http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u21kuUf8SbA

 

This is something that isn't really talked about enough in our society, so it is good that he has come out and said this things. Suicide and mental illness are often very misunderstood things, and often shrugged off and hidden under the carpet. 

To show what I mean, imagine an illness that killed over a million people a year, and will impact about 10% of the world's population each year, and yet some G20 nations don't have any treatment programs and you have the reality of mental illness.

I have nothing but respect for his decision to come forwards and be open about it. We need some serious social change and not just medicating people. That's a short term plaster on a deep rooted problem.

I think the assumption that suicide is due to a problem on the part of the individual (eg. illness) is a mistake.  

 

Suicide can be based upon a judgement of the people/environment/culture that surrounds the person and the decision to kill one self might be a completely rational one if the situation is bad enough.

That is not true in most cases. Otherwise we wouldn't see the drop off in suicide rates when "easy" (or quick) methods are closed off, such as the ability to purchase large numbers of drugs in one go or the switch away from coal gas in ovens. 

I apologize in advance for the length and rambling nature of this post, but this is a topic that has garnered a bit of curiosity with me.  I've heard it said that the topics that make one uncomfortable are the ones worth discussing because they challenge a person and the assumptions they might have.  I'm by no means an expert or even well versed on the subject.  The things I say here are largely formulated from conjecture, thus might be completely off the mark.  If that is the case, learning more about the actual nature of the subject in discussion would certainly have my interest.

 

With that being said, the first thing I like to do when approaching any topic of serious discussion is getting a clear definition of the terms we use.  The term "mental Illness" is center stage of course.  My assumption of the term, from a completely lay-mans view is that mental illness is believed to be caused by either a chemical imbalance or sometimes a physical damage (e.g. a tumor or a neurological impairment) with the brain.  

 

Assuming that definition is an agreeable one, the next term worth looking at is depression.  It's a term that varies widely in definitions.  In medical circles, it is almost always defined as a mental defect.  In common parlance, however, depression can merely be an emotional state of induced by events surrounding a person.  So we must take care not to equivocate between the two.   The question that first needs to be asked is "Is depression by definition a mental illness?"  From a lay-man's perspective, I have no reason to accede to that definition.  My conjecture is that depression, either induced by events or by a medical ailment of the brain, are both frequent causes of suicide.  So is depression a mental illness? Right now, I would not agree that it is.  While the brain is undoubtedly a complex organ, and the chance that something may "go wrong" somewhere with it seem plausible, I'd put forth that the chances that events surrounding a person that can yield similar results are just as likely, if not more so.

 

For example, I would not label the parent that loses a child and subsequently commits suicide as mentally ill.  I would challenge anyone who tried to make the claim that the parent had "something wrong" with their brain.  Similarly a rape victim, or an abused child, or even the soldier suffering from post traumatic stress due to their experiences in war.  Do we call them mentally ill when they choose or attempt to take their life?  Let's expand on the soldier, who witnesses or even takes part in an action that results in death (which is all too likely in war).  Such an event is clearly traumatic.  A philosophical conundrum has arisen where a normal person has sacrificed the rational value of non-aggression, compelled by the (often) sociopaths in charge who do not maintain the same rational values that a normal person does, yet they compel the soldier through years of cultural indoctrination (or more accurately, wields the culture as a tool to compel) to sacrifice that which is clearly virtuous (non-aggression) for that which must be indoctrinated (statism/patriotism).  The soldier who is naturally abhorred by what he's witnessed or taken part in is further told and constantly reinforced by his culture and surrounding people that those abhorrent actions were actually virtuous, despite being counter to rational non-aggression.  Whether you agree or disagree that a soldier's actions of killing is virtuous, the soldier himself who philosophically concludes that it is not, must come to grips with a first-hand traumatic event... one that haunts him, and logically so.

 

Trauma obviously induces pain.  The lay-man often calls this depression.  My understanding is that trauma is not regarded as a physical medical condition, but an outside force acting upon the individual, and not the individuals themselves.  Arising from people, events, or any other outside influence, the pain is still as real as anything medical.  When one is in "pain", it is not atypical for someone to attempt to ease said pain.  I believe that this is why many people turn to drugs, be they illicit or pharmaceutical.  Allowing trauma to go unprocessed or unacknowledged means that pain will likely continue to persist.  If the pain is of sufficient quantity, an "out" via suicide might seem like just another way to ease the pain.  

