This is just a general grump, but I do wish people would stop implying that our more controversial users are mentally ill.
It seems to me that this is a tactic aimed at dismissing them and devaluing their contributions ("Oh ignore them - they're just mad"). The problem is, this also dismisses and devalues other users with mental health problems. And as I've said before - not all us loonies are trolls.
Besides, I don't believe in effective on-line diagnosis (my psychiatrist can't get it right when I'm in the same room as him!). Not every troll has some deep-seated psychological reason for their difficult nature - sometimes people are just jerks.
I'm not trying to make a big issue of this - just keep it in mind will ya :)
Regards
sannse
sannse wrote:
This is just a general grump, but I do wish people would stop implying that our more controversial users are mentally ill.
[...]
Not every troll has some deep-seated psychological reason for their difficult nature - sometimes people are just jerks.
I'm not trying to make a big issue of this - just keep it in mind will ya :)
I think that's mostly right. In most cases, too, it's important to remember that it's behaviors that we care about directly, not motives or causes.
However, some thoughts about motives or causes can be helpful, of course, in helping to predict what someone might do. If someone is doing something jerky, but is a newbie, we might speculate positively that perhaps they just need to learn our social norms. If someone has behaved very well for a long time, but then does something odd and out-of-character, we can judge that most likely it was just a single poor decision, not something to worry about.
And if someone writes intelligently but with an edge of madness, like the Unabomber, and has been banned multiple times, and says things that make no rational sense with an implied threat of violence, then we should note that as well.
--Jimbo
--- sannse sannse@delphiforums.com wrote:
Besides, I don't believe in effective on-line diagnosis (my psychiatrist can't get it right when I'm in the same room as him!). Not every troll has some deep-seated psychological reason for their difficult nature - sometimes people are just jerks.
I will agree with you, and disagree also. IANAP-- therefore any opinion of mine is NAPO-- It should not be taken as such-- nor would such 'taking' be supportable given the long history Common Sense Law.
Not to mention-- a "mentally ill" "diagnosis" should not be taken pejoratively -- it may in fact be a very NPOV term to use for people whose behaviour is extremely irrational. Compare this to calling "jerks" for example. Theres a difference. I may be a jerk for calling someone "ill" but (judge the message not the messenger) it does not change the fact that its true (if its true). Don't depression, low SE, anxiety, paranoia, fits of violence, etal also fall under MI?
I dont suggest using it as a catch all- I do suggest that imposing some made up moral standard about the propriety of its use would be far fetched.
~S~
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
Stevertigo wrote (in part)
Not to mention-- a "mentally ill" "diagnosis" should not be taken pejoratively -- it may in fact be a very NPOV term to use for people whose behaviour is extremely irrational. Compare this to calling "jerks" for example. Theres a difference.
A very good point. I think such a "diagnosis" /is/ often taken pejoratively, but you are very right that it shouldn't be. And as Jimbo said (paraphrasing) some speculation about causes and motives can be useful.
I guess I need to look at my own attitudes to mental illness here.
Regards
sannse
From: "sannse" sannse@delphiforums.com
Stevertigo wrote (in part)
Not to mention-- a "mentally ill" "diagnosis" should not be taken pejoratively -- it may in fact be a very NPOV term to use for people whose behaviour is extremely irrational. Compare this to calling "jerks" for example. Theres a difference.
A very good point. I think such a "diagnosis" /is/ often taken pejoratively, but you are very right that it shouldn't be. And as Jimbo said (paraphrasing) some speculation about causes and motives can be
useful.
I guess I need to look at my own attitudes to mental illness here.
Regards
sannse
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
Alex756
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!
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. But in any case, I don't generally identify myself with such terms. More relevant, IMO, is that: firstly, I have a mental illness (even more relevant is which one I have, since they vary greatly); and, secondly, that in my case it is well treated. Only in relatively specialised contexts does it become relevant that I receive services in order to obtain this treatment (although that would be a reasonable guess).
-- Toby
--- Toby Bartels toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
Since I use psychiatric counseling and prescriptions for medication, technically I must agree that I am a "mental health service consumer".
And the rest of us arent or have'nt at one time or another been? My God, what makes you so special?
