A freshly published study released out of the University of Alabama at Birmingham has shown that black people are more likely to sacrifice financial resources for an extended life when looking at life-threatening cancer. The study looked at lung and colorectal cancer specifically. The other minority groups sampled in the study were Asian and Hispanic, both of which were more likely than Caucasians to exhaust financial resources for the treatment options of loved ones.
To my surprise, the highest percentage of those who’d rather cancer care than cash, the blacks in the study, was 80%, Asians at 72%, Hispanics at 69% and, sadly, Caucasians were at 54%. Without seeing the data, I would’ve thought/hoped the percentage for all groups to be close to a hundred. Unfortunately, they weren’t and in reality, we are faced with these decisions often enough as health care advances while insurance rates surge. Even the oft seen 80/20 coverage some insurance companies offer, when considering aggressive cancer treatment, could bankrupt even an upper middle class American. Socio-cultural proof of this is the advent of specialty cancer insurance. With cancer rates as high as they are, life time prevalence, cancer insurance.
To interpret this evolutionarily, these benevolent family members place much more value in the cancer patient than superfluous financial resources, hence the giving up of resources that could easily be shunted to another member (use of term superfluous is a generalization; some of this money will come from cash assets, some from a HELOC or even selling one’s house). On this note, the study did find that those that were single or unattached in other means were generous as well. Apparently the Caucasians perceived better ways to allocate their resources; perhaps by taking preventative measures for oneself or one’s offspring. Cancer has one upped us though on that as it has been established that while preventative measures are helpful, extremely in some cases, they don’t make you immune and you could easily still get cancer after a lifetime of eating blueberries.
An interesting follow up study would be to assess the willingness to take out cancer insurance; again, looking at all four ethnic groups. I would add Native Americans to the study as they could surface important issues like the meaning of cancer to one’s culture, the degree to which it is respected, expected or dealt with. Native Americans continually show an altered view of illness and disease and given the amorphous concept that is cancer, I’m sure we’d find whole new dimensions of understanding which often influence financial decisions and the propensity to take out insurance.
I have a feeling the insurance companies would fund this study generously
If concerned:
Cancer.org has a lot of information on the financial strain of cancer
Study contact:
Contact: Jennifer Beal
healthnews@wiley.com
44-124-377-0633
Wiley-Blackwell
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Friday, April 8, 2011
The Barriers of Boy Scouts
A recently reported on study coming from the University of Maryland's department of Sociology suggests our adorable Girl Scout cookie peddlers in vibrantly bedecked vests may be subject to an inculcation of harmful gender stereotypes. This may come to little surprise to many but let's look at the framework with which these stereotypes work their black magic.
The researcher, Kathleen Denny (contact info below), used the Boy and Girl Scouts' manuals as literary texts to be analyzed for meaning. The lasting images we actively hold in our minds are of, on one hand, Boy Scouts in the woods, with manuals and magnifying glasses, father figure towering overhead. On the other hand, Girl Scouts are notorious for their cookie stands that crop up in front of grocery stores a few times a year, always with a panel of girls behind them and a few moms to "lead" the sale. Just by breaking these images down, boys outdoors with tools and girls with baked goods and peers, we can see the manifestations of what these manuals are espousing.
Denny found that the manuals disproportionately oriented Girl Scouts with communal activities and artistic endeavors while Boy Scouts were presented with scientific and "self-sufficient" tasks.
Of particular interest is the badges earned for these tasks, emblematic of these stereotypes. Let's look at a comparison of equivocal badges for Girl and Boy Scouts:
Boys: Geologist Badge Girls: Rocks Rock Badge
Boys: Astronomer's Badge Girls: Sky Search Badge
Boys: Mechanic's Badge Girls: Car Care Badge
The trend here is that 1. Boy Scouts have descriptive, explicit and career orientated badge names while Girl Scouts have amusing interpretations of the standard Boy Scout badge, playing on feminist ideology centered on imagination, care giving and, well, girly stuff.
