Critical Analysis Mental Illness

Mental illness appears in various forms. It is characterized by some serious disruptions in someone's thoughts or even demonstrated in their actions. The person presenting these symptoms is often unable to deal with the day-to-day activities and patterns of a normal life. Mental illness can take over 200 forms each having an effect on the patient's disposition, character, traits, and even the way they interact with others. Some of the common forms of mental illness are 'schizophrenia', 'depression,' 'bipolar disorders' and 'dementia'.

Taylor and Brown (1988) state that mental illness can be presented in a psychological, emotional way and even in physical symptoms. A person under severe stress due to dealing with an incident or series of stressors' build-up over time is prone to mental illness. A person may also present symptoms of mental illness through a biochemical imbalance, a negative reaction to his environment, and the pressures accrued thereby, and even because of his/her specific genetic makeup.

Patients may recover from mental illness or learn to manage their conditions under the provision of care and appropriate treatment (Mental Illness and the Family: Recognizing Warning Signs and How to Cope, n.d.). Although mental health is a concern for many people, mental illness arises and is recognized when a person is unable to operate normatively due to the illness. It can be observed in the way a person interacts with others, with their jobs and with their families.

Medicine can sometimes be prescribed to treat it in addition to suggestions of therapy sessions (Clinic, 2015). Effects of Mental Illness Mental illness can affect the patient personally as well as socially. The patient who suffers from it may suffer severe side effects from the medicine that has been prescribed for them.

For example, the person may suffer memory lapses, their emotions may be negatively affected, and they may not be alert as before, their ability to take action may be impaired along with their ability to interact well with others (Taylor, et.al, 2003). The other side of the illness presents challenges from the society which may stigmatize the person who is suffering the mental illness. At the same time, the person can also self-stigmatize as a result of taking in the stigma from the society (Nezlek et al., 1997).

Thus, it is important to understand mental illness through various approaches and the effects of its treatments as well (Maddux and Tangney, 2011). Evaluating the patient for mental illness is the first step in the process of diagnosing the illness. This is normally done by a professional in the field who will evaluate the symptoms. Medical history of the patient is probed through questioning. The patient will be given an opportunity to express their symptoms after which a physical evaluation may also be done.

The professional will seek to eliminate any other extraneous, uncontrolled causes of the symptoms through the preliminary examination so that the diagnosis can be accurate. For the patient diagnosed with mental illness, the next step is to be referred to a specialist who can confirm the diagnosis and offer alternatives for treatment. Some of these professionals are psychiatrists and psychologists. These specialists are better equipped to determine the presence of mental illness through various assessments.

Some of the things that the assessments will bring out include any problems experienced as the person has been about his/her daily life such deterioration in social interactions or losing the ability to function well in the environment. Goldberg (2014) states that from these, the specialist can better diagnose the specific disorder the patient is suffering from. Mental Illness and Self-stigma Self-stigma arises when an individual internalizes the stigma that they are experiencing from the society. This self-stigma results in individuals sometimes exhibiting negative actions and mental reactions.

The effects of self-stigma can be long lasting. Link, et al., (1987) demonstrated that these effects can stay even after the person has successfully undergone psychiatric treatment. The psychological impact persists. Thus, the person suffering from self-stigma is inhibited in his/her ability to be rehabilitated - of gaining desired independence and good employment. Self-stigma can emanate from the types of stereotypes that society holds towards mental illness.

From these stereotypes, the person who is suffering mental illness forms self-stigma from which problems such as lowered self-esteem and reduced capacity arise (Markowitz, 1998; Ritsher and Phelan, 2004). Sometimes this reduction in a person's self-worth comes as a natural response to the society in which the patient is living and the specific stereotypes that are held by that society or culture (Trapnell & Campbell, 1999). Some of the problems experienced by the people with acute mental health illness are lack of sleep, anxiety, constant fatigue and other related problems arising from these.

It is often helpful for those presenting these symptoms to be given care through a diagnostic approach. Some of the alternative methods that mentally ill people are treated with include yoga, relaxation techniques, diet, self-help methods and others as highlighted by the Center for Mental Health Services. These methods have been helpful in aiding healing and the recovery of mental health patients. While some may opt for these methods alone, others choose traditional alternatives such as medication and the use of psychotherapy.

However, alternative treatment methods have been found to be effective especially as it concerns pain, anxiety, and high blood pressure (Thobaben, 2004). These alternatives include acupuncture, techniques to reduce stress as well as techniques to affect the mind. Mental Health and Social Capital Some studies have attempted to find out whether there exists a relationship between mental health and social capital. However, due to the restrictions of the methods that were used, these studies have not been conclusive in their results.

