Yes, I read the article and I totally agree with one's right to be non-compliant and understand the meds suck. But, non-compliant is not just about meds and the individual, it has to be about society too. No one, even those who are not mental patients, gets to have life wholly on their own terms all the time. Society is not, nor can it ever be, completely person/individual-oriented.
Quote:
|
Nash has suggested hypotheses on mental illness. He has compared not thinking in an acceptable manner, or being "insane" and not fitting into a usual social function, to being "on strike" from an economic point of view. He has advanced evolutionary psychology views about the value of human diversity and the potential benefits of apparently nonstandard behaviors or roles.
|
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash,_Jr.
Nash earned money and prestige early in his career (and later as a result of his earlier work; he didn't do anything "new" after his illness/1970) and could support himself in his mental illness (or his wife could) and find a place he fit. Unfortunately, not everyone going "on strike" can make it work for themselves. Nash got better over time and, presumably, one can (I know I did but I had to get a job and support myself, etc. while time passed) but, in the meantime. . .
I don't see it as being about illness or not but about the "facts" of life. In this place, at this time, one has to have food, shelter, and clothing to survive. If you want to get to a place where time passes and things get better, you first have to make sure of the food, shelter, and clothing. In the end, everyone only has themselves and has to work it out so they get the support or resources to keep themselves alive. The comfort of non-drudgery, deadening affects of meds so one can function in society (working at a low paying job so you can eat does nothing for one's spirit either; people on psychiatric meds are not the only ones with deadening difficulties) has to come after, is not automatic.