Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
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

Stigma: What Hollywood and the Media Teach Us About Mental Illness

By Richard A. Friedman, The American Prospect. Posted August 5, 2008.


From Virginia Tech's Cho to Hannibal Lecter, exaggerated portraits of mental illness show how much we have yet to learn about

psychiatric disorders.

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

On April 16, 2007, a South Korean student named Seung-Hui Cho shot and killed 32 people and then turned the gun on himself at Virginia Polytechnic Institute in the deadliest shooting rampage in American history. Within hours after the massacre, it was widely reported that the killer had been a loner with a history of bizarre behavior who frightened some of his teachers and fellow students. He apparently had a history of psychiatric illness and had once been hospitalized. This national tragedy was front-page news for weeks, igniting the usual debates about gun control, campus security, and even immigration. Nightly newscasts reported "no known motive" and focused on the gunman's anger, sense of isolation, and preoccupation with violent revenge. No one who read or saw the coverage would learn what a psychotic break looks like, nor that the vast majority of people with mental disorders are not violent. This kind of contextual information is conspicuously missing from major newspapers and TV.

Hollywood has also benefited from a long-standing and lurid fascination with psychiatric illness reflected by such characters as Norman Bates, the psychotic killer in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, and Dr. Hannibal Lecter, the cannibalistic psychiatrist in The Silence of the Lambs. Other Hollywood portrayals of mental illness -- oppressive Nurse Ratched?s wards in the screen adaptation of Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, or the spurned and psychotic lover, Alex, in Fatal Attraction -- indelibly shaped public consciousness as well. Exaggerated characters like these may help make "average" people feel safer by displacing the threat of violence to a well-defined group.

But the reality is that when it comes to mental illness, there really is no "us versus them." The reason is simple and sobering: An estimated 46 percent of American adults experience some type of diagnosable mental illness or substance-abuse disorder during their lifetime, according to the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, one of the nation's most reliable surveys of mental-health disorders. One percent, one of every 100 adults, suffers from schizophrenia. Close to 17 percent battle major depression in their lives. So one way or another, most of us are affected by the mental health of our friends and relations.

***

Both the news media and the entertainment industry have a critical role to play in informing public opinion. Together and separately, they can either perpetuate the stigma and misunderstanding surrounding mental illness or they can work to enlighten and educate. Indeed, there is a long tradition of investigative reporting that has had a powerful and positive impact on public policy and thinking about mental health. The intrepid journalist Elizabeth Cochrane (aka Nelly Bly) feigned insanity in 1887 and got herself admitted to the Women's Lunatic Asylum on Blackwell's Island in New York on an undercover assignment for Joseph Pulitzer's newspaper, The New York World. Bly soon discovered that it was easier to get admitted than discharged. After 10 days, she was released from the asylum only after Pulitzer interceded on her behalf. Her undercover exposé of the brutal and inhumane conditions, later published in a book, Ten Days in a Mad-House, led to increased funding for the care of the mentally ill: The New York City Department of Corrections and Charities received an appropriation of $850,000, a 57 percent increase over the previous year.

Decades later, an unlikely group of Americans became advocates for mental-health reforms. During World War II, an estimated 3,000 conscientious objectors to the war worked as attendants at state mental hospitals and institutions for the developmentally disabled. Often sponsored by pacifist religious organizations like the Quakers and Mennonites, these young aides helped fill severe shortages of doctors and other medical personnel called to war duty. Appalled by the conditions -- overcrowding, neglect, and even brutality -- many sought to advocate on their patients? behalf through the press and public officials. In 1946, Life Magazine published a gripping photo essay based partly on the aides' first-hand accounts titled, "Bedlam 1946: Most U.S. Mental Hospitals are a Shame and a Disgrace." Similarly, social historian and journalist Albert Deutsch relied on testimony from the conscientious objectors and others when he published The Shame of the States (1948), a powerful indictment of state-run mental hospitals. Together, these and other exposés of the time increased public awareness of the plight of psychiatric patients, and some reforms were made.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: media, hollywood, mental health, mental illness, psychiatric illness, stigma

Richard A. Friedman, M.D., is a psychiatrist and professor at the Weill Cornell Medical College. He is also a behavioral science columnist for The New York Times

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »

Advertisement
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:
The Bar Goes Down
Posted by: wzeallor on Aug 5, 2008 6:47 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
46%? Lower the bar anymore and the "sane" folks will need to be medicated to handle all of the non-sane folks.

