Talk:Mental disorder/Archive 1

message: We need to shift this article's perspective from mental illness to mental health. Focus on the positive. Much more constructive and useful way of looking at the problem of mental illness.--Sonjaaa 18:06, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
:I agree completely.--seanetal 09:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said Anome, I'll defer to Sonjaa to start this one.--seanetal 13:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: shift from negative to positive

message: Because the movie list was so large and really added very little to the article directly, I moved it to a seperate list (List of Movies featuring mental illness). siafu 22:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Movie list

message: I think the links in the category box I put in should be disputed, since I don't think all of these illnesses are not a form of mental illness.  That is why I have the disputed meta tag on top of the box.  If anyone agrees, pleas edit the box and remove the links that are not a form of mental illness.  Thank you.
--Admiral Roo 14:05, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
:As I stated on the main talk page, they all appear to be pulled from the DSM-IV (save for Multiple Personality Disorder, which has been renamed and redescribed as Dissociative Identity Disorder, already listed), which is about a strong a reference as we are likely to find for determining if something is or is not a mental illness. siafu 22:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: It's hard to believe that there's nothing here on the Recovery Model! We're behind the times here, folks. If I get a chance, I'll try to put something together--but I'm spread very thin now... Aliman 07:07, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recovery Model

message: It seems extraordinary to me that 'mentally handicapped' redirects to 'mental illness'. Mental handicap and mental illness are two are quite different things. (Schizophrenia is not a 'mental handicap'. Very low IQ is not a 'mental illness'.) Ben Finn 23:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Schizophrenia is indeed a rather serious mental handicap, and mental retardation is indeed considered a mental illness.  Both appear to be genetic, and both seriously impair a person's ability to function. siafu 05:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert on this, but the distinction as I understand it is that mental handicap refers to a birth defect or later brain injury, whereas mental illness refers to disorders with a less overtly physical cause (i.e. biochemical). (Possibly this is a UK-specific distinction.) I remember in the late 1970s or early 1980s there was a UK press advertising campaign specifically designed to educate the public into the distinction - photos of two men, one looking normal and the other appearing to have Down's syndrome or similar. The headline was, 'Which of these men is mentally ill?' The answer in the text being the normal-looking one - the other was mentally handicapped, not mentally ill. Ben Finn 19:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, according to the DSM-IV, mental retardation and similar mental "handicaps" (by your understanding) are classified as mentall disorders, all of which fall under the blanket of mental illness.  The distinction your suggesting seems a little weird, especially considering that its not at all recognized in medicine at large.  Consider genetic diseases, like PKU, which are definitely "illnesses", or diseases caused by complications in pregnancy or birth, like FAS, also an "illness".  Generally speaking, I think it's safe to say that anything that can be labelled a handicap for medical reasons can be called an "illness".  I think perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that many people equate the word "illness" with "disease", which is something that can be "cured".  Really, we're just talking about blanket terms that don't mean anything specific; it's more specific to say "disorder", "infection", or "condition" depending on what's being discussed. siafu 00:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mentally handicapped

message: This article does not seem to reflect the view of mental illness here in the UK according to my experience. Claims that the matter is settled and that physical causes in the brain are to blame seem quite unwarranted to me, as confirmed by later claims that diagnosis is still a matter of assessment not physical diagnosis. Here we are shocked by the extent of prescribing to children with supposed ADHD in the US. If so many children are mentally ill, what on earth has happened in their brains to bring this about within one generation? I am not aware that any physical mechanism has even been suggested. Food additives maybe, but that's poisoning, not mental illness! --Lindosland 00:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was.  If I screwed things up, whoever spots it gets to fix it.  PatrickFisher 03:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your answer to why the U.S. has so many "mental illnesses" is the following link.
That link is 
The link states that the Mental health writers in the U.S. have ties to the Pharmacutical Indusry.
Go to Jeff Rense's Homepage, then see the article title: Mental Illness Writers Have Ties To Big Pharma, since the primary link is malfunctioning. Martial Law 22:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreasonable bias 