 

The pharmaceutical lobby who pushes drugs to ease the pain of trauma, seems to argue that it is a treatment for people who are suicidal.  I find that this is analogous to a person who takes Novocaine because their teeth hurt.  The underlying problem (e.g. a dental cavity) goes unacknowledged  and the symptom (pain) is the only thing being treated.  The pharmaceutical lobby certainly profits from a patient who must continually cover up the symptoms of pain (not unlike any street drug dealer).  I like to ask the age-old question of "Cui bono?" (who benefits?") whenever I see studies or arguments that claim that for-sale solutions are the go-to default solution for a problem.  The motives of people making these claims need to be examined before the claims should be accepted.  The argument I'd make is that treating what we call depression with chemicals and seeing results that might result in fewer suicides does not mean that one can conclude that the root cause was of a chemical nature.  Unfortunately, I think too many people do jump to this conclusion (and assume the problem was mental illness).

 

Too many people have an aversion to introspection and self-knowledge.  Rarely do they challenge their assumptions and too often do they treat them as axiomatic.  The stigma behind suicide might be one such assumption.  Generally suicide is treated as a tragic event.  The loss of a family member who has taken their own life is sure to be grievous.  That's potentially one of the ironies to suicide.  Suicides caused by traumatic events are themselves inflicting trauma upon the people who surround the one committing suicide.  In this sense, suicide might even be purposefully used to inflict pain as a big "Screw you" to people close to them.  Short of obvious true mental illness, fundamentally the act of suicide is a message that a person no longer wishes to share existence with the people and environment that surround them.  If the cause of trauma was related to or caused by the people who surround the suicide victim, this "message" has a much greater impact.  Those who are left behind are obviously searching for answers, but because most people are not willing to undertake the philosophical rigors of introspection and self-knowledge, they want the easy way out.  This is where I believe they accept what they want to hear. The classic example (seemingly) is that "it must have been an undiagnosed mental illness".  This shifts the burden of blame off the people and environment that potentially inflicted trauma that led to the suicide, and puts it entirely on the suicide victim.  The convenient solution, I'd argue, is not always the correct one.  Religion sometimes capitalized on this by deeming suicide a "sin", making any suicide victim "sinful" in the eyes of the religion.  Likewise the drug pushers capitalize on the stigma of suicide, assuming the fault is the victims (medical condition).  

 

Those who choose to blame the victim make the assumption that suicide cannot be a rational act, and conclude that since they were not operating rationally, it must have been due to a mental defect.  So we should examine this: can suicide ever be rational?   The obstacle that anyone committing suicide must overcome is what is called the "self-preservation instinct".  Biologically, a creature without the self-preservation instinct typically did not get far in existence.  An animal that died prematurely "lost" the game of passing on one's genes and replicating their biology into the future.  So it's reasonable to expect a creature as advanced as human beings to have this aspect of biology with them.  The thing about instinct is that it's not always "logical".  The instinct to reproduce, for example, is not generally beneficial to the person who is reproducing.  It is beneficial to the person's biology in the sense that it continues to exist into the future beyond the one individual, but for the individual person themselves (especially for the woman who must risk child birth) reproduction and the subsequent loss of resources spent of raising descendants is generally not logical in the sense of self-interest (note: personal preferences often override logic).  Suicide is quite the antithesis of having children, in that it is the individual and its biology self-terminating.  What situations could be such that it is seemingly preferable to not exist... as opposed to continued existence, for if it is preferable to not exist, suicide might be a rational (not necessarily logical) course of action.  This situation has long been observed philosophically.  One of the most well-known takes on it is Shakespeare's Hamlet soliloquy of "To be or Not to be?".  Hamlet, in the play, is questioning whether he should prefer to die now and end his troubles or to continue to suffer them by living.  What stops him happens to be a religious motif of suffering after death (especially when you've "sinned" by committing suicide).  Similarly, as you've pointed out, people generally do not prefer to die painfully.  Suicide, if an attempt to ease the pain of trauma (or mental illness), would make little sense if it were seemingly more painful than current circumstances.  As an aside... in the vein of rational suicide, part of my philosophical curiosity on the subject was piqued by this site: http://www.exitmundi.nl/suicide.htm where they took the situation to an extreme... what if we lived forever? Would we ever voluntarily choose to end our lives out of pure reason?

 

Like I said in the beginning, I have no real expertise on the subject, so the numbers and data might be around that definitively prove that the great majority of suicides are due to a defect in the brain (and the abandonment of reason).   I'd just like to submit my skepticism to such claims based on my above writings.  If nothing else, think of all the people who commit suicide, and then think of how many of them would still do it if their environment had changed to say... being on a tropical island full of beautiful naked women willing and eager to please them... and rich.