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

It’s articles like this one that give “Liberalism” a bad name
Posted by: mclemens on Aug 6, 2008 6:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So here we have a lot of hue and cry over a patently obvious injustice—the scurrilous treatment of madness in pop culture—which simultaneously incorporates and perpetuates the very ideological root of that injustice. Kind of reminds me of when “we had to destroy the village in order to save it.”

Friedman asserts with neo-Kraepelinian certainty that “brain disorders are every bit as real in the physical sense as medical diseases. Neuroscience research has made clear that major psychiatric illnesses like depression and schizophrenia are associated with changes in brain function and circuitry.” There’s heaps of evidence that this is not the case at all, but you’d never know it from pop culture, under which heading we can file Friedman’s perpetuation of the most debilitating stigma of all: that people in emotional and spiritual crisis and distress have brains that are different from all the rest of us healthy folks.

Writing in 1967, R.D. Laing pointed out: “A child born today in the United Kingdom stands a ten times greater chance of being admitted to a mental hospital than to a university. . . This can be taken as an indication that we are driving our children mad more effectively than we are genuinely educating them. Perhaps it is our way of educating them that is driving them mad.” The Politics of Experience (Ballantine, New York, 1967), p. 104. Looking at the level of humane and moral behavior in the United States, maybe we should take a closer look at what we claim constitutes "mental health" on this side of the pond, too.

A few of those dissenting opinions

“Remember that no biochemical, neurological, or genetic markers have been found for attention deficit disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, compulsive alcohol and drug abuse, overeating, gambling, or any other so-called mental illness, disease, or disorder." Bruce Levine, Ph.D., Commonsense Rebellion: Debunking Psychiatry, Confronting Society (Continuum, New York 2001), p. 277.

"First, no biological etiology has been proven for any psychiatric disorder (except Alzheimer's disease, which has a genetic component) in spite of decades of research. ... So don't accept the myth that we can make an 'accurate diagnosis.' ... Neither should you believe that your problems are due solely to a 'chemical imbalance.'" Edward Drummond, M.D., Associate Medical Director at Seacoast Mental Health Center in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, The Complete Guide to Psychiatric Drugs (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 2000), pages 15-16. Dr. Drummond graduated from Tufts University School of Medicine and was trained in psychiatry at Harvard University.

"Contrary to what is often claimed, no biochemical, anatomical, or functional signs have been found that reliably distinguish the brains of mental patients." Elliot S. Valenstien, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Neuroscience at the University of Michigan, in his book Blaming the Brain: The Truth About Drugs and Mental Health (The Free Press, New York, 1998), p. 125.

Loren Mosher, MD was chief of the National Institute of Mental Health’s Center for the Study of Schizophrenia from 1968 to 1980. His 1998 letter of resignation from the American Psychiatric Association follows—it’s worth reading, if you’re interested in this subject at all (as we all ought to be).

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

» Amen. Posted by: SpiderWoman
Loren Mosher's letter of resignation from the APA, Part 1
Posted by: mclemens on Aug 6, 2008 6:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Letter of Resignation from the American Psychiatric Association
4 December 1998
Loren R. Mosher, M.D. to Rodrigo Munoz, M.D., President of the American Psychiatric Association (APA)

Dear Rod,
After nearly three decades as a member it is with a mixture of pleasure and disappointment that I submit this letter of resignation from the American Psychiatric Association. The major reason for this action is my belief that I am actually resigning from the American Psychopharmacological Association. Luckily, the organization's true identity requires no change in the acronym.