To emphasize my point, Girl Scouts also have the opportunity to earn a "Looking Your Best" badge which requires (group) activities such as the "Color Party" where the Scouts experiment with makeup and clothes to see what colors they look best in or the "Accessory Party" which, I hope, is self-explanatory. Other Girl Scout badges can include "Caring for Children" and "Sew Simple". I see no need to dissect the brazenly obvious messages behind these but I will say Denny found only one similar equivelant for Boy Scouts which was a “Fitness Badge” though I argue this should be a mainstay in both gendered ideals.
To look further into the media messages these associations feed into, I opened up the Boy Scout website and the Girl Scout website side by side. Below I note the salient images and motifs each respective site displays:
BSA (Boy Scouts of America)
Graphic Novel
Outdoors Activities (Mountain biking, white water kyaking, rock climbing and so on)
Independent activities
Contests
Honor
Girl Scouts
Cookies (of course)
Logo depicting multiple profiles of women with long hair
iPhone App
"realizing dreams"
"who we are" (emphasis mine)
literary emphasis (blogs, books, telling "your story")
historical timeline
When purusing the Girl Scout website, I noticed the "Take Move" initiative, where the goal, in conjunction with Kraft Foods I must note, is to end childhood obesity within one generation. Aside from being unrealistic and suspisciously sponsored, it furthers the concept that girls (future care givers) are responsible for the health of children. Suggesting this responsibility to girls while they are themselves children is a perpetuation of gender conventions that can be harmful to women today that have so many more expectations than to just be good cooks and care givers.
On the BSA (Boy Scouts of America) site, busy images of boys participating in outdoor activities of the extreme variety dominate. Nothing of the language orientated ideas, such as blogging and the iPhone app, appeared like they did on the Girl Scout site and while the BSA site boasted of a contest where the Scouts would be competing against one another (a very self-centered action), the Girl Scout site mentioned nothing but initiatives and campaigns to work together towards the greater good(s).
I’d advocate for a more egalitarian buffet of activities and tasks to earn badges, such as adding care giving roles to the Boy Scouts and more independent tasks to the Girl Scouts. Making child care into just care giving can open up opportunities for all Scouts to help our elderly, which far outnumber small children in need of care today, making it more likely either Scout would be in contact with the elderly on a day to day basis. In my perfect work, make up and accessories would have no place in such an extra-curricular but I hope you can recognize and appreciate the social depravity there.
Is this all bad? Not necessarily. Out of context, these initiatives and group activities foster important qualities as does healthy competition and independence. Equality between the two groups would be beneficial, however, in breaking down these gendered stereotypes we, apparently, fight to maintain despite the spacio-temporal women's rights movement that has extended across the globe and dates strongly back to the mid-twentieth century. Despite the idealized career women of the 80's and even Mattel's attempts to market "career" Barbies like the flight attendant and the librarian, the Girl Scout organization still encourages our young women to care about things like cookies, child care and makeup while the BSA encourages our young men to forge ahead along and conquer the wilderness, becoming the astronomers and geologists of tomorrow, notably important fields.
Meaning lies deep within everything we encounter including Girl Scout badges and manuals. Yes, the adult infrastructure along with the group leaders play a huge role in upholding these stereotypes (who do you think provides the makeup?) but in a maladaptive symbiotic relationship, the long standing cultural artifacts like the manuals and badge activities seem to have weathered the storm of women's rights and somehow came out a stable source of direction and influence among young girls (and by exclusion, boys by proxy).
Contact for Study: Kathleen Denny
University of Maryland, College Park
kdenny@socy.umd.edu
Sociologists for Women in Society
The researcher, Kathleen Denny (contact info below), used the Boy and Girl Scouts' manuals as literary texts to be analyzed for meaning. The lasting images we actively hold in our minds are of, on one hand, Boy Scouts in the woods, with manuals and magnifying glasses, father figure towering overhead. On the other hand, Girl Scouts are notorious for their cookie stands that crop up in front of grocery stores a few times a year, always with a panel of girls behind them and a few moms to "lead" the sale. Just by breaking these images down, boys outdoors with tools and girls with baked goods and peers, we can see the manifestations of what these manuals are espousing.