Majority of these research have been 'Cross-sectional' studies and these have been unable to determine how the two (mental health and social capital) are related in terms of direction. Tesser (1988) says that it is a possibility that a person's decrease in social interactions and their increasing inability to trust are a result of mental illness rather than mental illness resulting from these symptoms. There have been several methodical reviews of how mental illness affects social capital. The results of these reviews have been diverse.

In some studies there has been proof that some aspects of mental illness are related to some aspects of social capital. In the cases where these associations have been proven, it has been seen that an aspect of trust and mutuality in the society serves as a determinant of better mental health (Corrigan et al., 2010). On the other hand, other studies indicated that participation or structural social capital is related to poor mental health as opposed to earlier assertions that it was related to better mental health.

However this may be because of the different aspects that were being measured in these studies. McKenzie and Harpham (2006) state that the relationship between social capital and mental illness is multi-faceted and is thus expected to present different results. However, there was one convincing study done in a community to explore the relationship between mental health and violence in the community. It was done in the U.S. where ten thousand respondents were interviewed.

This study was part of the Epidemiological Catchment Area Survey and was done in three different settings. The presence of a mental disorder in a person was established through a Diagnostic Interview Schedule as required by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental Disorder. Those who were identified as presenting symptoms of a psychiatric disorder were four times more likely to be involved in violence. Those suffering multiple disorders also had important results.

When co-morbidity was not considered, it appeared that schizophrenia and the abuse of substances had a high ranking with relation to violence as opposed to the respondents who did not exhibit any disorders. In a later study, where the respondents were mainly psychosis patients who had been treated and discharged, it was discovered that their inclination to violence was similar to those without any history of mental illness (Johnson, et al., 1997).

In some studies where birth cohorts have been researched, there has been more leaning toward the existence of an association between mental health and violence. Of those with mental disorders, women were 8.66 times and men were 4.48 times more likely to commit an offense related to violence as opposed to other members of society (Kurman, 2001). Limitations to studies Some limitations have been noted concerning the studies seeking to establish the association between mental illness and violence.

The issue of those who are mentally ill being criminalized is one of the factors most studies have failed to take into account. There is a tendency in society to arrest the mentally ill for an offense where a person who was not mentally ill might not have been arrested. Another issue is that of deviance being classified medically. In this process, the perpetrators of violence are treated as psychiatric cases. These are important issues that need to be taken into account in these studies.

When studies do not consider these issues, then the results that arise such as the association between mental illness and increased violence might not actually be valid. They may only represent how psychiatry has accommodated violence (Ogilvie and Clark, 1992). There are some studies which have tried to make this association using respondents who are considered to present a higher risk. These studies tried to identify whether violence was presented before hospitalization, in the course of hospitalization and after.

The results of this study were suspect because the subjects were seen as already being high risk causing their hospitalization (Ogilvie and Clark, 1992). Other studies have been criticized based on the fact that the information obtained was from self-report data. It thus cannot be relied upon because of the expectation that socially desirable answers had been given by the subjects. The studies also relied on past data. Bartlett and McGauley, (2010) note that such data did not take into account the temporal ordering of mental illness and violence.

Mental Illness in Society Society has embraced the idea of mental illness being related to violence and this image that has been reinforced through media, too. Even health policies relating to mental illness are geared towards containing this danger or the risk posed to society by it. The media has played a major role in creating this image. Politicians also have promoted this idea as they look to garner votes. Interest groups have also played a part in the promotion of this distortion (Ogilvie, 1987).

The relatives of patients may want more to be done in terms of caring for the mentally ill, and in their quest may highlight negative consequences of not having enough measures in place. Thus, in a way they promote the image of the dangerous psychiatric patient even though no evidence is given for the same (Ogilvie, 1987). For a change to occur in societal outlook there must be an examination of the evidence available in this matter, which shows a definite link between mental illness and violence.

There are three possible outcomes when an individual is seen as being violent and exhibiting symptoms of a mental disorder. The individual may continue to be violent after they are evaluated and seen as no longer having a disorder. Secondly, the individual may continue to have the disorder but not be violent. In the third outcome, the individual may have the disorder and the violence reduce over time as though they were correlated (Rogers and Pilgrim, 2003).

Klerman (1974) stated that as far as evaluations of mental health were concerned, the society had a role to play. It has been noted that there is a hostile kind of interaction between the professionals and administrators of mental health and the critics of mental health programs. Some of the areas drawing criticism are the expansion of mental health into areas which were termed as social deviance such as abuse of substances.

Professionals have been uncertain about how to treat many mental health issues, how paraprofessionals should be trained and what can be effective in treating a diverse range of mental patients. Critics have highlighted just how much the society has lost confidence in the existing mental health services which they see as taking up a lot of government funding (Klerman, 1972). Community organizations seek to have a say in how mental health services are run within them.

