The brain and the body unite!

Dear Dualists and Wholistic Leaners,

Some people think that conditions affecting mental health have a clear cause. Extreme versions of Survivor movement ideology and the anti-psychiatry movement, for example, support the notion that a harmful, violent world creates "manifestations of illness" in those who are sensitive. Persons who happen to experience serious traumas like physical abuse and sexual violence and who later experience a crisis of mental health, are often held up as examples that support the notion that a "harmful world" causes mental health problems or perceived problems of mental health.

I think it's a bit misleading to suggest that "physical" traumas, like sexual assault and abuse, are responsible for "mental" illness. This refrain has been repeated over and over again in psychoanalytic literature, has been absorbed and regurgitated by the Survivor movement, and yet it is such an incomplete picture of health and the things that can have an effect on health.

My observation has been that Survivor advocates (capital "S" in the extreme political concept of Survivor) tend to cling to the concept of trauma, reshaping the word to represent its most extreme; painting trauma always as malevolent violence, somehow always intentional (as is the truth in the case of sexual violence and physical abuse) or some type of mass-scale social subversion (big pharma plots ring a bell???).

And so in the Survivor literature, persons affected by mental illness are forever painted as victims of a social construct that is inherently violent, harmful, cruel, and indifferent to what it has created. Survivors were victims of a social construct that created the illness, then victims (to become survivors of) a system that was designed to overcome (entrench???) the illness that was supposedly caused by that social construct.

Sound complicated? It is, more than it has to be, I think. And it seems downright paranoid to me, and I'm prone to paranoia!!!

If we look outside of Survivor literature, and Survivor interpretations, there are actually many types of "trauma," besides any types of physical or sexual violence that a person and their brain can be exposed to. Some of these traumas are innocuous. Some of them are occur simply as a product of living and breathing. Poor nutrition, exposure to toxins, allergic reaction, major life change (whether positive or negative), severe illness, unfavourable/harmful social/family/relationship dynamic, access to opportunity or a lack of, a traumatic event (observer), a traumatic event (participant), a traumatic event (victim), etc... all fall under the definition proper of trauma.

It bothers me when conditions that affect mental health are explained to be a consequence of one event in some distant past... as if something as serious, as profound, and as life altering as a condition affecting mental health has such a simple solution. It's almost as if that one thing hadn't happened, all of life would be different somehow.

If only it were that simple... If only society would cease being "abusive" and "traumatizing," then everyone would be okay, seems to be the logic.

From what I understand, based on my education and experience, there is no "golden shield" protecting the brain from the varied and innumerable assaults of life. In fact, the assaults of life are, for the most part, predictable, and have predictable consequences. In truth, the reality is that the multiple and varied traumas of life don't cause "mental" illness in most people. So really, there isn't anything in the type of trauma itself that causes mental illness, the reality is that the illness lies in wait, like cancer, only to rear its head opportunistically, after an unknown number of cumulative attacks of unknown and likely unforseeable type. And because our brain is innately curious, seeking explanation for all things, and even creating explanation where none can reasonably be found, our brain (and blame) falls on the event that lies closest to our "break."

Because I find this thinking so reductionist, that mental illness can be pointed to a single cause, I'm left to wonder if this is a story we try to tell ourselves for our own comfort and sense of sanity. I wonder if these stories are a place to lay blame for the inherent vulnerabilities of our brain and brain/body relationship. Based on my knowledge and experience, the mind is primed to do things, and motivates us to do things, beyond our conscious control. Lacking conscious control over our minds is not something we are comfortable with, and absurdly, many of our daily routines are performed with little to no "conscious" thought or reflection. By Western rationalist standards, this assertion, that our minds have a consciousness beyond the reach of our own awareness, is tantamount to heresy.

An interesting bit; apparently Medieval monks believed in "mind over matter" so deeply that they were driven to castration when they had unwanted, surprise erections. In fact, castration was a "treatment" for unwanted erections. Since they could not control that bit of matter, then the solution for lack of mental control, clearly, should be to mutilate oneself, no? Out of sight, out of mind? Problem solved?

We want to believe our minds are impenetrable to the effects of life, that the mind transcends our daily routine, transcends the cumulative effects of stress; and yet even the bothersomeness of day to day details can be enough to affect a person's state of mind adversely.

What happens to the body, happens to the brain, and the brain will let the body know. The "inconvenient truth" is that our body's dependence on the brain, and the thinking brain we call the mind, makes us systemically, wholistically vulnerable. When our mind changes, our behaviour changes. If our behaviour changes, people think we have changed. And we, the changed, are forced to ponder that, and submit to the consequences of that.

But let's not be like the monks, misunderstanding the underlying issue; making associations where there are none; seeking simple solutions, potentially harmful solutions, that aren't actual resolutions.

Trying to bring it together, even if it's just for me,
O.