 

The nature of suicide generally shows it is not a rational act. Or rather, the nature of attempted suicides. Its an oversimplification, but if you can stop someone killing themselves for the 20 minutes after they attempt it, they will probably not attempt it in the hour following. Suicidal urges generally last a short period of time and can come from a variety of sources. 

 

Its why limiting the number of pills for sale in one go reduces suicide. Its why when Britain switched its gas supply from coal gas to natural gas (making gassing yourself in the oven ineffective) suicides fell by something like a third. Anything that delays the act of suicide will act as a preventative measure. If it was a rational action then that would not be the case. People do not think "oh its too hard...I won't bother." 

 

Fry is right when he talks about the "why" in some respects because with his condition there is no why. If you ask someone who has the knife to their wrist "why" they will probably give an answer. Ask them an hour later and they couldn't give you a why. It is not a rational urge. If it was it would last longer. 

 

I have been around depressed people attempting suicide. I have seen this first hand. When they are attempting it there is not a rational side impulse. It is like facing someone possessed by a demon. It can feel almost like an exorcism-you are fighting to get the rational part of them, the part of them that is THEM back. I'm not good at describing it, but that is basically the best I can do. 

Now depression is caused by events. Sometimes. I have been around those made depressed by events and by those that have just become depressed. I would describe it as the difference between having a leg broken by a trauma and a leg broken due to having brittle bone disease. The leg is still broken and will remain broken without treatment. The fact it was caused by a trauma does not make it any less broken.

 

As for PTSD, that is absolutely an illness. It is like the leg broken by trauma-just because it was originally caused by an outside event does not mean it is not now an internal issue.

First, I'd like to ask if you're approaching this from the perspective that suicide is due to mental illness (because you initially referenced that a million people/year die via suicide then say that's a reality of mental illness), i.e. are those (most of the 1 mil) people who die via suicide "mentally ill"?

 

Then if the claim is an affirmative to that, the next question is: is the "mental illness" being defined as resultant from just biologic factors, or also traumas (caused by outside events)?  The latter most certainly has an answer to the "why" question.  

 

Mr. Fry could be right in that there is no "why" for him at least.  But to say that's the only possibility would be assuming that there is no "reason" that he is unwilling to talk about.  It's also assuming there isn't a problem that Mr. Fry is unable to correctly address as being a problem to begin with (e.g. is there a possibility of unacknowledged/unprocessed trauma in his past).  

 

I also have a serious problem with labeling someone who suffers from trauma and subsequent depression as mentally ill.  Aside from the equivocation that occurs between referring to the mentally ill as those traumatized vs those who are insane, the problem is also a legal one, as those who are deemed mentally ill may be subject to restricted civil liberties at the hands of the state, who due to the equivocation, see little difference between those who are traumatized and those who are medically "ill".  

 

You made an analogy to a leg being broken to differentiate the two.  However, I'd like to suggest that the treatment, while certainly necessary, is not the same.  

 

Take a look at this: http://main.uab.edu/Sites/students/life/counseling/services/67070/

It's a student affairs site for a university.  Here's the very first thing they say about suicide...

 

MYTH: You have to be crazy or mentally ill to think about suicide.

 

REALITY: Anyone considering suicide is in pain, and probably also has a chemical imbalance in their brain. Most suicides and suicide attempts are made by people who cannot cope with the level of pain they are experiencing, especially in the midst of a crisis. 

Anyone can attempt suicide.

 

 

This is the Bio-psychiatry perspective (which seems to be the predominant view) and is the forerunner in labeling "mental illness" as due to chemical/physical abnormalities in the brain (note the potential for equivocation again).  It is deeply mired in controversy, largely due to its ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

See: Biopsychiatry_controversy 

 

This generalizing perspective of what is "mental illness" extends beyond this issue of suicide.  There is also controversy surrounding things like ADHD/ADD and if those are even legitimate diseases, or at the least, are too broadly diagnosed (for the benefit of Big Pharm).  See: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

 

As for the temporary nature of suicidal urges, that's predicated upon accepting the assumption that the transitory urges have no rational basis/cause (which may or may not be so- I'm not going to make a claim one way or the other).  The real leap is then concluding that it's due to "mental illness" (Danger: equivocation!), ergo the individual's physiology was the root cause, ergo medication is necessary.  Also, I wonder about suicide notes (According to wiki, at least 25% of suicides have one).  Wouldn't delineating the reasons for suicide in a note be an indication of some rational basis?

