Karma reasons for concrete message




    Posts: 5050
  • Darwins +1080/-10

This has come a bit in the thread featuring JuneBug, and I wanted to get your opinions specifically on the type of mental illness that comes about due to a chemical inbalance in the brain.

There is a very big distinction made between mental illness and brain injury (from external trauma). Is this distinction valid? Should a chemical inbalance be considered a physical injury, even though it comes about for no obvious reason?

I ask because I wonder, if no such distinction was made would there be less stigma attached to having this type of injury/illness?
In the same way that being born with one lung is the same injury as losing a lung - insofar as the current state of the person in question is "missing a lung" - then no, no distinction should be made between a mental illness caused by external trauma and mental illness caused by internal misfunction.  My iPod is broken in the same way whether I sever the cable on the hard drive or the manufacturer severed it.  The problem set is the same; the solutions for fixing the iPod in either case are all the same.  The origin of the malfunction is immaterial.

But I'm not sure that there would be a reduction in social stigma frankly.  There will still be people who think that the person is being 'punished' for some ill-defined reason; there will still be insensitive clods out there that simply shun abnormalities out of irrational fear; there will still be people who will refuse to treat someone with mental illness as a person, choosing instead to treat them as charity cases.  In short, I suspect (but do not know) that the number of people who stigmatize the mentally ill in accordance to how they acquired the illness is small.
Changed Change Reason Date