Denny found that the manuals disproportionately oriented Girl Scouts with communal activities and artistic endeavors while Boy Scouts were presented with scientific and "self-sufficient" tasks.
Of particular interest is the badges earned for these tasks, emblematic of these stereotypes. Let's look at a comparison of equivocal badges for Girl and Boy Scouts:
Boys: Geologist Badge Girls: Rocks Rock Badge
Boys: Astronomer's Badge Girls: Sky Search Badge
Boys: Mechanic's Badge Girls: Car Care Badge
The trend here is that 1. Boy Scouts have descriptive, explicit and career orientated badge names while Girl Scouts have amusing interpretations of the standard Boy Scout badge, playing on feminist ideology centered on imagination, care giving and, well, girly stuff.
To emphasize my point, Girl Scouts also have the opportunity to earn a "Looking Your Best" badge which requires (group) activities such as the "Color Party" where the Scouts experiment with makeup and clothes to see what colors they look best in or the "Accessory Party" which, I hope, is self-explanatory. Other Girl Scout badges can include "Caring for Children" and "Sew Simple". I see no need to dissect the brazenly obvious messages behind these but I will say Denny found only one similar equivelant for Boy Scouts which was a “Fitness Badge” though I argue this should be a mainstay in both gendered ideals.
To look further into the media messages these associations feed into, I opened up the Boy Scout website and the Girl Scout website side by side. Below I note the salient images and motifs each respective site displays:
BSA (Boy Scouts of America)
Graphic Novel
Outdoors Activities (Mountain biking, white water kyaking, rock climbing and so on)
Independent activities
Contests
Honor
Girl Scouts
Cookies (of course)
Logo depicting multiple profiles of women with long hair
iPhone App
"realizing dreams"
"who we are" (emphasis mine)
literary emphasis (blogs, books, telling "your story")
historical timeline
When purusing the Girl Scout website, I noticed the "Take Move" initiative, where the goal, in conjunction with Kraft Foods I must note, is to end childhood obesity within one generation. Aside from being unrealistic and suspisciously sponsored, it furthers the concept that girls (future care givers) are responsible for the health of children. Suggesting this responsibility to girls while they are themselves children is a perpetuation of gender conventions that can be harmful to women today that have so many more expectations than to just be good cooks and care givers.
On the BSA (Boy Scouts of America) site, busy images of boys participating in outdoor activities of the extreme variety dominate. Nothing of the language orientated ideas, such as blogging and the iPhone app, appeared like they did on the Girl Scout site and while the BSA site boasted of a contest where the Scouts would be competing against one another (a very self-centered action), the Girl Scout site mentioned nothing but initiatives and campaigns to work together towards the greater good(s).
I’d advocate for a more egalitarian buffet of activities and tasks to earn badges, such as adding care giving roles to the Boy Scouts and more independent tasks to the Girl Scouts. Making child care into just care giving can open up opportunities for all Scouts to help our elderly, which far outnumber small children in need of care today, making it more likely either Scout would be in contact with the elderly on a day to day basis. In my perfect work, make up and accessories would have no place in such an extra-curricular but I hope you can recognize and appreciate the social depravity there.
Is this all bad? Not necessarily. Out of context, these initiatives and group activities foster important qualities as does healthy competition and independence. Equality between the two groups would be beneficial, however, in breaking down these gendered stereotypes we, apparently, fight to maintain despite the spacio-temporal women's rights movement that has extended across the globe and dates strongly back to the mid-twentieth century. Despite the idealized career women of the 80's and even Mattel's attempts to market "career" Barbies like the flight attendant and the librarian, the Girl Scout organization still encourages our young women to care about things like cookies, child care and makeup while the BSA encourages our young men to forge ahead along and conquer the wilderness, becoming the astronomers and geologists of tomorrow, notably important fields.
Meaning lies deep within everything we encounter including Girl Scout badges and manuals. Yes, the adult infrastructure along with the group leaders play a huge role in upholding these stereotypes (who do you think provides the makeup?) but in a maladaptive symbiotic relationship, the long standing cultural artifacts like the manuals and badge activities seem to have weathered the storm of women's rights and somehow came out a stable source of direction and influence among young girls (and by exclusion, boys by proxy).
