Limitations of Treating Mental Illness

Limitations of Treating Mental Illness as Any Other Disease Mental illness may be defined as many things, depending on who you talk to. One this is certain, there is not one coherent and clear cut definition of what exactly mental illness is or is not. Because of this it is important that health care practitioners and sociologists work together to treat mental illness not simply as any other disease, but a diseases that is unique unto itself.

Being diagnosed with a mental illness caries with it a stigma; most people rank mental illness as among the top ranked illnesses associated with a degree of deviance. There is also a large body of evidence which suggests that groups are sensitive to being labeled as mentally ill because of the stigma associated with it, particularly in Western and urban societies. Perhaps this is because Western societies have placed a great emphasis on individuality and freedom, which is considered somewhat limited for an individual diagnosed with a mental illness.

Individuals are often required to control their emotions, actions and moods. Those that do not are seen as potentially hazardous to society at large. Mental Illness: An Analysis What exactly is mental illness? One may vaguely define it as an individual demonstrating bizarre or even dangerous behaviors. However this definition is too simple. Dinham suggests considering mental illness in two ways, a general way and a medical way.

Hagen suggests that the most serious acts of deviance (which mental illness might be considered) are those which (1) involve strong agreement regarding the wrongness of an act, (2) involve relatively high levels of social or public harm (not personal harm) and (3) involve a strong reaction by society as a whole to the behavior being demonstrated (Livesey, 2003).

Hagan would argue that public opinion is divided over the issue of mental illness, thus mental illness may be seen as a medical problem rather than a crime, though it is still full of conflict and uncertainty by nature (Livesey, 2003). Hagan bases his assumptions on public concern and societal or sociological considerations and the fact that from a sociological perspective people are dissatisfied with the lack of clarity surrounding mental illness.

Deviance may be described generally as a behavior that departs from what is considered socially acceptable or social norms (Hagan, 1991). Mental illness is subject to the same scrutiny as deviant behavior and informal social control because it is received with the same negative societal reaction that deviant behavior is (Hagan, 1991). There is dissatisfaction from a sociological perspective regarding mental illness because it disrupts the norm.

The public as Dinham suggests describes those will mental illness as possessing certain bizarre traits or characteristics that may be considered "strange" or "unpredictable." Whereas some behavior might simply be characterized as having a case of the "nerves" as Dinham describes other may be labeled mental, where a person is perceived as incapable of caring for themselves without professional help. Typically being labeled as such is considered more the result of sociological rather than medical processes according to Dinham.

From a medical standpoint, mental illness is used to describe people suffering from "one or more physiological impairments which reduce mental or mental-motor capacity." Mental illness may fall under the scope of a set of neurological disorders including Downe's syndrome, which is considered a mental impairment that is physical and biological in origin rather than simply 'mental.' From a medical perspective there are also mental disturbances that have psychological and social origins rather than biological ones.

One problem with treating a mental illness as a traditional one is that there are many negative attitudes toward psychiatric conditions which may constrain a physician's ability to successfully treat an illness. There are also funding issues with regard to mental illness and limitations on the amount of care some health insurance agencies are willing to provide for treatment. Part of the problem is a lack of ability to differentiate from biologically-based illnesses to sociologically based ones.

One can't simply write off mental illness based on the fact that someone is not able to function purely from a sociological standpoint. There are many sociological approaches to mental illness including examination of one's interpersonal and lifestyle relationships. Generally sociological approaches utilized conflict and labeling approaches. Those approaching mental illness from a conflict focus on why there is a pre-occupation with mental illness and the importance mental health profession plays in this pre-occupation. Researchers utilizing this approach tend to be skeptical of mental illnesses in general.

More than 70% of researchers focus on the labeling approach which concerns itself with answering questions including what is mental illness, how is it different from normal behavior and what are the roles of health care professionals in treating it. This approach actually takes the stance that mental illness is associated with a negative label rather than an actual disease, and suggests that the questionable behavior itself must be examined to better understand mental illness. Of course one common and alternative method for treating mental illness includes pharmacological approaches.

This approach is utilized primarily by sociologists who utilize the conflict approach to mental illness, and assumes that for the most part mental illness is biologically based. Thus prescriptions are utilized to correct biological imbalances and supposedly restore the natural order in mentally ill patients.

Scovel, Christensen and England (2002) suggests that more and more health professionals are faced with a continually challenging array of mental health disorders, and that psychotropic medications for treating new and unusual disorders are improved, widely recognized and generally accepted as a method of treatment by both medical and non-medical (sociological) health care providers. Further the researchers suggests that there is more of a demand for mental health professionals to become familiar with medication therapy and the effects such therapy might have on patient's general well being and outcome (Christensen et.

al, 2002; Hayes, 1997). Hayes (1997) suggests that a "cooperative approach to mental health and treating mental illness may be used," where a board certified psychiatrist capable of prescribing medication for biological symptoms "works in conjunction with a cognitive or behavioral therapist" to best address the interests of clients dealing with mental illnesses (p. 8). There are those who argue that counseling methods alone may not be ethical, thus this disputes the labeling approach suggesting that biological factors must always be considered with regard to mental health and wellness (Buelow & Herbert, 1995).

Alternative approaches to mental illness treatment tend to focus on counseling paired with psychopharmacological interventions (Christensen, et. al. 2002). Generally more and more medical doctors are expecting sociologists and psychologists to refer patients to them for psychiatric evaluation to examine the extent to which biological factors may be affecting a persons' behaviors and perceived abnormal reaction s to their environment.

A cooperative relationship between medically trained psychiatrists and social health counselors is critical in this regard as most non-medically trained therapists do not have adequate experience or training working within the realm of psychopharmacology (Christensen, et. al, 2002). Conclusions Mental illness can not be treated as any other disease because it manifests in a way entirely different from most other diseases. For individuals suffering from a mental illness, there is no clear cut answer that will resolve them of their symptoms or the stigma associated with diagnosis of a mental.