Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

New Theory on Mental Illness Misses Bigger Picture

Posted by Jay Neugeboren, Huffington Post at 10:34 AM on November 18, 2008.


Why is it so much easier to find funds for studying mental disorders than it is to find funds to help the people who live with those disorders?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Health and Wellness in your
mailbox!

 

Also in Health and Wellness

Krugman Has a Problem with Sanjay Gupta
Melissa McEwan Shakesville

Obama Wants CNN's Sanjay Gupta to Be Surgeon General?
Nico Pitney Huffington Post

Selling 'Safer Cigarettes'?
Steve Benen Washington Monthly

This past week, the New York Times heralded a new theory of brain development as providing "psychiatry with perhaps its grandest working theory since Freud." ("In a Novel Theory of Mental Disorders, Parents' Genes Are in Competition," November 11, 2008) Even if the theory is flawed, the Times noted, it is "likely to provide new insights into the biology of mental disease."

The new theory posits that an "evolutionary tug of war between genes from the father's sperm and the mother's egg can, in effect, tip brain development in one of two ways." If there's a bias toward the father, the developing brain is pushed along the autistic spectrum; if the bias is toward the mother, the growing brain moves along what researchers call "the psychotic spectrum" (schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression).

While the more we know about mental disorders, the more we may be able to find useful treatments for them, this new theory seems, in fact, to reinforce old, unproven deterministic notions: that mental disorders are primarily biological and/or chemical and genetic in origin and course, and that since (if!) they are, what follows is that "science" will some day be able to "cure" them by treating and/or manipulating our genes (or biology, or chemistry).

"Someday they'll see," my mother used to wail after visits to my brother Robert, when he was locked away in mental hospitals, "someday they'll see that it's all chemical!"

Ah, that it were so, and how free of responsibility we might all be then. But what (as with my mother) reductively chemical, biological, and/or genetic explanations for the causes of mental disorders do not take into account is what we have learned in recent years about how the brain develops and evolves.

Researchers and neuroscientists such as Nobel prize winner Eric Kandel have demonstrated that experience itself -- sexual and emotional abuse, neglect, abandonment, loss, love, music, sports -- all of experience, in fact, whether ordinary or extraordinary -- actually changes the chemistry, synaptical connections, and neuronal circuitry of the brain. Our brains, that is, have minds of their own, and thus are not subject, across our lifetimes, exclusively or even primarily to the genetic hands we are dealt at birth.

And there's something else: while researchers such as Crespi and Badcock are generously funded for work on their theory of how mental disorders come into being, and the Times and others take heart from it, back in the hospitals, wards, and residences where these people live, there are no funds for basic, human care. Five years ago, the New York Times ran a front page Pulitzer Prize-winning series of articles about conditions in New York City's "adult homes," where some 15,000 people, most of them with mental disorders, lived in conditions that were sub-human ("psychiatric flophouses," the Times called them). Despite the world-wide attention to this dismal, criminally negligent situation, in the years since, little or nothing has changed. People in these homes still live without air conditioners in summer, without heat in winter, and without anything resembling competent or humane care.

My brother Robert, who has suffered the ravages of mental illness for more than 40 years, lives in a residence far superior to these adult homes, but when he and I asked the staff psychiatrist about getting some kind of talk therapy for him -- he has always thrived when he was in an ongoing therapeutic relationship, and these relationships have been crucial, in his life, to well-being and recovery -- the answer, again and again, has been: "No Resources."

So while, with the Times, we welcome yet another way of trying to understand mental disorders, we ask how, given what we now know about the neural plasticity of the brain, along with the often positive role non-pharmaceutical treatments can play in people's lives, this theory will prove useful. And we also wonder why it is generally so much easier to find funds for people who study mental disorders in laboratories than it is to find funds that make a difference in the lives of people with mental disorders.

 

Digg!

Tagged as: funding, nature, brain chemistry, nurture, mental disorders

Jay Neugeboren is the author of 17 books, including several award-winning books on psychiatric disorders (Imagining Robert, Tranforming Madness).


Krugman Has a Problem with Sanjay Gupta
As do a few other folks ...
Post by Melissa McEwan. January 7, 2009.
Obama Wants CNN's Sanjay Gupta to Be Surgeon General?
Gupta hosts "House Call" on CNN, contributes reports to CBS News, and writes a column for Time magazine.
Post by Nico Pitney. January 6, 2009.
Selling 'Safer Cigarettes'?
Something seems wrong with this picture.
Post by Steve Benen. January 2, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Missing an even bigger point...
Posted by: nandtbearden on Nov 18, 2008 2:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With all due respect to the author, whose family has struggled to deal with the impact of mental illness for many years, the even bigger picture is that the drugs that have been marketed for the last 20+ years are ineffective (no better than placebo in studies) and dangerous (see Black Box warnings of several sorts for many psychoactive drugs).
And yet the number of prescriptions for these drugs is huge. Many homicides and suicides are caused by severe side effects to these toxins. Negative data is hidden from the public and even the FDA, with positive data being trumpeted across the mainstream media as "pills to cure all ills."
Direct-to-consumer marketing has turned a serious, scientific concern (caring for truly mentally ill people) into a cash cow for pharmaceutical companies and the media.
Notice that many of the people you work and associate with are on some type of antidepressant, anti-anxiety pill, or antipsychotic. Are they all clinically mentally ill, or just stressed and/or distressed over real issues in their lives? No one can say because no one talks to them about their issues. All of the SSRI/SSRNI medications state in their patient literature that the manufacturers "think" the drugs work to correct assumed imbalances in brain chemistry. Oh, yeah...then what are the patients' seratonin levels before and during treatment? They can't tell us because they don't have a way to test these levels. it would be like a diabetic shooting themselves up with standardized amounts of insulin without checking their blood sugar levels...a recipe for death and illness. Yet the drug companies and FDA will not accept the mountain of anecdotal evidence amassing because it's not "scientific" enough to meet their standards. B***s***.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Plight of Patients under Capitalism
Posted by: lorenbliss on Nov 18, 2008 2:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr. Neugeboren raises a question that should be asked not just about the savage way mental patients are treated in the United States but about the social-Darwinist theories underlying the entire U.S. medical system: "why it is generally so much easier to find funds for people who study (disease and sickness) in laboratories than it is to find funds that make a difference in the lives of (real people suffering from those same conditions)?

The answer to that question is slap-in-the-face obvious to anyone acquainted with Marxian economic analysis. Under capitalism, laboratory work dependably generates huge profits. But the sick and disabled -- whether their afflictions are mental, physical or both -- are no longer reliably profitable and are therefore abandoned to "market forces": in other words, to euthanasia-by-neglect.

Indeed the concept of euthanasia-by-neglect is the true cornerstone of the entire U.S. healthcare industry, the purpose of which is not human betterment but rather the generation of infinite profit for a tiny plutocracy. This is also why all existing notions of U.S. "healthcare reform" are Big Lies intended to protect the $350 billion in annual profits with which this nation awards its Sultans of Sick for their malevolent greed: any true healthcare reform would impose a non-profit, single-payer plan that would cure forever the deadly cancer of profiteering. But that won't happen: not now -- not ever -- as long as Moron Nation remains under the bootheels of Big Business.

Meanwhile, we should recognize that the dire plight of mental patients -- patients whose profitability is presumably gone forever, and who are thus condemned to euthanasia-by-neglect far more quickly and mercilessly than any other category of human -- is in truth the plight of every one of us who suffers the infinite misfortune of life under capitalism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]