Alex756 wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
>Alex756 wrote:
>>This organization is a good place to start
understanding
>>what "mental health service consumers" or just "mental
>>health consumers" (the terms used by most individuals
>>who are or should be under some kind of treatment)
>>have to deal with on a daily basis:
>>http://www.nami.org/template.cfm?section=Living_With
>That's the term that's used by most of us
now?
>I had no idea that the consumerification of society
>had proceeded to such a degree!
I know a lot of mental health professionals here in
NYC.
For many years the correct term has be "consumer". They
consume services, these individuals are not necessarily
"disabled" "debilitated" or "sick" any more than one with
the flu needs some medical care.
Firstly, mental health professionals (in NYC or elsewhere)
are not "individuals who are or should be under some kind of treatment".
I'm confident that /most/ of those individuals don't /use/ that term;
although I'm sure that many of us (like the people in NAMI) do.
I will chalk this up to your writing "used by most individuals [...]"
rather than "used by most professionals to refer to individuals [...]",
which I guess is what you meant.
But besides that ... yes, I am sick! (that's "ill" to British readers).
Like somebody with the flu is sick (although asthma --
a chronic disease with treatment but no cure -- is a closer analogy).
And in certain periods in the past, I was even disabled and debilitated,
like somebody with heart trouble who isn't able to move around very well.
There was even a brief period where I was sick, disabled, debilitated,
/and/ a consumer of mental health services -- but that was short,
and the disability and debilitation left as the services improved.
However, before I began consuming mental health services,
I was already disabled and debilitated (and of course sick),
and it would have been a great help had I been under treatment.
Yet I was not under treatment, and not consuming mental health services.
So it would've been silly to call me a "mental health service consumer".
The use of this term was started by "consumer
groups" about
fifteen years ago as many of the not-for-profit organizations
in the area of mental health pushed for that name. It has become
the norm. NAMI is an organization of such consumers,
it was not geared to the MHP point of view, but to be sensitive
to the point of view of those who receive services.
I think that it's very important to realise that
those of us that consume mental health services
/are/ consumers, like people that consume vacuum cleaners,
and we deserve the attendant consumer rights to go with that
(like consumer choice, and information about the product).
Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that "mental health service consumer"
is an appropriate /generic/ term for people that should have treatment.
To say, in your words, that one "should be under some kind of treatment"
is to make a judgement, not a statement of clear-cut fact,
and an appropriate term would reflect that status,
such as (maybe?) "desirable mental health service consumer"
(«It would be desirable if they were a mental health service consumer.»).
And even that's not the same as the "mentally ill"
that you were responding to.
>Since I use psychiatric counseling and
prescriptions for medication,
>technically I must agree that I am a "mental health service consumer".
>I don't see how I could be a "mental health consumer", however.
It may seem confusing, but individuals who attempt to
assimilate
mental health are perhaps "mental health consumers".
I don't see that. Linguistically, I mean.
In the
social services area they are known as "social services consumers".
Those who dispense services are known as "service providers".
(Interesting that the term is so similar in the internet field, what
is that saying about all us "users" Are you a user?).
Linguistically, I would want to insist on the word "service".
Anyway, same comments apply here -- if one /does/ consume social services,
then one ought to realise that one /is/ a consumer,
but this isn't the same thing as "poor" (or whatever we're trying to
replace),
since such a person might not, in fact, consume any social services.
I did not make up this terminology, but I understand
that those
who need mental health services have been stigmatized with very
negative and charged monikers that have caused them great pain
and discrimination often based upon societal stereotypes that
may be summed up in such words as "crazy" "mad" "mentally
ill" or "mental case". It is felt that all these names are projecting
very negative stereotypes and preventing individuals who might
otherwise be treated like other human beings from being mistreated
or ignored because of problems that they face that may be beyond their
control. Even the term "client" tends to marginalize, in the opinion
of these groups (though not all mental health professionals recognize
that the only appropriate word for these people is "consumers".
If these groups, whatever they are (you mentioned NAMI)
think that they can stop us from being marginalised by using new terminology,
then they are badly mistaken. What do they think "mentally ill" is?
That used to be a nice PC term that replaced "crazy" and "mad",
implying that a person was merely unhealthy -- like an asthma sufferer --
rather than a dangerously different breed of human being.
Yet the term "mentally ill" has become stigmatised anyway.
What a shock! what a surprise! and when "MHSC" is like that in 20 years,
then I hope that I'm not the only person to tell NAMI «Toldja so!».
Anyone who uses such terminology, in the opinion of
these
"consumer groups," continues these preconceived and
prejudicial stereotypes by encouraging these negative symbols
to circulate through the use of language that reflects a negative
view of the situation these people find themselves in through no
fault of their own.
I have a different opinion. I like to use words that /mean/ something.
I would like the second paragraph in this post to be comprehensible,
so that "mentally ill" (or "sick" in US usage), "disabled",
"debilitated", and "mental health service consumer"
all mean different things, so that it makes good sense
to say that I was one at some time and another at another time.
After all, to say such things actually says something meaningful
about me, and about the history of my life, which maybe I'd like to say.
I don't appreciate it when organisations (much less organisations
that claim to represent my interests) try to change words,
saying that I was a "mental health service consumer" for several years
before I actually began consuming any mental health services.
I'll try to explain my life history to them, and they'll be confused.
No thanks!
It may not be a violation of any law or contrary to any
principle
of free speech to use such terminology, but the opinion of
those consumers who suffer from the use of these terms perhaps
should be kept in mind. It is their opinion that when one uses
these terms indescriminately the use of them causes groups
of people to be further stigmatizated, alienated and
marginalized from society.
I'll keep NAMI's opinion in mind; and I hope that you'll keep in mind
/my/ opinion, the opinion of somebody that doesn't want to be referred to
except by terms that literally (or figuratively) actually mean
something that actually applies to me.
I /am/ mentally ill, and I /am/ a mental health service consumer,
although I am /not/ disabled, and I am /not/ debilitated;
15 years ago, I was /less/ mentally ill and /not/ a MHSC;
7 years ago, I was /more/ mentally ill but still /not/ a MHSC,
as a result of which I /was/ disabled, for about a year.
(The precise meaning of "debilitated" is less clear to me,
so I won't try to predict its applicability in 1996 October.)
-- Toby