Contact for Study: Kathleen Denny
University of Maryland, College Park
kdenny@socy.umd.edu
Sociologists for Women in Society
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The Zolofty aspirations of pharmaceutical companies
I’d like to shed light on the consumerization of the psychopharmaceutical industry regarding the objectifying of patients as consumers and the dangerous influences medication advertisements can have on the public.
My inspiration for this exploratory essay is the emergence of commercials advertising psychopharmaceuticals not completely unlike advertisements for lifestyle products such as housing developments, vitamins and supplements and clothing. These medications are indeed “lifestyle” supporting, in every sense of the word and may be the only legitimate lifestyle pitch of them all, however the advertisements do not address much of the subjective experience of the patient/consumer.
Some things of note that need to be deconstructed are the vagueness of the diagnosis portrayed that one would need or have to be prescribed said medications. We can parse out the symptoms and judge from the visuals what life would be before and after them and sometimes the disclaimer will mention, briefly, the diagnosis or diagnoses that warrant such a treatment.
Next, the objective of these advertisements seems to be convincing us, the consumer, regardless of whether or not we need the medication, life would be somehow better, again, regardless of the current occurrence of symptoms at present, if we consumed the medication. This may or may not be applicable and can certainly be seen as deceptive given the exaggeration of the outcomes of treatment, the generalization of the typical patient and the idealism of illness/recover narratives being displayed.
Last, I want to address the suggested paucity for the information these commercials present. It seems the industry proposes that certain psychopharmaceutical knowledge is being withheld, hidden or otherwise out of reach of the patient/consumer and in doing so may imply they are a resource to the patient community, however small and unvoiced. The presence of advertisements for medications that sometimes only apply to very small percentages of the population in mainstream media is concerning. Take bipolar disorder. The antipsychotics often prescribed for said condition are not always appropriate for 100% of the patients. The very existence of diagnosed individuals is generally near 2.5% of the population. Does it seem a good use of money to advertise for a product only 2.5% of the population needs during primetime TV? I argue not. What other products are advertised that would only speak to that small sect? (Seriously, let me know some examples you come up with as I wish my argument to address all instances of flaw). There exists a disconnect between money invested by pharmaceutical companies and the amount of people that need the given product however the concept of the discovered patient makes this connection a little stronger.
The discovered patient allowed the advertisements to suggest their diagnosis. It is the company that helped them identify with their illnesses and going to the doctor to get the diagnosis and prescription is just a formality. This puts a lot of weight and responsibility on the practitioners of already one of the most inexact science there is.
One would think a company would lose massive amounts of money investing so casually. That is, of course, if motive was missing. The catch here is patients are aimed to be created, thus turning into consumers. As unethical as that sounds, the ways in which these companies make money, and they do, a lot of it, is the hopes that those 2.5% will be reached (although I have a serious of arguments addressing the access both patient/consumers and companies have to each other, which may be dissected at a later date), in addition to some that will think they are part of that 2.5%. Logic suggests that these non-patients then go to their doctor, address whatever symptoms that may match up with the commercials and mention the “new miracle pill” that they heard about. Since it’s new, it must be good right? The people and/or lives portrayed in the commercials are examples, so we are told, of happy, healthy and normal lives, lives we should be and deserve to be living. Who wouldn’t want to watch your kids frolic in the back yard and shower loving affection towards your loved ones while drinking lemonade on the porch? True, those suffering from mental illness can’t always achieve the happiness the healthy take for granted and for those, the commercials taunt more than inspire. For these people, the commercials speak volumes even if the abstract is “ideally, this is what this medication would do for you, but you know it won’t, it will do something like this, but not enough for you to really feel healthy again”. And this is not bitterness or distrust I am emitting. Psychopharmaceuticals are helpful, at best, often can stop working or start working with no other life style changes, are burdensome in their own and take weeks, months or even years to fine tune and become fully efficacious. Those who are part of that 2.5% know this and often display distrust to new medications, waiting for their doctor to recommend them before jumping on the hopeful bandwagon.