Unfortunately, APA reflects, and reinforces, in word and deed, our drug dependent society. Yet it helps wage war on "drugs". "Dual diagnosis" clients are a major problem for the field but not because of the "good" drugs we prescribe. "Bad" ones are those that are obtained mostly without a prescription. A Marxist would observe that being a good capitalist organization, APA likes only those drugs from which it can derive a profit—directly or indirectly. This is not a group for me. At this point in history, in my view, psychiatry has been almost completely bought out by the drug companies. The APA could not continue without the pharmaceutical company support of meetings, symposia, workshops, journal advertising, grand rounds luncheons, unrestricted educational grants etc. etc. Psychiatrists have become the minions of drug company promotions. APA, of course, maintains that its independence and autonomy are not compromised in this enmeshed situation. Anyone with the least bit of common sense attending the annual meeting would observe how the drug company exhibits and "industry sponsored symposia" draw crowds with their various enticements, while the serious scientific sessions are barely attended. Psychiatric training reflects their influence as well: the most important part of a resident's curriculum is the art and quasi-science of dealing drugs, i.e., prescription writing.

These psychopharmacological limitations on our abilities to be complete physicians also limit our intellectual horizons. No longer do we seek to understand whole persons in their social contexts -- rather we are there to realign our patients' neurotransmitters. The problem is that it is very difficult to have a relationship with a neurotransmitter—whatever its configuration. So, our guild organization provides a rationale, by its neurobiological tunnel vision, for keeping our distance from the molecule conglomerates we have come to define as patients. We condone and promote the widespread use and misuse of toxic chemicals that we know have serious long term effects—tardive dyskinesia, tardive dementia and serious withdrawal syndromes. So, do I want to be a drug company patsy who treats molecules with their formulary? No, thank you very much. It saddens me that after 35 years as a psychiatrist I look forward to being dissociated from such an organization. In no way does it represent my interests. It is not within my capacities to buy into the current biomedical-reductionistic model heralded by the psychiatric leadership as once again marrying us to somatic medicine. This is a matter of fashion, politics and, like the pharmaceutical house connection, money.

In addition, APA has entered into an unholy alliance with NAMI (I don't remember the members being asked if they supported such an association) such that the two organizations have adopted similar public belief systems about the nature of madness.

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

Loren Mosher's letter of resignation from the APA, Part 2
Posted by: mclemens on Aug 6, 2008 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While professing itself the "champion of their clients" the APA is supporting non-clients, the parents, in their wishes to be in control, via legally enforced dependency, of their mad/bad offspring: NAMI with tacit APA approval, has set out a pro-neuroleptic drug and easy commitment-institutionalization agenda that violates the civil rights of their offspring. For the most part we stand by and allow this fascistic agenda to move forward. Their psychiatric god, Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, is allowed to diagnose and recommend treatment to those in the NAMI organization with whom he disagrees. Clearly, a violation of medical ethics. Does APA protest? Of course not, because he is speaking what APA agrees with, but can't explicitly espouse. He is allowed to be a foil; after all - he is no longer a member of APA. (Slick work APA!) The shortsightedness of this marriage of convenience between APA, NAMI, and the drug companies (who gleefully support both groups because of their shared pro-drug stance) is an abomination. I want no part of a psychiatry of oppression and social control.

"Biologically based brain diseases" are certainly convenient for families and practitioners alike. It is no-fault insurance against personal responsibility. We are all just helplessly caught up in a swirl of brain pathology for which no one, except DNA, is responsible. Now, to begin with, anything that has an anatomically defined specific brain pathology becomes the province of neurology (syphilis is an excellent example). So, to be consistent with this "brain disease" view, all the major psychiatric disorders would become the territory of our neurologic colleagues. Without having surveyed them I believe they would eschew responsibility for these problematic individuals. However, consistency would demand our giving over "biologic brain diseases" to them. The fact that there is no evidence confirming the brain disease attribution is, at this point, irrelevant. What we are dealing with here is fashion, politics and money. This level of intellectual /scientific dishonesty is just too egregious for me to continue to support by my membership.