message: I tagged this article for cleanup because I think the overall organization needs reworking. PatrickFisher 03:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i've been looking at this article and think maybe a reorganization/rewrite is in order. i've been writing some trying to get in better order. will not delete other stuff, but will include in entry for all to review.Platypusjones 18:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: As part of the cleanup, are there any links that are particulary valuable per Wikipedia:External links? - brenneman {L}  07:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: in this section: 
1. should read: additionally, the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI), reports that 23% of North American adults will suffer from a clinically diagnosable mental illness in a given year... this differentiates NAMI's data from the Feds data.
2. I am unsure of the appropriatness of this qualification here, with regard to NAMI: an American advocacy organisation which accepts funding from the pharmaceutical industry. I understand the sigificance of the statement (the possibility of conflict of interest) but i think it would be more appropriate in NAMIs own entry. IMO
3. The current DSM is the DSM IV-TR (text revision)
4. not sure if the rest belongs in this section. More appropariate info might include the rates of specific disorders as diagnosed in a given year (not just general as stated in intro paragraph). the remainder could have its own section on the cultural remifications of diagnosis Platypusjones 20:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  prevalence and diagnosis 

message: mental illness is a broad generic label for a category of illnesses that may include affective or emotionally instability, behavioral dysregualtion, and/or cognitive impairment. a diagnostic label is "major depression" "schizophrenia, catatonic type", etc...
this article really needs to be brushed up. am willing to do it, but would like feedback. Platypusjones 18:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, you're right about the generic label bit. Go ahead and clean it up, others will probably join once you start. Anything you don't want to change without someone else's opinion pop on here and we'll provide feedback. Sparkleyone 02:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  i added a reworked introduction, although i did not delete the other introduction. while this may not be SOP in wiki, i felt uncomfortable removing it first without consensus (tho i doubt that would ever be reached). although it is not a major change, my reading of the other discussions suggests there is some conflict about terminology. while valid, i think an appropriate place to discuss this would be in a terminology section or in the controversy section. will wait for feedback.Platypusjones 18:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the term itself is controversial and not understood the same way in all contexts. In the broadest sense, an illness is  a medical condition that can be diagnosed by a professional, so an 'illness of or pertaining to one's mind' should in this context theoretically be an appropriate term for a pathological condition. On the other hand, colloquially, the term is often used interchangeably with other, less neutral labels, such as "crazy" or "insane", which are not medical conditions themselves, but rather, "insanity" may be a result of a symptom of an underlying medical illness, such as schizophrenia, schizoid personality disorder, etc. We should include all relevant uses and contexts of the term in the article and elaborate, beginning with the most prevalent ones. The term is probably used most often in medicine, second in a legal context, in academic settings, and so on. The most "profane" use of the term may probably be found in common conversations with people who claim that they themselves or some other person has a diagnoseable mental condition, even though the claims are merely subjective and have not been made by a professional, but I obviously don't know about all the context in which it could apply. The bottom line, I'll help clean up, let's be comprehensive and objective. I'll add it to the "pending" items on my to-do list. Feel free to leave your comments. (Patrick 11:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

text: have removed second (original) intro, as Platypusjones' version is generally more inclusive and appropriate. The controversy stuff, as mentioned by others, should be in it's own section rather than in the intro. As conversation on this seemed to dry up a few weeks ago I hope no-one minds that I removed the other paragraph. If so, edit away, but lets not have the duplication sitting there again without input. Sparkleyone 04:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Sparklyone.
[UK user] I disagree completely with the point made above that the term mental illness can cover psychological issues as well as biological disorders.  By defintion something that is both "mental" (relating to the mind/brain) and is an "illness" (relating to biological dysfunction or invasion by a foreign body) must be biological in nature.  Equally, patients with "mental illnesses", i.e. psychiatric disorders, will also receive psychological interventions, but that does not mean that the psychological interventions are addressing the biological issues or, as it has been called here, the "mental illness".  I think the article would be far clearer and up to date with contemporary thinking if it referred to psychiatric and psychological disorders.  Psychiatric disorders being those with a medical basis and dealt with using drug/physical interventions and psychological disorders being those relating to conceptualisation disorders dealt with through the talking therapies.  The use of the term "mental illness" here is too broad, confusing and, I think, stigmatising.  The article could be prefaced with a note to the historic existence and use of the term "mental illness" and explain how it has now been replaced with more appropriate and accurate alternatives.  Zebulon99 22:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  mental illness is not a diagnostic label 