: )
~S~
...the great artists of the world are never Puritans, and seldom respectable. No virtuous man—that is, virtuous in the Y.M.C.A. sense—has ever painted a picture worth looking at, or written a symphony worth hearing, or a book worth reading... —Mencken
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com
From: "Toby Bartels" toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu
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.
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.
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". 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?).
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".
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.
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.
Alex756
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
From: "Toby Bartels" toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu
Alex756 wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Alex756 wrote:
...
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.
This is a good point, but perhaps they can get a few points for trying. ...
I don't appreciate it when organisations (much less organisations that claim to represent my interests) try to change words,
My father was a "service provider," otherwise known as a psychologist, and he was very distressed when these terms came in. He told me that he felt that these groups were trying to create voices for individuals who were not even represented and did not necessarily agree with the points set forth by these groups lobbying for social change, however the administrators of the agency he worked for actually wrote memos to all the "service providers" about using the correct terminology. They were forbidden to call their clients by any other term than consumers! Most of my father's clients were very confused by the terminology and could not understand what the problem was as the term "client" did not seem pejorative to them at all.
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 agree with you, actually, and I think that we have demonstrated a problem that may exist with any so-called official naming policy or a politically sensitive approach that makes sure that no one is ever allowed to use a name that someone else might have a problem with. Those who might yell the loudest and say they represent a group may only represent a small part of that group. They might even call their decision making consensus decisionmaking, and it may be so in that group, but the group in the context of a larger community may be mistaken about who they represent and what their "policies" are meant to accomplish. It might be better to have fewer policies and more dialogue.
Agencies, institutions and groups get "captured" all the time by forces that may appear to be democratic and egalitarian in origin, but then turn to represent small minorities that have some specific agenda. It is important to keep the process of dialogue open and flexible and to keep any procedures to a minimum (bet you never thought you would here that from a lawyer) so that an institution can continue to respond to its developing community, otherwise it will likely become irrelevant in some manner (even though it may continue to exist long after it has become locked into particular behaviour patterns).
Alex756
Alex756 wrote in part:
Most of my father's clients were very confused by the terminology and could not understand what the problem was as the term "client" did not seem pejorative to them at all.
I'm not surprised. If my psychiatrist called me a "consumer", then I wouldn't know what he meant (I would now, thanks to this thread).
It might be better to have fewer policies and more dialogue.
Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is important to keep the process of dialogue open and flexible and to keep any procedures to a minimum (bet you never thought you would here that from a lawyer)
Actually, you're in the best position to have seen the reasons first hand. If we were paying you, then it might not be in your interest to say this; but as you are honest, I'm not surprised at all to hear it.
-- Toby
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!
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.
The terms that we use can easily have unwanted implications. "Mental health service consumer" seems clear enough. Stress could be seen as a "mental health consumer." ;-)
Ray
Alex 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
Thanks for the link Alex.
In my experience (in England) we are usually known as "service users". I've rarely heard anyone actually use the term other than the professionals though. I can't say I'd like to be called a "consumer", sounds like I'm on the way down to the shops to pick up a mental illness! (hey, maybe I can exchange mine - the one I've got doesn't match the furniture ;)
I understand the idea of removing terms with negative connotations, but I do believe that that does nothing to remove the negative views, just hides them under more and more complicated language. I have seen (and experienced) appallingly low levels of care from professionals that wouldn't dream of using a negative term for their "service users".
As someone said in a different context - of all the possible versions, I prefer to be called sannse.
Regards
san
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003, Alex R. wrote:
From: "sannse" sannse@delphiforums.com
Stevertigo wrote (in part)
Not to mention-- a "mentally ill" "diagnosis" should not be taken pejoratively -- it may in fact be a very NPOV term to use for people whose behaviour is extremely irrational. Compare this to calling "jerks" for example. Theres a difference.
A very good point. I think such a "diagnosis" /is/ often taken pejoratively, but you are very right that it shouldn't be. And as Jimbo said (paraphrasing) some speculation about causes and motives can be
useful.
I guess I need to look at my own attitudes to mental illness here.
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
Uh, what is wrong with the term ``patient"?
If I see a doctor or LPN about a broken arm or hayfever, I am considered a patient. If I see a therapist or psychiatrist about depression, schizophrenia, or Attention Deficit Disorder, I should also be considered a patient.
We are talking about illness, yes?
Geoff