I'm calling you out Globe

Dear Readers of Newspapers and Consumers of Media,

I have a lot of respect for the Globe and Mail right now, a Canadian news publication.

Now, I'm not normally one to go off trumpeting the merits of various media or consumer products, but the Globe truly is doing a good (or better) thing. Right now, the paper is running a series of articles on mental health and the issues that surround it. In fact, an entire section of their online paper is dedicated to mental health. It's called the Breakdown Series.

I'm not quite sure why they've picked up on mental health, since most media outlets spend a lot of time either provoking contention in events that involve mental health, or they simply ignore the greater (and more serious) issues for want of an outrageous headline.

But here they are, the grand Globe, a national rag, doing a series on the lowliest and least popular of all health (and social) issues. And they're even trying to be sensitive to boot, it seems!

But I have an issue with their most recent online article relating to mental health, and this is an issues that has appeared in more than one article, by more than one author. (I know, I know, I should never expect perfection... and maybe I should be grateful for the ink we have right now, but I'm not one for table scraps under any circumstances!)

In Patients' rights frustrate families, the ugly issue of nomenclature - what to call people with schizophrenia - rears its ugly head.

You need to understand, this is a highly contentious issue, even among people themselves who live with the condition. Apparently no one likes to be called "patient;" and "nutbar" or "frutcake" or "schizo" are certainly unacceptable. And so a zillion fairly inaccurate euphemisms have been conceived and parlayed into our language; consumer, survivor, mentally ill, person with lived experience, client, and on and on and freakishly on and on. A million and one ways to politically or not-so-apolitically say something without saying it: A person who has the condition of schizophrenia. (Keep in mind that many of the euphemisms I stated are also generic catch-alls for basically any condition affecting mental health, and many have nuanced connotations... also so many are misnomers in and of themselves and their usage that I could likely write a volume of books about misnomers in mental health.)

So what evil word did Picard, the author of the article, use to describe a person with schizophrenia? He used the modifier "schizophrenic" in the 6th staccato sentence of an article of considerable length. He used the word schizophrenic to describe Matt, and basically every other person who lives with the condition of schizophrenia.

To be fair, Picard first described the inspiration for this article, Matt, as a person "who suffers from schizophrenia." And that's nice. We get an idea at least, that we are talking about a person with a disease that is harming them, until we get to pretty much the next sentence which basically identifies Matt (and people with schizophrenia in general) as a walking-talking disease process. To be sure, Matt's not got an easy ride, based on the description of his current circumstances, but I find it unfair to reduce the identity of a person to a disease process... to reduce all people who live with this condition... to the limited concept of what schizphrenia is.

And we know that the concept of schizophrenia as a condition affecting health is limited... especially in our media. Mostly our media is concerned with conjuring up images of the negative mythology that surrounds this illness. The media myths suggest that people with schizophrenia are crazed murderers, unpredictable people, untamable monsters with no access to logic or reason, and... you get the picture.

Since the Globe appears to be interested in dealing with the social issues surrounding problems and conditions of mental health, I have asked the Globe to put their money where their mouth is; to make a clear committment to a cause that they themselves seem to support.

We all know that the mythology that is heavily circulated in the media exacerbates the public's negative (and in my opinion, harmful) perception of mental health conditions. And so here is my comment (more of a request) to them:

And the Globe and Mail can make a simple yet profound change by retiring the word "schizophrenic" to the annals of journalistic anachronisms that don't belong in a newspaper any more.

People have schizophrenia. They are not schizophrenia, and schizophrenia is not them. Furthermore, "schizophrenic" is not an accurate modifier to describe a human being... it says far too much about a health problem (and more to the point... the negative mythology surrounding a health problem), and far too little about the person who happens to have a health problem.

Let us put our proverbial money where our mouths are, dear Globe... if we are going to report on the social injustices of mental health care or lack thereof in Canada?

Unacknowledged and unarticulated widespread systemic discrimination is the foremost among those social injustices, and is the primary cause of the "secondary symptoms" of mental illness (the poverty, the instability, the homelessness, skewed laws, and distorted public perception among them).

So please, for the love of humanity, retire the word Schizophrenic. Be the first major media outlet to humanize, instead of sensationalize, this very serious condition of health.

My blog: addressed2occupant (dot) blogspot (dot) com


And so dear reader, what will the Globe do? Will they rise to the occasion of this challenge... to commit themselves to the social issues not only in the breadth of topics they cover, but also in the depth of how they write about the topics they cover?

We shall see.

Respecting the power of words,
O.

Exit Night, Enter Light...

Dear Wonderers,

Some people may be wondering why January 31st was chosen as the date for the annual Light In the Dark event. After all, in Canada, that date tends to fall right in the dead of winter, where the nights are long, and the days are far too short and far too cold, probably, for an activity like this.

The date, January 31st, was chosen because it is a fairly accurate metaphor for the state of mental health awareness today.

