However can patients truly trust that a physician or psychiatrist eschews his ethical considerations and moral beliefs when working with any particular patient -- and also, would it be practical for a psychiatrist who is Roman Catholic work only with other Catholics, and a Baptist psychiatrist work only with Baptist patients? While physical illness references public issues (that people can see and understand, like sniffling from a bad cold or a black eye) mental illness is far more private; this puts psychotherapy in something of a mysterious genre, adding to the already puzzling world of mental illness. One of the more puzzling paradoxes in the field of psychotherapy is the following: when a psychotherapist attempts to restore a person's mental capacities that certainly relates to that patient's social relationships (bizarre behavior in public creates a horrendous image); but when a person has problems dealing with his or her values, that is not part...

Is mental illness actually a disguise for other social problems, and in fact is what many people allude to as mental illness actually just the result of the strain of living through difficult human interactions?
Given the uncertainty of definitions vis-a-vis mental imbalance isn't it reasonable for society -- in particular the medical field -- to take a fresh new look at the whole concept of mental illness? There is an enormous gap in human understanding of the mind, but it is clear that the trials and challenges the average person confronts can and does cause strains that some mislabel as mental illness. Those who employ the phrase "mental illness" are actually contributing to a myth, and in the meantime they hide behind a cliche rather than digging deeper into the problem.

Works Cited

Szasz, Thomas S. (1960). The Myth of Mental Illness. American Psychologist, Vol. 15, 113-118.