These advertisements portray a life of happiness, of strength, of energy and of engagement with life. Though they might not provide all these aspects to all patient/consumers, these are the things often lacking in their lives. As industry perpetuates, money makes these companies global powerhouses, allowing for high production advertisements, office supplies emblazoned with their logo and gifted with generosity to prescribers, beguiling executives who convince psychiatrists of the medication’s efficacious trials and even fancy shapes and colors of pills. It is undeniable that as we progress into full and complete modernity, where we are all self-actualized and there is complete and rational transparency in the health care field, those who may have been in denial about their illness are taking on the patient/consumer role, doctors are becoming liberal about their recommendations for medications since the markets are becoming flooded with choice and as more and more is known about all mental illnesses, more targeted advertising campaigns can be launched. Though I don’t see the pharmaceutical industry being brought down any time soon, I do see a more educated patient/consumer evolving from the current state of psychopharmaceutical capitalism. This educated patient/consumer will hold power over flagrantly exaggerated advertisements’ hypocrisy and in doing so, reduce the stigma associated with all those “crazy pills” that somehow have over taken prime time in the American household.
My inspiration for this exploratory essay is the emergence of commercials advertising psychopharmaceuticals not completely unlike advertisements for lifestyle products such as housing developments, vitamins and supplements and clothing. These medications are indeed “lifestyle” supporting, in every sense of the word and may be the only legitimate lifestyle pitch of them all, however the advertisements do not address much of the subjective experience of the patient/consumer.
Some things of note that need to be deconstructed are the vagueness of the diagnosis portrayed that one would need or have to be prescribed said medications. We can parse out the symptoms and judge from the visuals what life would be before and after them and sometimes the disclaimer will mention, briefly, the diagnosis or diagnoses that warrant such a treatment.
Next, the objective of these advertisements seems to be convincing us, the consumer, regardless of whether or not we need the medication, life would be somehow better, again, regardless of the current occurrence of symptoms at present, if we consumed the medication. This may or may not be applicable and can certainly be seen as deceptive given the exaggeration of the outcomes of treatment, the generalization of the typical patient and the idealism of illness/recover narratives being displayed.
Last, I want to address the suggested paucity for the information these commercials present. It seems the industry proposes that certain psychopharmaceutical knowledge is being withheld, hidden or otherwise out of reach of the patient/consumer and in doing so may imply they are a resource to the patient community, however small and unvoiced. The presence of advertisements for medications that sometimes only apply to very small percentages of the population in mainstream media is concerning. Take bipolar disorder. The antipsychotics often prescribed for said condition are not always appropriate for 100% of the patients. The very existence of diagnosed individuals is generally near 2.5% of the population. Does it seem a good use of money to advertise for a product only 2.5% of the population needs during primetime TV? I argue not. What other products are advertised that would only speak to that small sect? (Seriously, let me know some examples you come up with as I wish my argument to address all instances of flaw). There exists a disconnect between money invested by pharmaceutical companies and the amount of people that need the given product however the concept of the discovered patient makes this connection a little stronger.
The discovered patient allowed the advertisements to suggest their diagnosis. It is the company that helped them identify with their illnesses and going to the doctor to get the diagnosis and prescription is just a formality. This puts a lot of weight and responsibility on the practitioners of already one of the most inexact science there is.
