Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayne_
I think this is important yet it is usually neglected, minimized, or underrated.
Referring to people as "the mentally ill" or "personality disordered" is offensive and promotes stigma. When there is a school shooting, public chatter about policies for the "mentally ill" ensue.
Calling someone with an anxiety disorder, for example, as one of "the mentally ill" implies that person is incompetent or has a flawed mental capacity. This promotes stigma, as evidenced by how people are viewed and treated by various entities and organization--work places, medical facilities, etc.
It's not even technically accurate to use this terminology. It's more accurate to label someone with dementia as "mentally ill" than it is for those with more other mental conditions. Instead, someone with dimentia is often referred to as having a neurological condition.
Someone with back pain isn't considered 'orthopaedically ill', as if their whole orthopedic system is defective. The same should hold for those with mental conditions. People who have mental health conditions do not have a defective brain. We create things, solve problems, offer compassion...we have careers and life accomplishments. Using this terminology divides the "mentally ill" from the "non-mentally ill". Yet, they are not even close to being mutually exclusive.
It's also time for mental health workers to stop labeling people as "personality disordered". This is extremely offensive and damaging to some. It's about time to change it to C-PTSD. Labeling people who grew up with hardships and trauma as "personality disordered" as if their very being is defective, is immoral or just plain wrong*. Just as it was offensive and damaging to label people who are gay as having a "mental illness". I really question the ethics within the mental health industry and its claims to promote well-being if it is promoting stigma and damaging labels, ideas, and concepts. And just because it is in the DSM, doesn't mean it's acceptable to use in a damaging manner. Not only that, but large groups with social power can work to change this.
If this site is truly purposed to help people with mental conditions, and is an influential source of education, reaching millions across the world, steps to end stigma should start here. What could be more helpful and supportive of the population for which it is designed to serve?
Thanks.
*I am very aware that a small percentage of those labeled with personality disorders do not report trauma (although I continually see people say they were loved and have a good childhood, yet describe parental abuse or neglect in the same thread). This thread is not to debate these concepts.
|
I concur with the points AmandaLouise has stated. I also have a service dog and my "mental illness" is a category of disability that allows me to use this in my treatment. I prefer "mental health disorder" over "mental illness" but I am not necessarily offended by "mental illness."
Furthermore, I would disagree with you to reclassify all personality disorders as c-PTSD. There are many personality disorders and they develop because of a range of issues. C-PTSD does not necessarily develop because of the same issues as personality disorders nor does it necessarily present in the same way. There is even a lot of cases were a personality disorder does not arise out of any conflict or trauma. There has been research indicating that it's both genetic and environmental. Perhaps the issue is that you don't like the use of the word "personality" in the classification of those disorder, but lumping them all in with c-PTSD is a huge over-reaction and not appropriate, in my opinion. Someone with OCPD has very different symptoms than someone with c-PTSD. For example, there has been discussion in the psychiatric community of re-naming borderline personality disorder as emotional disregulation disorder or EDD. That seems more appropriate to me than lumping it under c-PTSD. It has a different classification and definition for a reason, and that's because the symptoms are different and also treatment options are different.
And they aren't labeled as "personality disordered" because they grew up with hardship. They are DIAGNOSED with that based on the meeting the criteria in the DSM. It is a diagnosis, not a label. And each disorder is different, hence why they have different criteria for each.
I feel like this is an emotional response to words that may have a negative connotation. But none of the mental health disorders have pleasant names. Do you think being referred to as "obsessive-compulsive" is pleasant? "Post traumatic stress disorder?" "Panic disorder"? "Depression"? None of them are pleasant terms. Just like obesity isn't a pleasant term, nor is brain tumor or cancer. Having a mental illness or mental health disorder isn't a pleasant thing. Changing the name won't make it any less pleasant.
When it comes to world events where the mentally ill are involved, the problem is not the use of the word mentally ill, the problem is the vilification of an entire group of people with no education. It doesn't matter what you call it, we would still be vilified, because the nature of society is to stereotype and generalize and lump everyone together.