 

In any event, it seems like you have more experience on the matter than I have (mine... which is essentially none), so I appreciate your input and hope this didn't come off as too critical.

 

 

Edit: Formatting

Edited June 9, 201313 yr by Iron Helix

I do start from the point of view of suicide being caused by mental illness because that has been my experience of it. Depression is also a mental illness whether it is caused by trauma or other underlying issues. Depression is more than simply being unhappy. It goes deeper than that, lasts longer than that and is quite a serious condition. A distinction has to be made between mood and mental illness. A person who is bereaved and is sad as a result may benefit from counselling and may have a prolonged period of sadness, but that is not necessarily the same as depression.

 

As for ADD and ADHD-those are very real conditions. Overdiagnosis and overmedication are separate (and mostly not present in the UK) but they are most definitely real and destructive conditions. 

I understand and get the point about the law (In England and Wales our definition of insanity is so out of date that diabetics can be classed as insane) but that should not influence diagnosis...the law should be made better rather than twisting medical definitions

 

I do start from the point of view of suicide being caused by mental illness because that has been my experience of it. Depression is also a mental illness whether it is caused by trauma or other underlying issues. Depression is more than simply being unhappy. It goes deeper than that, lasts longer than that and is quite a serious condition. A distinction has to be made between mood and mental illness. A person who is bereaved and is sad as a result may benefit from counselling and may have a prolonged period of sadness, but that is not necessarily the same as depression.

 

Ok, so breaking this down:

-suicide is caused by mental illness

-mental illness is defined as resulting from trauma, physical, biological, genetic, (etc) causes.

-depression fits under this definition of mental illness

 

Syllogistically I have no problem with that.  I might not agree with labelling mental illness so broadly, but that's more an aesthetic preference on my part to avoid generalizations and equivocation between trauma/other factors.

 

But the next question is "So what?" What conclusions/insights/consequences are made by this? What lesson should I take away from this discussion?

 

 

As for ADD and ADHD-those are very real conditions.

 

You sound convinced.  May I ask what convinced you?

 

-------------------------------------

 

Edit:  On the topic of trauma vs other factors (this one is not specifically related to suicide though):

 

The two-year investigation in Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon and Texas found that foster children were prescribed psychotropic drugs at rates 2.7 to 4.5 times higher than other children in Medicaid in 2008. Psychotropic drugs include those used to treat ADHD, anxiety, depression and psychosis.

(...)

The higher prescribing rates don't necessarily mean that states are acting inappropriately, the GAO points out. Psychotropic drugs have proven effective in treating mental illness, and the higher rate could be "due to foster children's greater exposure to traumatic experiences and the unique challenges of coordinating their medical care."

 

 

link:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/12/01/143017520/foster-kids-even-infants-more-likely-to-be-given-psychotropic-drugs

 

 

A question for Occam's Razor - Is the traumatic experience of foster care more likely or is an increase in biophysical abnormalities in the brains of the foster care population more likely?  

 

Moreover, if it's trauma (which I think it is), how is drugging children the reasonable response to a traumatic situation?  These are not problems of the brain, but of the environment which surrounds them.  To NOT be affected by a traumatic situation would be worrisome by itself.  But now we label these obvious effects as "mental illness". 

 

I also invite you to watch this video on the subject and to give an opinion on it if you want: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_O24tnqs_U

Edited June 11, 201313 yr by Iron Helix

 

I do start from the point of view of suicide being caused by mental illness because that has been my experience of it. Depression is also a mental illness whether it is caused by trauma or other underlying issues. Depression is more than simply being unhappy. It goes deeper than that, lasts longer than that and is quite a serious condition. A distinction has to be made between mood and mental illness. A person who is bereaved and is sad as a result may benefit from counselling and may have a prolonged period of sadness, but that is not necessarily the same as depression.

 

Ok, so breaking this down:

-suicide is caused by mental illness

-mental illness is defined as resulting from trauma, physical, biological, genetic, (etc) causes.

-depression fits under this definition of mental illness

 

Syllogistically I have no problem with that.  I might not agree with labelling mental illness so broadly, but that's more an aesthetic preference on my part to avoid generalizations and equivocation between trauma/other factors.

 

But the next question is "So what?" What conclusions/insights/consequences are made by this? What lesson should I take away from this discussion?

