Do you feel that people who partake in self destructive behavior are in need of psychiatric care as well as sometimes medical care to balance out their brain chemistry?
Yes, but I went through that wringer myself and I have very negative feelings about it. Antidepressants and mood stabilizers may solve one problem but they create an entirely new feeling of existential angst.
Definitely. Hospitalization under the care of a psychiatrist to stabilize them with a cocktail of medicines that works. Followed by intensive group and individual counseling with a qualified psychologist.
Lol probably should start the psychiatric care before the medicine.
Good grief ... based on whose opinion is the person self-destructive??
Stop judging everyone else by comparing them to your own mirror-image. What is self-destructive to you may be a purposeful choice by the person. General society norms don't apply here, so why dose someone up with chemicals?
I think you're projecting a little to hard Shygal. 4JC didn't really say anything rude, but I disagree with a "cocktail" of medicine. Typically psychiatrists are just throwing spitballs to see what sticks when it comes to meds, and the side effects can often make the problem worse i.e. Zoloft known to cause increased suicidability in teens.
When I read self destructive, I thought the author of the poll (don't know who that was since I can't see the question or who wrote the poll on my iPad--& can't even remember the exact question) was referring to someone that was cutting or suicidal.
I've dealt a LOT with family members with mental health issues & that's where I was coming from. You don't wait around to see if they're going to keep trying to commit suicide--you get them help!
When they're suicidal, this often involves hospitalization to stabilize them until they're no longer in danger of harming themselves. This almost always includes a cocktail of meds to balance brain chemicals & intensive therapy--both individual & group.
Part 2. I've personally seen a person through 2 bouts of this, & each time, they were hospitalized, or in intensive outpatient day to day treatment for at least a month long each time.
I'm not judging anyone. I believe in treating those with mental illness just as you would treat someone with a physical illness--with dignity and respect.
And yes, Kam, often the side effects are worse than the original condition, which always blows my mind.
That's why it's so important to hospitalize the person while the doctor tweaks the medical cocktail until the person is stable.
In my opinion, people that shame those with mental health issues, and especially try to tell them they shouldn't be on meds, are much more judgmental than those that try to help someone through it in a supportive way.
We're just now beginning to get away from the stigma that those with mental health conditions have had to deal with through the ages. Let's be supportive of them!
Uh, the stigma was always perceived by the victim not the friends and family. Families and friends arent sending their unstable close ones away and are way less understanding today than back when they just tortured them. Back then, your mentality was the norm. Now we are very libertarian.
I'm not sure what you're getting at.
The stigma has increased if anything.
I have to disagree. Are you old enough to remember what it was like 40 years ago?
Please give some examples of how you think the stigma is worse now.
There are PSAs all the time, normalizing it. You're not locked away from society if you have problems, like people used to be. Families were ashamed and kept that their loved one was in an insane asylum a secret.
You're not given shock therapy, many times with no anesthesia. There are ads on tv for meds for mental illnesses.
It used to be that preachers preached that people that had mental illness were demon possessed and they no longer do that.
Tell me how it's gotten worse than all of that!
The social stigma is less but the stigma of getting treatment has increased. People used to send loved ones away without a second thought. Now people live in the same home as mentally ill people and mentally ill people cant get help unless they harm themselves physically and hospitals cant let them go back to it.
Would you say theres a greater stigma when people send mildly abnormal people to asylums or when only seriously ill people are sent and most others only get light treatment?
People sent loved ones away without a second thought because that was the only way they could get help back then, & because of the stigma. People like that were NOT acceptable in polite society.
The reason that people can't get help now is NOT because of stigma. It's because of a lack of funding for mental health care, a lack of beds in hospitals, & current laws that make it impossible for parents to get help for their grown children.
There aren't many mental facilities anymore because of deinstitutionalization. Here is a history of psychiatric institutions, taken from Wiki:
Part 2. The US housed 150,000 patients in mental hospitals by 1904. These asylums were critical to the evolution of psychiatry as they provided places of practice throughout the world.
However, the hope that mental illness could be ameliorated through treatment during the mid-nineteenth century was disappointed. Instead, psychiatrists were pressured by an ever-increasing patient population. The average number of patients in asylums in the US jumped 927%.
Increases in asylum populations may have been a result of the transfer of care from families & poorhouses, but the specific reasons as to why the increase occurred is still debated today. No matter the cause, the pressure on asylums from the increase was taking its toll on the asylums & psychiatry as a specialty. Asylums were once again turning into custodial institutions & the reputation of psychiatry in the medical world had hit an extreme low.
Part 3. In the 1800s middle-class facilities became more common, replacing private care for wealthier persons. However, facilities in this period were largely oversubscribed. Individuals were referred to facilities either by the community or by the criminal justice system. Dangerous or violent cases were usually given precedence for admission.
Defining someone as insane was a necessary prerequisite for being admitted to a facility. A doctor was only called after someone was labelled insane on social terms & had become socially or economically problematic. Until the 1890s, little distinction existed between the lunatic & criminal lunatic. The term was often used to police vagrancy as well as paupers & the insane.
Barbaric treatments of the mentally ill in our past include ECT, lobotomies & sterilizations.
Part 4. By the beginning of the 20th century, ever-increasing admissions had resulted in serious overcrowding. Funding was often cut, especially during periods of economic decline, & during wartime in particular many patients starved to death. Asylums became notorious for poor living conditions, lack of hygiene, overcrowding, & ill-treatment & abuse of patients.
From 1942 to 1947, conscientious objectors in the US assigned to psychiatric hospitals under Civilian Public Service exposed abuses throughout the psychiatric care system & were instrumental in reforms of the 1940s and 1950s.
The 1st community-based alternatives were suggested & tentatively implemented in the 1920s & 1930s, although asylum numbers continued to increase up to the 1950s. The movement for deinstitutionalization came to the fore in various Western countries in the 1950s & 1960s.
Part 5. Class action lawsuits in the US, & the scrutiny of institutions through disability activism & antipsychiatry, helped expose the poor conditions & treatment. Sociologists & others argued that such institutions maintained or created dependency, passivity, exclusion & disability, causing people to be institutionalized.
There was an argument that community services would be cheaper. It was suggested that new psychiatric medications made it more feasible to release people into the community. (The 20th century saw the development of the 1st effective psychiatric drugs. As a result, between 1955 & 1968 the residential psychiatric population in the United States dropped by 30%.)
There were differing views on deinstitutionalization, however, in groups such as mental health professionals, public officials, families, advocacy groups, public citizens, & unions.
Part 6. The US has experienced 2 waves of deinstitutionalization. Wave 1 began in the 1950s & targeted people with mental illness.
The 2nd wave began roughly 15 years after & focused on individuals who had been diagnosed with a developmental disability (e.g. mentally retarded).
A process of indirect cost-shifting may have led to a form of "re-institutionalization" through the increased use of jail detention for those with mental disorders deemed unmanageable & noncompliant.
In summer 2009, author & columnist Heather MacDonald stated in City Journal, "jails have become society’s primary mental institutions, though few have the funding or expertise to carry out that role properly... at Rikers, 28% of the inmates require mental health services, a number that rises each year."
Part 7. So jails & prisons are our new mental institutions, for the most part, which is a shame! But it's not as a result of stigma. It's a result of the abuses that were carried on in those institutions, and deinstitutionalization, a large part of which was made possible by new meds that made the conditions more manageable.