Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

Full Version: Is the biological model of mental illness inhumane?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
It doesn't bother me thinking that I have a brain defect that symptomizes itself as my depression, anxiety, and anti-sociality. If anything it means its not my fault. It isn't a character flaw or a personality defect that I should be ashamed of. As Rumi said: "Your wound is where the light enters"..We form our personality and unique self around the axis of our own brain functions, however skewed it might be. It is the genetic cards we were dealt at birth. And so we play the game with that less than perfect hand, however much this questions our assumptions of being normal and free human beings.
==========================================================
"A common critical refrain in mental health is that explaining mental health problems in terms of a ‘brain disorder’ strips meaning from the experience, humanity from the individual, and is potentially demeaning.

But this only holds true if you actually believe that having a brain disorder is somehow dehumanising and this constant attempt to distance people with ‘mental health problems’ from those with ‘brain disorders’ reveals an implicit and disquieting prejudice.

It’s perhaps worth noting that there are soft and hard versions of this argument.

The soft version just highlights a correlation and says that neurobiological explanations of mental health problems are associated with seeing people in less humane ways. In fact, there is good evidence for this in that biomedical explanations of mental health problems have been reliably associated with slightly to moderately more stigmatising attitudes.

This doesn’t imply that neurobiological explanations are necessarily wrong, nor suggests that they should be avoided, because fighting stigma, regardless of the source, is central to mental health. This just means we have work to do.

This work is necessary because all experience, thought and behaviour must involve the biology of the body and brain, and mental health problems are no different. Contrary to how it is sometimes portrayed, this approach doesn’t exclude social, interpersonal, life history or behavioural explanations. In fact, we can think of every type of explanation as a tool for understanding ourselves, rather than a mutually exclusive explanation of which only one must be true.

On the other hand, the strong version of this critical argument says that there is ‘no evidence’ that mental health problems are biological and that saying that someone has ‘something wrong with their brain’ is demeaning or dehumanising in some way..."===https://mindhacks.com/
In former times, the label of "illness" at least provided the preemptive faction with a justification for intervening on certain open-ended or developmentally deteriorating conditions before they got out of hand. Rather than waiting until illegal behaviors outright emerged: "Uh oh: The police hauled Bobby off after he stopped taking his medication and went out and cut the electric cables to the railroad crossing".

Nowadays, though, one might wonder what difference it makes in that respect: "Sorry, ma'am. We can't admit your son for treatment or take measures to insure that he takes his prescription drugs. Until he does something threatening to you or himself."

But an illness label is still the necessary qualification for receiving meds in the first place. As well as yielding the distinction of Oswald Cobblepot [Penguin] getting sent to Gotham’s Arkham Asylum as opposed to prison. Where though pronounced "cured" and released, he soon lapses back into old habits thanks to his wicked step family murdering his long-lost father for the latter's wealth.
Quote:As well as yielding the distinction of Oswald Cobblepot [Penguin] getting sent to Gotham’s Arkham Asylum as opposed to prison. Where though pronounced "cured" and released, he soon lapses back into old habits thanks to his wicked step family murdering his long-lost father for the latter's wealth.

I must confess to a vicarious sense of glee seeing Oswald reembrace his twisted Penguinine self. Such are the hazards of pissing off the chef. lol!
(Apr 16, 2016 08:32 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]I must confess to a vicarious sense of glee seeing Oswald reembrace his twisted Penguinine self. Such are the hazards of pissing off the chef. lol!


Who would have expected Penguin to become the "star" of the show, or at least rival the supposedly two central characters in popularity? Since it could potentially be years yet before Cobblepot resembles the complete villain that the adult Batman faces, they ought to tone-him down during that interval to where he is "cured enough" to no longer slay innocent bystanders (just serve up those like his step-siblings as the main course for dinner). His non-selective killing was the biggest problem with the outlandishness of Gordon intermittently accepting him at times as if Cobblepot has one foot in the former's camp of morally ambiguous anti-heroes.