message: When I was working on one of the sections of this article I noticed the sections seemed to be WAY out of order.  Most health articles read 1.Introduction, 2.Causes or overview, 3.Symptoms, 4.Diagnosis, 5.Treatment and then any other related topics.
I know the controversy is a hot topic, but I'm not sure it belongs ahead of diagnosis or treatments.  Think about going to a doctor when you are ill (mentally or physically, to a psychiatrist or psychologist) - you or others, before you go, will notice symptoms.  You'll consult with the professional.  Then there will be a diagnosis, if applicable.  Then if diagnosed, be treated.  I think this order really makes the article flow smoothly.  Thoughts? Chupper 05:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving sections 10.19.2006 

message: I'm sort of a visitor to this article, I can be found more in the psychs and mental health professional pages, but I hope I'm not being to bold here.  First off, the controversy seems to be focused on psychiatry, which I'm not refuting, but this is not a psychiatry or anti-psychiatry article.  Mental illness can be treated with psychiatrics, yes, but what about psychology?  This article should be covering both and the controversy section is not.
Additionally, there are already two other main articles referenced for users to click on.  Is it just me or does more than 800 words seem a bit in excess considering this is not the main article on controversy.  I think by shrinking this section to a FEW key points would make the anti-psychiatry people happy (because shorter is often more powerful) and the pro-psychiatry people happy (because it wouldn't be taking up 21.5% of the article as it is now).  Thoughts? Chupper 05:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy too long? 