Some of these groups are seeking a say in this because they want to ensure their safety as well as the safety of the patients (NIMH, 1991). It has been noted that courts, both federal and state, have been actively involved in these programs for the last two decades. Substance abuse has featured highly as well in mental health programs in prisons. This has been as a result of court interventions (Robitscher, 1972).

The courts have viewed these programs as a way to rehabilitate the mentally ill criminal and thus have acted as stakeholders in the efficiency of these programs, the evaluations carried out as well as the care offered (Kernis, 2006). Mental Illness Development In the early nineteenth century, psychiatrists explained deviant behavior as emanating from a gene pool that characterized the lower class. This thinking put together those considered to be mad, those who were dim and those who were bad.

This was challenged during the period the First World War took place and in later years. Inherited degeneracy as a source of crime was rejected. The new thinking was that crime came from a factors in the environment or had psychological roots. Further studies were done by psychiatrist to identify the source of criminal tendencies (Perspectives on Mental Health and Illness, n. d.). Earlier, 'Depression' was also termed as a biological condition, but this thinking has been challenged by research in sociology and clinical observations.

Nolen-Hoeksema (1987) state that there is no evidence to show that depression can be defined as a biological phenomenon. Depression has been seen to bring on a varied number of symptoms from each individual's experience (Nolen-Hoeksema, 1991). Watkins (2004) notes that the challenges experienced by clinicians are not the same as those experienced by sociologists. Clinicians had to interact with patients and treat them while sociologists did not. This is evidenced by a study on social circumstances and the personal circumstances of patient who were miserable by Dowrick et al.

(2000) and Gask et al. (2004). The study found out that there was an inadequate theory of self in these thus not requiring a better medical diagnosis (Watkins and Baracaia, 2002). Thus the mental health concept must be examined (Rogers, 2014). In the development of the concept psychosis was seen as an organic brain disorder treated by alienists (Elliott, 2004). Emil Kraeplin, a German psychiatrist (Higgins, 1999) saw psychoses as either being a mood disorder or a dementia praexcox. Thus mental illness was termed a manifestation of discrete brain functions.

Hull et al., (1986) and Ghaemi (2003) that the mentally ill person had a conflict in his psychological mechanisms as opposed to the normal person. Some experts such as Freud (1915-1917 / 1977) suggest that psychoanalysis can be best performed on those who are normal (Kolligian and Sternberg, 1991). Ethical and professional issues In the past, societies considered patients suffering from mental illness to be a threat to them instead of treating them as individuals who need support and care.

However, there has been development in psychiatric treatment that promotes better care for patients suffering from mental illness. Adoption of United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been a main step towards considering them as part of the society having same rights like everyone else. The aim was to promote and strengthen both human rights and dignity for all disabled people even those suffering from mental impairments (WMA Statement on Ethical Issues Concerning Patients with Mental Illness, 2015).

Individuals suffering from mental illness share the same health care right like any other patient. Health care professionals such as psychiatrists who offer mental health services must direct patients to the appropriate professionals in case those patients require medical care. Obligation of the physicians is the same to all patients, even those with mental illness. All physicians or psychiatrists who take care of patients suffering from mental illness ought to adhere to these ethical standards. Moreover, physicians have the duty of respecting autonomy in all patients.

Mental health patients with the ability to make decisions while undergoing treatment have similar rights in decisions making regarding their care like any patient. In case a patient does not have the ability to make decision, physicians ought to seek approval from proper surrogate according to the applicable law. Physicians are obliged to base recommendations for treatment on the best professional ruling and consider all patients with respect, irrespective of the care setting. In addition, physicians have the responsibility of protecting confidentiality of all patients.

In case physicians are legally required to provide patient information, physicians are required to disclose minimum relevant information needed to authorized entities that request or need the information (WMA Statement on Ethical Issues Concerning Patients with Mental Illness, 2015). Conclusion Mental illness poses many challenges to the society. It has presented itself in various disorders as defined by various experts and the law. It is something that still requires a lot of research as far as its impact on social capital is concerned.

There has been a lot of research but not much has been conclusive due to the existence of various limitations. Among these has been the criminalization of the mentally ill. There has been a lot of stigma in society towards mental illness. Interest groups, politicians and the media have helped to create a stereotype of mentally ill person being of violent dispensation without authoritative substantiation and valid reasoning. Communities are now contributing through active participation in the management of mental health institutions in their areas.

References Bartlett, A., & McGauley, G. (2010). Forensic mental health: Concepts, systems, and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clinic, M. (2015, October 13). Mental illness. Retrieved December 7, 2015,.