E

 

Well firstly, we are actually discussing it, which is good. Awareness is the first step to proper understanding, and proper understanding in wider society is very necassary in order to remove the stigma that prevents those that need it getting professional help.

 

 

 

As for ADD and ADHD-those are very real conditions.

 

You sound convinced.  May I ask what convinced you?

 

Personal experience with those with ADHD, plus my mother's experience as a teacher for those with learning difficulties and other conditions such as Autism and ADHD.

 

THis blog post discusses it better than I can. Its written by a comedian who has an autistic child, but in this case deals with ADHD quite well.

http://www.mysonsnotrainman.com/1/post/2013/04/say-it-loud.html

-------------------------------------

Edit:  On the topic of trauma vs other factors (this one is not specifically related to suicide though):

 

 

The two-year investigation in Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon and Texas found that foster children were prescribed psychotropic drugs at rates 2.7 to 4.5 times higher than other children in Medicaid in 2008. Psychotropic drugs include those used to treat ADHD, anxiety, depression and psychosis.

(...)

The higher prescribing rates don't necessarily mean that states are acting inappropriately, the GAO points out. Psychotropic drugs have proven effective in treating mental illness, and the higher rate could be "due to foster children's greater exposure to traumatic experiences and the unique challenges of coordinating their medical care."

 

link:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/12/01/143017520/foster-kids-even-infants-more-likely-to-be-given-psychotropic-drugs

 

 

A question for Occam's Razor - Is the traumatic experience of foster care more likely or is an increase in biophysical abnormalities in the brains of the foster care population more likely?  

 

Moreover, if it's trauma (which I think it is), how is drugging children the reasonable response to a traumatic situation?  These are not problems of the brain, but of the environment which surrounds them.  To NOT be affected by a traumatic situation would be worrisome by itself.  But now we label these obvious effects as "mental illness". 

 

I also invite you to watch this video on the subject and to give an opinion on it if you want: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_O24tnqs_U

 

I currently hve to run to get a train so can I talk about this part later?

Edited June 11, 201313 yr by Icewolf

The second video he does is relevant as well: link 

 

Something he said in this video struck me as perfect for our broken leg analogy.  Do we describe the man whose leg was broken by a person with a baseball bat as having a "leg problem" or a "leg illness".  In a technical sense, yes he has a broken leg, but that's only part of the issue.  If the person with the baseball bat who beats the man's legs is not being addressed, then the larger issue is being ignored.  

 

Man: Doc, these guys are beating me up and breaking my legs with baseball bats.

 

Doctor:  Yes, I see... here's a cast and some painkillers.  

 

Man: But what about the guys who keep beating me up?

 

Doctor: What do you think the painkillers are for?

 

Thus, to describe an assault upon a person's mind as a "mental illness" is an injustice.  A "societal illness" or a "family illness" (for example) would be a better description.

 

---------------------------------------------

 

Personal experience with those with ADHD, plus my mother's experience as a teacher for those with learning difficulties and other conditions such as Autism and ADHD.

THis blog post discusses it better than I can. Its written by a comedian who has an autistic child, but in this case deals with ADHD quite well.
http://www.mysonsnot...ay-it-loud.html

 

The thing about ADHD, like most psychiatric illnesses, is that it's diagnosed based on behavior.  There are no brain scans or blood tests to determine ADHD, so a psychiatrist compares the behavior of the patient against the DSM criteria (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders... which are voted upon to determine if they are "illnesses" or not) and makes a diagnosis based on that. 

 

 

 Once upon a time The Boy went to school with TheBoyWhoCouldn'tSitStill. TheBoyWhoCouldn'tSitStill didn't really like school. He hated it. Too many rules. Too much pressure to conform. His brain worked at such a rate he seemed unable to process anything. His fists and his mouth would react to situations before his brain even had time to engage.

(...)

You see, TheBoyWhoCouldn'tSitStill was diagnosed with ADHD. You know the one, that supposedly non-existent condition caused by crap parents that people snigger about. Well, here's my own version of Disability Top Trumps. I worked in a respite care home for children with disabilities for a couple of years. I worked there originally to help put The Boy and his problems into perspective. And then I stayed because I loved it. And the most challenging children, the ones who struggled to fit in the most, were often those with ADHD. Yet still people mock it as a condition or say it's just spoilt children with appalling parents.

 

When you realize that the diagnosis is based upon the behavior of the child, the logic here is revealed as circular thinking.  