One would think a company would lose massive amounts of money investing so casually. That is, of course, if motive was missing. The catch here is patients are aimed to be created, thus turning into consumers. As unethical as that sounds, the ways in which these companies make money, and they do, a lot of it, is the hopes that those 2.5% will be reached (although I have a serious of arguments addressing the access both patient/consumers and companies have to each other, which may be dissected at a later date), in addition to some that will think they are part of that 2.5%. Logic suggests that these non-patients then go to their doctor, address whatever symptoms that may match up with the commercials and mention the “new miracle pill” that they heard about. Since it’s new, it must be good right? The people and/or lives portrayed in the commercials are examples, so we are told, of happy, healthy and normal lives, lives we should be and deserve to be living. Who wouldn’t want to watch your kids frolic in the back yard and shower loving affection towards your loved ones while drinking lemonade on the porch? True, those suffering from mental illness can’t always achieve the happiness the healthy take for granted and for those, the commercials taunt more than inspire. For these people, the commercials speak volumes even if the abstract is “ideally, this is what this medication would do for you, but you know it won’t, it will do something like this, but not enough for you to really feel healthy again”. And this is not bitterness or distrust I am emitting. Psychopharmaceuticals are helpful, at best, often can stop working or start working with no other life style changes, are burdensome in their own and take weeks, months or even years to fine tune and become fully efficacious. Those who are part of that 2.5% know this and often display distrust to new medications, waiting for their doctor to recommend them before jumping on the hopeful bandwagon.
These advertisements portray a life of happiness, of strength, of energy and of engagement with life. Though they might not provide all these aspects to all patient/consumers, these are the things often lacking in their lives. As industry perpetuates, money makes these companies global powerhouses, allowing for high production advertisements, office supplies emblazoned with their logo and gifted with generosity to prescribers, beguiling executives who convince psychiatrists of the medication’s efficacious trials and even fancy shapes and colors of pills. It is undeniable that as we progress into full and complete modernity, where we are all self-actualized and there is complete and rational transparency in the health care field, those who may have been in denial about their illness are taking on the patient/consumer role, doctors are becoming liberal about their recommendations for medications since the markets are becoming flooded with choice and as more and more is known about all mental illnesses, more targeted advertising campaigns can be launched. Though I don’t see the pharmaceutical industry being brought down any time soon, I do see a more educated patient/consumer evolving from the current state of psychopharmaceutical capitalism. This educated patient/consumer will hold power over flagrantly exaggerated advertisements’ hypocrisy and in doing so, reduce the stigma associated with all those “crazy pills” that somehow have over taken prime time in the American household.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
the demedicalization of divorcees
Against the spirit of Valentine’s Day, I’d like to draw attention to the effects mental health issues have on marriages, during divorce proceedings to be specific. Mental health issues are a common issue that exacerbates divorces. Including substance abuse, well over half our cases involve individuals with mental health problems and these problems are portrayed as flaws rather than a medical diagnosis. Though all our clients have a story of how they met, how in love they were, how their spouse was “different back then”, perhaps before the illness developed, the actors in the present are points of blame for the irrevocability of the marriage. Given the frequency which symptoms of mental illnesses develop during young adult hood and the average age of marriage in the U.S., mental health problems often surface post certificate, symptoms and behaviors of mental health disorders give the impression that the sufferer has changed inherently as a human being. Those with mental health issues, of all kinds, are targeted as antagonists to the partnership. The behaviors they express can be interpreted as lack of self-control and empathy. Mental health issues are used as means to inflate the gravity of “abnormal” behavior in divorce; an overwhelming percentage of our clients and opposing parties have mental health issues, making this tactic an effective one. Normalcy is the standard all spouses are held against thought the concept of normalcy excludes those with any range of diagnosis. Many have bi-polar disorder. This is bound to happen when the divorce rate among this patient population is 90%. It is the behavioral profile that is given fault, with the diagnosis as proof. Medical records are demanded, medication histories are scrutinized and every episode is painfully delineated in front of the court. Though expert psychiatric testimony is the norm, many mental health issues are still seen as non-medicalized, as a personality flaw or a deliberate act of abnormal behavior.
It is this dis-engagement from the medical community, despite the exhaustive medical histories and expert testimony that are involved in such court proceedings, that make mental health records something to hide and medical histories something to “clean up”. The line between personality flaw, as something in one’s control and psychiatric episodes that are biochemically grounded and fully involuntary is blurred. For some reason, the diagnosis itself is just support for the argument that the patient in question has irrational and destructive behaviors, even though empirical medical evidence could, in a less litigious society, form compelling narratives in attempts to remove harmful behaviors from the client proper.