Sadly, even though we are in the 21st century - the age of technology and easy access information - so much of our public knowledge about matters concerning mental health is based on superstitions, pervasive negative mythology, and rumor. In the year 2009 the public is forced to rely mostly on information from popular media to learn about mental health and related issues.

I'm sure we all understand that while media has its benefits, it also has its bias. Today, we live in a media culture where the following motto reigns: If it bleeds, it leads. The most sensational stories make their way into the headlines of our newspapers, where we hear tales of wicked depravity blended with hints of mental malfunction.

We as spectators follow along with the likes of Britney Spears as her bipolar manifestations compel her to act out. As spectators, we read of cases of post-partum mothers, addled by hallucinations, who drown their children in bathtubs. We watch our TVs and webcasts in horror as a man allegedly affected by psychosis swings a machete in the air after he has decapitated a fellow bus passenger.

And this is what we know of mental illness. This is what our media informs us that mental illness is; graceless celebrities who self-destruct, horrific women who should be sterilized for their sins, and dangerous men who deserve nothing less than to die mercilessly for their acts.

Well, maybe the media doesn't arrive at these conclusions, but with their half-hearted attempts at reporting, with no follow-up, with no actual explanation for the events, and with no description of the collision of circumstances that caused the arrival of the newsworthy event, this is what the media allows us to believe. This is the flavour of "mental illness" that the media imparts - destructive, disturbed, untrustworthy... fearsome.

It is not the fault of the media that conditions of mental health and their related issues are as misunderstood as they are. As of January 2009, the government or any social service agency has yet to assume control of education and awareness relating to mental health. Where the government has the breadth of reach, power of oversight, and access to the most recent medical information, it is fairly reprehensible that our public conceptions of mental health are allowed to remain so skewed and so hideously inaccurate.

In the year 2009, the reality is that we Canadians still remain in the Dark Ages of mental health. In the year 2009, we Canadians remain absurdly unenlightened. This is one of the reasons why January 31st, one of our darkest and coldest days of winter, was chosen for Light In the Dark.

Yet there is more to this date, January 31st, than the darkness... There is more to the metaphor for why this date was chosen.

For anyone who is familiar with winter, you know that there comes a point in that season where you become tired of the frigid darkness; you become tired, and you begin to wish, sometimes even to plan, for spring.

And so January 31st was chosen also because it represents a wish: A wish to thaw the chilling effects of ignorance and move towards a warmer, more promising, day.

We want to move towards education and awareness. We want mental health education to become a priority among our government and its beneficiary agencies. A more educated public, and a more aware public, means that we will get to live in a world without fear. A knowledgeable society will be an accepting society.

Show your support for those living with conditons and issues that affect their mental health.
Show your support for education and awareness.
Show your desire for a more knowledgeable and accepting society.

Let your light shine.
Let our light shine.

Love,
O.
PS. I lit my candle last night!

is olivia a bitter person who is antipsychiatry?

Dear People Who Need to Know,

My bias: I am female. I am old enough to have enjoyed the heydays of Nirvana, but too young to grasp the reverence for classic rock. I look white, but I have a visible minority heritage that isn't obvious by my appearance. I grew up knowing too well what a fridge looks like when it's empty. I have the benefits of a university education, and hold dual degrees, one relating to the realm of medicine, the other relating to the realm of metaphysics.

I have been diagnosed with what the medical profession likes to call a SMI (severe mental illness). I have lived intimately with the effects of my diagnosis for 10 years or so. My condition has affected me in profound ways in a psychological sense, in an economic sense, and in an interpersonal sense.

Pardon me if my experience ever clouds my judgment or colours my words, and I will do the same for you.

So, given my experience, I'm going to lay out *my* opinions on psychiatry, and hope that my words are not too often abused or distorted from their original context.

In a general sense, since my experiences with psychiatry have been positive, and I see a movement in psychiatry towards accountability and collaboration, I regard psychiatry as a potential benefit for those who are affected negatively by their mental health.

I know that many people have suffered abuses (in the form of stigmatization, discrimination, sub-standard levels of care, enforcement of unwanted treatments, literal abuse, etc.) at the hands of the mental healthcare community. I respect your experiences, you own those experiences.

But those experiences are not mine. And although this blog will express a significant amount of frustration with current standards in health care, I am not fundamentally anti-psychiatry.

In the same way that abortion is a contentious, weighty, (and I believe, personal) issue; mental health is an issue that carries with it a burdensome load that is equally personal, weighty, and contentious.

So, in short, if a person confided in me that they were negatively affected by their mental health, I would suggest to them that they may benefit from seeking help from the medical community. That being said, I would be very careful about the places I would direct them to, since (those who have received mental health treatment are well aware that) not all doctors are created equal. Some doctors are simply better; being more approachable, more informed, and more invested than others.

Your 'Only Human' and Fundamentally Biased Blogger Who Genuinely Respects Her Treatment Team,
O.