 

1. "My Child struggles to fit in"

2. "The doctor says he has ADHD (based on his struggling to fit in)"

3. "My Child is now around a bunch of other Children who also struggle to fit in"

4. "I am told those other Children also have ADHD"

5. "ADHD = struggling to fit in"

6. "My Child has a real condition called ADHD"

 

Having the acronym of A-D-H-D is a smokescreen for behavior that the parents/school doesn't like.  Just replace it with the behavior it describes and slap it with the "mental illness" label.

 

Edit: formatting

Edited June 11, 201313 yr by Iron Helix

I watched some of the video and I have to say it all sounded very conspiracy theory. I didn't get very far in because his initial assumptions were basically rubbish. A Magazine publishes a list of possible symptoms-he then uses this as a basis to say that we are misdiagnosing children's daily problems as mental illness.

 

Now firstly, the article itself said they may indicate mental health issues. Just as the severe cramps I have experienced recently may indicate cancer. Now the more likely explanation in many circumstances is that I have an imbalance in my diet but it does not rule it out. Essentially he has taken a non-medical article and used it in a twisted way to try and show his belief is real.

 

There is a difference between depressed and unhappy. Doctors and psychiatrists are smart enough to distinguish that. In fact, at least in the UK, it is bloody hard to get yourself diagnoses with a mental illness. For example, seasonal affective disorder (SAD) requires 2 years of having moods monitored to have a diagnosis. Many illnesses cannot be diagnosed until several sessions with a psychiatrist. Doctors who perscribe counselling/anti-depressants after someone comes to them feeling depressed do so on the basis that it MAY help, something like giving out medication for a condition that someone might have but is unlikely to do any harm.

 

Basically his statements are completely alien to all of my experiences in this area (including family, friends, and working with a mental health focused charity).

 

As for the ADHD, I do know people with it and it definitely cannot be described as simply failing to fit in. In the article I linked to this is a person whose behaviour could not be managed in a school which specialised in difficult children. And this is in the UK, and I can tell you from those with ADHD in my school that means he must have been a pretty severe case to have been in the specialised school in the first place.

A Magazine publishes a list of possible symptoms-he then uses this as a basis to say that we are misdiagnosing children's daily problems as mental illness.

(...)

Essentially he has taken a non-medical article and used it in a twisted way to try and show his belief is real. 

 

 

 

That article was largely just duplicating what can be found in both the DSM4 and the ICD-10.

 

Either (1) or (2):

 

(1) six (or more) of the following symptoms of inattention have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental levels:

 

Inattention

 

(A) Often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities.

( Often has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities.

© Often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly

(D) Often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace (not due to oppositional behaviour or failure to understand instructions).

(E) Often has difficulty organising tasks and activities

(F) Often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental effort (such as schoolwork or homework).

(G) Often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (e.g., toys, school assignments, pencils, books, or tools).

(H) Is often easily distracted by extraneous stimuli.

(I) Is often forgetful in daily activities.

2. six or more of the following symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity have persisted for at least 6 months to a degree that is maladaptive and inconsistent with developmental level:

 

Hyperactivity

 

(A) often fidgets with hands or feet or squirms in seat.

( often leaves seat in classroom or in other situation in which remaining seated is expected.

© often runs about or climbs excessively in situations in which it is inappropriate ( in adolescents or adults, may be limited to subjective feelings of restlessness)

(D) often has difficulty playing or engaging in leisure activities quietly

(E) is often "on the go" or often acts as if "driven by a motor"

(F) often talks excessively.

Impulsivity

 

(G) often blurts out answers before questions have been compleated.

(H) often has difficulty awaiting turn.

(I) often interrupts or intrudes on others (e.g., at school or work and at home).

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Now firstly, the article itself said they may indicate mental health issues. Just as the severe cramps I have experienced recently may indicate cancer. Now the more likely explanation in many circumstances is that I have an imbalance in my diet but it does not rule it out.

 

 

Where this analogy doesn't apply is that cancer's presence can be determined empirically.  It can be measured in weight, it can be seen visually, it can be resected, it has well known causes and ways to test for it, etc.  ADHD doesn't have that.  The disease of cancer causes symptoms.  The "disease" of ADHD is the symptom(s).  So if we used the same rational that is used to determine ADHD, we could label you with Severe Cramping Disorder and call that the disease.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As for the ADHD, I do know people with it and it definitely cannot be described as simply failing to fit in. In the article I linked to this is a person whose behaviour could not be managed in a school which specialised in difficult children. And this is in the UK, and I can tell you from those with ADHD in my school that means he must have been a pretty severe case to have been in the specialised school in the first place. 

