussion. I wont be a part of this anymore.

 

[scout86]

I should probably force myself to go back and read all the intervening posts carefully, so I don't say something someone else has already said. (But, hey, I have ADHD & patience isn't always my best thing. :p)

First, "those who are incapable of feeling remorse".... Would they not, most of the time, fit into the category of psychopath/ sociopath? Isn't the inability to feel empathy part of that package? And, maybe a certain kind of narcissism too, because it's all about THEM and what THEY want, and no one else counts?

In my opinion, we have things like the DSM as a convenience. Lawyers need it, insurance companies need it, and anyone who's really into sorting stuff (or people) into piles, needs it. NONE OF THIS IS "REAL"! My T says all the time, "We each have our own road map of reality. They are not all the same. They are also NOT reality. They are road maps. There is a difference."

The DSM is a "road map", It's a handy way of expressing the various continuums of characteristics that we all have more or less of. It is what it is, right now. It gets used, and we all have to deal with the consequences. BUT, it is an attempt to describe reality, that's ALL it is. It's not necessarily a GOOD description of reality, but the current one is the one that's accepted right now. When the DSM changes, we all still experience reality the same way we always have, we just may get an new label. Road map, not "reality". Beyond the labels and beyond the places where labels get used, it has no meaning at all.

As far as perpetrators go, I'd be happy just labeling them "evil bastards" and letting it go at that. Whether or not they are, officially "mentally ill" depends on the definition at the moment. Doesn't change what they are. Maybe they ARE "sick". Personally, I'd be content to stigmatize them as "evil bastards" and don't feel the need to lump them in with people who have other problems, but that's just me. I guess I could go with "sick, evil bastards" too. But, you know, there are a lot of variations on that theme too. Some of them have excuses, some of them don't.....

On a semi- related note, my T once mentioned that it "drives him nuts" (interesting choice of words!) when his coworkers talk about how they will be seeing "2 depressives and a bi-polar today". He says that he generally corrects them to say that they will be seeing 3 PEOPLE who happen to have been diagnosed with those problems. The label is not the person anymore than the road map IS reality.

 

[Kas_Can_Fly]

I think realistically, unpleasant or not the need to kill and to gain some pleasure from it is a natural, evolutionary and instinctual thing. I think that most people have learned that we've survived (as a species) by sticking together and also a species we have developed a strong sense empathy and community. I think these people have the more primal instinct to kill. I also think that many species other than (and including) humans kill and hurt other creatures for fun and that whilst the majority of humans don't have this desire, some obviously do. Coupled with the lack of need to kill otherwise (as an instinctual need to survive - food/blood line etc) must brew a perfect storm.

I think that these individuals don't realise that they're doing anything wrong for them to sort it out and if they can recognise it, their need to fulfil these acts surpasses their need to fit in with society. Yes, we typically label this psychopathy. Yes we need to bring more awareness and prevention to these individuals to protect others, especially by being aware of the signs of it in children and young adults. Of it transitioning from an inability to empathise and feel regret to criminal activity. The literal thing that causes them to hurt others is the same reason they won't seek help.

Lumping mental illness and criminal intent/behaviour together and therefore trying to distinguish between them isn't the right thing to do in my opinion as I see it as not mental illness that causes criminality but criminality that causes criminality. By labelling mental health as bad, it only isolates people who do want and need help and those who want to help others.

 

[joeylittle]

Lumping mental illness and criminal intent/behaviour together and therefore trying to distinguish between them isn't the right thing to do in my opinion as I see it as not mental illness that causes criminality but criminality that causes criminality.

@Kas_Can_Fly, I'm going to borrow your thoroughly excellent words here.
@Pencil and @shimmerz , I share Kas' opinion that there is not always causation between intent to engage in criminal behavior and mental illness. The criminal are culpable; they may be mentally ill, they may not be.

The mentally ill are not all criminal. I know that's not what you are intending to say; but you end up inadvertently implying it when you try and re-direct these categorizations.

Now, hypothetically, if we were to go back in time and re-invent all these terms I suppose we would need to say "mentally ill" for the criminal and culpable (AKA sections 1.2.14 and 1.2.17 and some of those in 1.2.18), "mentally wounded" for those who have some mental disorder relating to injury, physical or psychological, and I'm not sure what we would call the rest of us...just mental? :p

I'm totally in agreement that those who commit crimes against humanity should be prosecuted for it. And I agree that such behavior is abhorrent, disgusting, vile. And I also understand that feeling called: "they did the crime but I'm the one who is called sick, how is that right?!?"

I just don't think it's as simple as reversing the concept of mentally ill; not unless you could go back to the beginning and re-invest the terminology.

 

[digger]

Mental illness covers a huge range of conditions, in the same way that physical illness covers a huge range of conditions. It does not mean that because you have a mental illness it is the same mental illness as another person. It doesn't lump everyone together anymore than say someone with cancer and someone with asthma would be lumped together even though they both share the physical illness label.

You can suffer from a mental illness and your abuser can suffer from a mental illness, without it being the same illness, just as you can have arthritis and your abuser can be diabetic, both physically ill but very different things.