message: I came to this article looking for a definition of mental illness. I was looking for, in other words, an explanation of what qualities something must have in order to be considered a mental illness (as well as who decides what qualifies as a mental illness, and what criteria and methods do they use- I'm sure this varies between cultures). I thought that it would be something like "Mental illnesses are patterns of thought and behavior which society considers to be unacceptable, which cause significant distress to the individual, and over which the individual has little or no control."
The definition given in this article basically just says that a mental illness is an illness of the mind. Although this is true, it sheds very little light on the meaning of the term. Is this because the definition or mental illness varies so widely that it is not possible to specifically define it? Doesn't the APA have to have to have some sort of definition in order to classify something as a mental illness?  Amillion 04:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this comment. Looks like some of the definitional issues are only addressed down in the 'controversies' section, mixed in with other issues. I guess a definition of 'mental' and of 'illness' could help people clarify things for themselves, or links to those pages? EverSince 16:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that would help much; the article on illness says that illnesses are "Abnormal conditions of the body or mind that cause discomfort, dysfunction, or distress to the person afflicted or those in contact with the person." But really, something can be abnormal about you which causes you or other people distress without it being an illness. For example, abnormally extreme intelligence, an abnormally overwhelming love of music, and abnormal artistic abilities are conditions having to do with the mind which often cause those afflicted with them or those around them discomfort, and they may even interfere with everyday activities, but they are not mental illnesses. Homosexuality also may result in discomfort or distress, but is no longer classified as a mental illness. For something to be a mental illness, it has to be more than just abnormal, distressing, and having to do with the mind. There must be some factor which is missing in this definition. Perhaps something has to cause a negative affect objectively, regardless of the cultural context, for it to be a mental illness? Perhaps there is something else as well? I still can't seem to find a satisfactory definition anywhere. Amillion 05:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the problem is that the work on mental illness isn't actually founded on an agreed definition that fits everything that is called a mental illness but excludes everything not called such. And the concept is ambiguous, even in general medicine (e.g. take essential hypertension), let alone psychiatry. The DSM purports to be atheoretical as to etiology, and mainly describes 'syndromes' rather than disorders despite its name, mainly using consensually-agreed (literally voted on by committee) clinically-useful categories and cut-offs (according to some sufficient mixture of distinct abnormality, distress and dysfunction). I don't think there is actually any definitional reason why your examples couldn't be defined as disorders by DSM when routinely causing distress/dysfunction (in reality such cases would probably be fudged in to a diagnosis of OCD or Aspergers or something. BTW gender identify problems are still included in DSM, which some see as a way of still pathologising homosexuality, and there is also Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified" which can be used for someone with "...persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation".). And many of the diagnoses are fudged to allow precisely the cultural subjectivity you mention, e.g. delusions only counting as delusions if they appear incongruous with the person's culture or religion etc.EverSince 20:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The intro at the moment equates mental illness with several similar concepts. It seems to me it is different in at least one important sense - it implies (at least in its strong usage) a medical illness akin to the sorts of bodily illnesses identified in general medicine. Implying a medical understanding to do with signs and symptoms and a specific underlying 'hardware' pathology or disease process, and the primary suitability of medical care and treatment. I think this could be indicated in the introduction. EverSince 16:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I also think that there ought to be some sort of description of the ways in which people who subscribe to this model explain culturally specific mental illnesses. Do they commonly believe that these aren't "really" illnesses? Do they believe that biological or environmental factors that cause certain illnesses are specific to certain areas or populations? Have there been studies done to see whether or not people who assimilate into these cultures are susceptible to these illnesses? Amillion 05:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree this is a very important issue. Variation from the Western norms are often argued to be just different 'manifestations' of the same underlying illness. Definitions are often tailored to actually make this the case (e.g. defining psychosis in terms of form rather than content). Those cultures might be seen as wrong to not see things as illness symptoms, e.g. shamanistic experiences that might be valued. However since many diagnoses depend on distress or dysfunction, this in itself allows for cultural variability depending on how a society is prejudiced for or against particular behaviors. On the other hand, it's commonly held that a lot of the behaviours picked out by the DSM as disordered are based in culture-specific moral judgements. EverSince 20:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I think some of the terms listed in the intro as equivalent to 'mental illness' are actually often used as alternative concepts - either in professional work by those not adopting a medical model, or by those defending against the term being suitable or helpful to apply to them. EverSince 16:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: p.s. Quote from American Psychiatric Association statement 2003: "In the absence of one or more biological markers for mental disorders, these conditions are defined by a variety of concepts. These include the distress experienced and reported by a person who has a mental disorder; the level of disability associated with a particular condition; patterns of behavior; and statistical deviation from population-based norms for cognitive processes, mood regulation, or other indices of thought, emotion, and behavior" I think actually even if there is some putative biological 'marker' this 'variety of concepts' still usually applies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EverSince (talk • contribs) 11:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tried some editing of the intro section along the above lines and see what happens EverSince 20:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I noticed the article talks about the DSM as diagnosing mental illnesses, which I think isn't quite accurate. The DSM is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders</B>, and includes many diagnoses that aren't generally considered illnesses. Also realised the page 'mental disorder' diverts to this one. I would like to propose that it be the other way round (or with perhaps this page clarifying the particular unique usage of mental 'illness'). All the other Wikipedia pages are headed 'disorders', as is the table listing all the different kinds of disorders at the end of this page. I'd be interested to know of any objections or other suggestions. EverSince 18:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definining "mental illness" 

message: [http://www.personalconsult.com/articles/infectionsandmentalsymptoms.html   THE OVERLOOKED RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN INFECTIOUS DISEASES AND
MENTAL SYMPTOMS]
Seems that a very probable cause of mental illness symptoms, has been overlooked.
The key word parasites.
If you examine the symptoms associated with some mental illnesses like schizophrenia, they include intestinal disorders that may be wrongly associated with emotional disorders.
--Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 23:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE OVERLOOKED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INFECTIOUS DISEASES AND MENTAL SYMPTOMS