 

 

So let's borrow from the cramping analogy again.  If you're put into a place where everyone has been diagnosed with our fictional disease of Severe Cramping Disorder, you're probably going to find people with varying degrees of cramping.  Maybe some of those will have cancer, while others will have diet issues.  The common theme, however, is that they're all going to have cramps, because having cramps is how you're "diagnosed". 

 

Likewise ADHD is diagnosed based on behavior (See: DSM4 and ICD-10).  That doesn't mean that someone with ADHD is "mentally ill", that is unless we're describing abnormal behavior as mental illness (=dangerous).  Since school is largely a place of behavior "management", it's not surprising when we find tidbits like "ADHD is diagnosed three to four times more commonly in boys than in girls."

 

It's not like this is some new idea:

 

Social

The World Health Organization states that the diagnosis of ADHD can represent family dysfunction or inadequacies in the educational system rather than individual psychopathology.[78] Other researchers believe that relationships with caregivers have a profound effect on attentional and self-regulatory abilities. A study of foster children found that a high number of them had symptoms closely resembling ADHD.[79] Researchers have found behavior typical of ADHD in children who have suffered violence and emotional abuse.[14]

 

Social construction theory states that it is societies that determine where the line between normal and abnormal behavior is drawn. Thus society members including physicians, parents, teachers, and others are the ones who determine which diagnostic criteria are applied and, thus, determine the number of people affected.[80] This is exemplified in the fact that the DSM IV arrives at levels of ADHD three to four times higher than those obtained with use of the ICD 10.[11] Thomas Szasz, a proponent of this theory, has argued that ADHD was "invented and not discovered."[81][82]

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

There is a difference between depressed and unhappy. Doctors and psychiatrists are smart enough to distinguish that. In fact, at least in the UK, it is bloody hard to get yourself diagnoses with a mental illness. For example, seasonal affective disorder (SAD) requires 2 years of having moods monitored to have a diagnosis. Many illnesses cannot be diagnosed until several sessions with a psychiatrist. Doctors who perscribe counselling/anti-depressants after someone comes to them feeling depressed do so on the basis that it MAY help, something like giving out medication for a condition that someone might have but is unlikely to do any harm.

 

I'm not sure why you keep bringing up there being a difference between sadness and depression.  If that's regarding some specific point I've made, the connection alludes me.  I'm not going to try and argue that doctors can't separate severe cases from those which are not.    

 

But, any time you're screwing around with the chemistry of the brain, there's the chance of doing harm.  Drugs like Ritalin and SSRIs have their own controversies, regarding not only dangers of use, but efficacy as well. I'm not going to claim that they should never be used, but I retain a large amount of skepticism on their use when I see things like this:

 

The two-year investigation in Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon and Texas found that foster children were prescribed psychotropic drugs at rates 2.7 to 4.5 times higher than other children in Medicaid in 2008. Psychotropic drugs include those used to treat ADHD, anxiety, depression and psychosis.

(...)

The higher prescribing rates don't necessarily mean that states are acting inappropriately, the GAO points out. Psychotropic drugs have proven effective in treating mental illness, and the higher rate could be "due to foster children's greater exposure to traumatic experiences and the unique challenges of coordinating their medical care."

 

As for the United Kingdom, it seems they diagnose ADHD at 1/10th-1/20th the rate that is currently happening in the US. (Source)

 

American parents were accused of using mental health drugs to enhance their healthy children, after official figures showed one in five secondary-school age boys had been diagnosed with attention-deficit disorder.

Research by the Centers for Disease Control also found that more than one in ten school-age children in the US has now received an ADHD diagnosis, amid a sharp rise in reported instances of the condition.

(...)

The new US figures suggest that American children are far more likely to be diagnosed with the condition than their British counterparts. About one per cent of British school-age children were found to have been diagnosed with hyperkinetic disorder, a similar but more narrowly-defined ilness.

 

So good for the UK.

 

Edited June 12, 201313 yr by Iron Helix

So, in an attempt to tie this back to the original issue, I have presented everything I've written above in an attempt to show that the problem of what we're calling "mental illness" is not always a problem of the individual specifically (physiologically).  If the 1/10 ratio of ADHD diagnosis between UK and the US is to be believed as a common metric, it may even be that it's not even usually the problem.