It is this dis-engagement from the medical community, despite the exhaustive medical histories and expert testimony that are involved in such court proceedings, that make mental health records something to hide and medical histories something to “clean up”. The line between personality flaw, as something in one’s control and psychiatric episodes that are biochemically grounded and fully involuntary is blurred. For some reason, the diagnosis itself is just support for the argument that the patient in question has irrational and destructive behaviors, even though empirical medical evidence could, in a less litigious society, form compelling narratives in attempts to remove harmful behaviors from the client proper.
Monday, January 17, 2011
The pursuit of happiness...
Recovery refers to the process in which people are able to live, work, learn, and participate fully in their communities. For some individuals, recovery is the ability to live a fulfilling and productive life despite a disability. For others, recovery implies the reduction or complete remission of symptoms. Science has shown that having hope plays an integral role in an individual’s recovery.
Resilience means the personal and community qualities that enable us to rebound from adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats, or other stresses — and to go on with life with a sense of mastery, competence, and hope. We now understand from research that resilience is fostered by a positive childhood and includes positive individual traits, such as optimism, good problem- solving skills, and treatments. Closely-knit communities and neighborhoods are also resilient, providing supports for their members.
-This taken from President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health-2003
The mental health system in America is like a band aide on a levy wall that has sprung a leak. In good faith, and with responsibility to heal in mind, the system applies itself hastily and manages to only make the impression of repair before it is whipped back out into the rapids. For all its efforts, our mental health care system here in America, to say nothing of the flawed systems around the world, tends to remain impenetrable to the marginalized and those who are most likely to be in need of community based resources. When I say community resources, I don’t mean posh resorts where one can retreat to morning yoga classes and “group” after brunch. I mean community health clinics that catch the population not severe enough to be in “in-patient” care (think One Flies Over the Cuckoos Nest) and past the general inquiry to primary care physicians you see in those advertisements for Prozac meant to “grow the market” to produce more consumers of their product.
This system is expensive. A routine psychiatric visit ever 8 weeks to check on medication regimes, something that is required to maintain that treatment, can cost upwards of $300. Counseling or visits to a psychologist, someone who doesn’t work with your medications but rather covers the non-physiological treatment, will run a couple hundred an hour at a once a week recommendation. Community mental health clinics can sometimes offer services at sliding scales, based on income, or even free access to basic visits to keep you stable but not only is awareness lacking but the care given is at times hasty and not at all comprehensive. While the administration intended these clinics to be the great alternative to psychiatric hospitals (again, One Flew Over…), they leave those unable to pay for more formal care waiting weeks for appointments, little patience or help when dealing with medication assistance programs through the pharmaceutical companies and not always the best treatment experience overall. There is a palpable distress and frustration among the caregivers that only the repetitive clinic patient can pick up on. Something the administration can never know to address.
You would think mental health reform would be of much more pertinence to those who are in power. It certainly keeps coming back to shoot them in the foot. School shootings point to the failed school system and weak parental involvement; military base massacres point to the ravages of war and even the past, and recent, political assassinations can be attributed to an ailing state of mental health. While war may kill publicly, suicide claims more souls than war and general violence combined (the WHO’s last comprehensive statistical estimate on global mortality), while little is done to prevent it and there remains a huge public effort invested in both the more somaticized issues.
There is an awareness, in the back of the mind sort of way, of the linkages of “mental health” to physical health” has on “physical health”; in terms both of preventative care (i.e. financial investment) and the long term toll mental diseases and disorders can take on the body. The World Health Organization touts that there is “No Health without Mental Health”. While a commendable statement, this implies, however so correctly or incorrectly, that mental health is not a part of physical health, rather a way of gathering all the psychopathologies that exist into a neat nomenclature, devoid of negativity, stigma and inclusion. Broken into its logical form, this statement separates mental health from the truer form of health, assumed to be everything somatic, but at the same time recognizes, weakly at that, the connectedness of the two.
Meanwhile, the National Institute for Mental Health pushes for a more inclusive view of mental health that makes no distinction between neurology and mental health, i.e. a historically supported and much more somatic collection of chemical imbalances and structural abnormalities and a slightly less somatic collection of chemical imbalances and structural abnormalities that mental health comprises.