Edited June 12, 201313 yr by Iron Helix

I don't live in the USA so I cannot comment on what they do, although I have heard that they both overdiagnose and overdrug ADHD sufferers. Which leads to the problem that people then stop believing it is a real issue, meaning those who actually genuinely suffer do not get the sympathy and support they need. All I can say is that in the UK if I meet someone with an ADHD diagnosis it is seriously noticeable. 

 

Btw I don't normally consider ADHD or Autism a mental illness. Often they are labelled as learning difficulties, but as some with them can learn incredibly well that seems to be a rather bad way of describing it. 

I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of the topic which didn't discuss Fry's video at all - but led straight to a platform equivocating mental illness and suicide - is.

 

I posted because I was in the mood for a deep discussion, to find the OP had doomed the topic with semantics and prejudice.

I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of the topic which didn't discuss Fry's video at all - but led straight to a platform equivocating mental illness and suicide - is.

 

I posted because I was in the mood for a deep discussion, to find the OP had doomed the topic with semantics and prejudice.

Firstly, the definition of mental illness and its nature is a very important discussion. Secondly, the video is about the nature of the beast, which is essentially the discussion. And thirdly, what prejudice?

Then let us discuss the nature of the beast.

 

"Mentally Ill" is not an answer, it's simply not illuminating (it gets us no further than the will to live is an essential ingredient to sanity). Through the thread you've essentially posited the following assertions:

1. Suicide is irrational

2. An irrational act is a sign of Mental illness

I hope I'm not putting words in your mouth, that's what I found under your statements. But I think 2. isn't useful at any rate, so lets discuss 1. Unfortunately we don't have a complete ontology to answer it for us.

 

Why would someone wish to commit suicide? I believe from various Weltanschauungen suicide can be a rational decision.

 

Consider the following arguments for suicide; if you care you can refute them or offer arguments against suicide:

1. I am not going to achieve anything of worth, there is no purpose to living.

2. I am in pain, I will avoid this pain.

3. I am going to become a morally lesser being, I will kill myself to avert this.

4. I hate the universe, I will depart it.

5. I have lost (or never found) what is valuable to me.

6. I have already achieved everything I desire.

7. It is the right time to die.

8. I am restricted from what I want to do.

 

Don't feel you are restricted by what I have said in your reply.

The thing is, that doesn't really describe most suicide attempts or suicides. Or more than the smallest minority. If it did, there would not have been the falls in suicide rates you see when a country switches from coal gas to natural gas in its gas supply, or when pharmacies stop selling the lethal dose of paracetamol or other drugs in one transaction.  

I don't know where you get your information, but it's not your brain.

 

Suicide rates have been somewhat constant over the last 50 years, with the note that male numbers have been increasing and females decreasing. I don't think there is a significant long term effect from regulating suicide methods- if there is, it would be the smallest minority affected.

 

Method of suicide is incidental, and if that isn't realised we can't have a discussion.

Firstly, call it with the insults. If you want a serious discussion, lets have one. But if you are going to assume I am an idiot you are going to have a bad time. 

 

Secondly, please look at this paper

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC478945/pdf/brjprevsmed00022-0018.pdf

 

When coal gas was switched away from in the UK, making it much harder to gas oneself to death, the rate of suicide dropped substantially. People stopped being able to use that method and it was not replaced. 

 

This is consistent with what is commonly observed-people have suicidal urges that last for about 15 minutes to half an hour. Outside of that time period they will not try to kill themselves. If you can insert a barrier into that time period then generally that will prevent the suicide. Make suicide take longer and rates drop-that is what that paper shows and that is what people experience. 

 

This is also from my personal first hand experience. It is from my time working for a mental health helpline, and from being the physical barrier to suicides by physically ripping knives from peoples hands and restraining them.

The post made an argument that could hardly be addressed, let me paraphrase it into a form that makes it clearer: "The vast majority of suicide occurs because the method is convenient". When you elucidated it as being in conjunction with an urge as the cause in your recent post this makes more sense. If my position of a weltanshauung as the cause wasn't flippantly not addressed there would have been a kinder reply

 

I'm not adverse to saying that an urge can motivate an action, but they do not arise from nothing- There is a level of premeditation for cognitive acceptance, whether or not it goes as far as meticulous planning.

 

I considered to reply to the rest, but prefer to focus the crux.

People thinking beforehand "maybe I should kill myself" does not mean that when it comes down to it, it is a rational act. 

Then why is it not a rational act? and what mistakes are made in coming to the false conclusion?