We know enough about the causes of mental health ailments to attribute psychological pathologies to brain structure abnormalities, chemical imbalances and at times just damaged tissue. The only thing that separates mental health from a truer form of health is the internalizing of psychological distress, the effect of which is a hush among the public as a response to the externalization of something so little understood, seldom publicized and all around stigmatized as mental health.
Resilience means the personal and community qualities that enable us to rebound from adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats, or other stresses — and to go on with life with a sense of mastery, competence, and hope. We now understand from research that resilience is fostered by a positive childhood and includes positive individual traits, such as optimism, good problem- solving skills, and treatments. Closely-knit communities and neighborhoods are also resilient, providing supports for their members.
-This taken from President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health-2003
The mental health system in America is like a band aide on a levy wall that has sprung a leak. In good faith, and with responsibility to heal in mind, the system applies itself hastily and manages to only make the impression of repair before it is whipped back out into the rapids. For all its efforts, our mental health care system here in America, to say nothing of the flawed systems around the world, tends to remain impenetrable to the marginalized and those who are most likely to be in need of community based resources. When I say community resources, I don’t mean posh resorts where one can retreat to morning yoga classes and “group” after brunch. I mean community health clinics that catch the population not severe enough to be in “in-patient” care (think One Flies Over the Cuckoos Nest) and past the general inquiry to primary care physicians you see in those advertisements for Prozac meant to “grow the market” to produce more consumers of their product.
This system is expensive. A routine psychiatric visit ever 8 weeks to check on medication regimes, something that is required to maintain that treatment, can cost upwards of $300. Counseling or visits to a psychologist, someone who doesn’t work with your medications but rather covers the non-physiological treatment, will run a couple hundred an hour at a once a week recommendation. Community mental health clinics can sometimes offer services at sliding scales, based on income, or even free access to basic visits to keep you stable but not only is awareness lacking but the care given is at times hasty and not at all comprehensive. While the administration intended these clinics to be the great alternative to psychiatric hospitals (again, One Flew Over…), they leave those unable to pay for more formal care waiting weeks for appointments, little patience or help when dealing with medication assistance programs through the pharmaceutical companies and not always the best treatment experience overall. There is a palpable distress and frustration among the caregivers that only the repetitive clinic patient can pick up on. Something the administration can never know to address.
You would think mental health reform would be of much more pertinence to those who are in power. It certainly keeps coming back to shoot them in the foot. School shootings point to the failed school system and weak parental involvement; military base massacres point to the ravages of war and even the past, and recent, political assassinations can be attributed to an ailing state of mental health. While war may kill publicly, suicide claims more souls than war and general violence combined (the WHO’s last comprehensive statistical estimate on global mortality), while little is done to prevent it and there remains a huge public effort invested in both the more somaticized issues.
There is an awareness, in the back of the mind sort of way, of the linkages of “mental health” to physical health” has on “physical health”; in terms both of preventative care (i.e. financial investment) and the long term toll mental diseases and disorders can take on the body. The World Health Organization touts that there is “No Health without Mental Health”. While a commendable statement, this implies, however so correctly or incorrectly, that mental health is not a part of physical health, rather a way of gathering all the psychopathologies that exist into a neat nomenclature, devoid of negativity, stigma and inclusion. Broken into its logical form, this statement separates mental health from the truer form of health, assumed to be everything somatic, but at the same time recognizes, weakly at that, the connectedness of the two.
Meanwhile, the National Institute for Mental Health pushes for a more inclusive view of mental health that makes no distinction between neurology and mental health, i.e. a historically supported and much more somatic collection of chemical imbalances and structural abnormalities and a slightly less somatic collection of chemical imbalances and structural abnormalities that mental health comprises.
We know enough about the causes of mental health ailments to attribute psychological pathologies to brain structure abnormalities, chemical imbalances and at times just damaged tissue. The only thing that separates mental health from a truer form of health is the internalizing of psychological distress, the effect of which is a hush among the public as a response to the externalization of something so little understood, seldom publicized and all around stigmatized as mental health.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)