I view with no surprise that psychiatric training is being systematically disavowed by American medical school graduates. This must give us cause for concern about the state of today's psychiatry. It must mean -- at least in part that they view psychiatry as being very limited and unchallenging. To me it seems clear that we are headed toward a situation in which, except for academics, most psychiatric practitioners will have no real, relationships -- so vital to the healing process -- with the disturbed and disturbing persons they treat. Their sole role will be that of prescription writers -- ciphers in the guise of being "helpers".

Finally, why must the APA pretend to know more than it does? DSM IV is the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific document. To its credit it says so—although its brief apologia is rarely noted. DSM IV has become a bible and a money making best seller—its major failings notwithstanding. It confines and defines practice, some take it seriously, others more realistically. It is the way to get paid. Diagnostic reliability is easy to attain for research projects. The issue is what do the categories tell us? Do they in fact accurately represent the person with a problem? They don't, and can't, because there are no external validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither a blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric disorder. So, where are we? APA as an organization has implicitly (sometimes explicitly as well) bought into a theoretical hoax. Is psychiatry a hoax—as practiced today? Unfortunately, the answer is mostly yes.

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

Loren Mosher's letter of resignation from the APA, Part 3
Posted by: mclemens on Aug 6, 2008 6:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What do I recommend to the organization upon leaving after experiencing three decades of its history?

1. To begin with, let us be ourselves. Stop taking on unholy alliances without the members' permission.

2. Get real about science, politics and money. Label each for what it is—that is, be honest.

3. Get out of bed with NAMI and the drug companies. APA should align itself, if one believes its rhetoric, with the true consumer groups, i.e., the ex-patients, psychiatric survivors etc.

4. Talk to the membership—I can't be alone in my views.

We seem to have forgotten a basic principle -- the need to be patient/client/consumer satisfaction oriented. I always remember Manfred Bleuler's wisdom: "Loren, you must never forget that you are your patient's employee." In the end they will determine whether or not psychiatry survives in the service marketplace.

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

Suspicious
Posted by: QQOblivion on Aug 6, 2008 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article is dead-on. As a person recently suffering from both OCD and schizophrenia (now in remission, due to prescription drugs), I ask, when does the news-media ever emphatically state that, "The shooter was COMPLETELY SANE!", even though I am sure many mass-murderers have had no psychiatric disorders.
Yes, the vast majority of mentally ill people are HARMLESS, at least to other people. Personally, my greatest crime is that I cannot hold down a job. (I don't even drink alcohol, let alone use illegal drugs).
But still, people are scared of me, though not many since I hide my symptoms well now days. Even the police have treated me as if I was suspicious in the past (even though I am caucasian).
Being mentally ill is like being Muslim or being Black in America today. We are all "bad" people, suspicious people, to many Americans. This assumption, of course, is BS.

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

The History of Stigma: Roots in Puritanism, Fear of the Unknown/Invisible- Grow up America!
Posted by: Lifesabeach on Aug 8, 2008 12:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I feel the stigma belongs to those who are afraid and who mistreat those who suffer from these illnesses. Society needs to begin to hold the folks who fear difference and diversity accountable for their prejudice and ignorance. America has a horrid history regarding the manner in which we treated any non-conforming individuals. It is time America grows up and realizes that we are all human and that humanity includes every facet of diversity…not just those who look and act exactly like “you”. We need to FOCUS on the STRENGTH in human beings instead of having a DEFICIT FOCUS!

A GREATER FEAR WAS ELICITED BY THE INVISIBLE back in Puritanical times because we were in the DARK AGES – a time ABSENT of SCIENCE. Anyone who was at all "different" was accused of possession in order to preserve the status quo and give the community a chance at redemption. Religious fear ran amuck and the mentally ill were deemed witches, sexual deviants, or simply a threat to society’s redemption. God was a punishing entity to be feared at all costs. Church leaders encouraged society to rid these families of these demons. This attitude was prevalent in Europe and throughout much of the world, as well.

Current society’s viewpoints retain much of this fear base despite the laws protecting those with “disabilities”. Aren't we still banishing many of these individuals to a life of homelessness or a life in prison rather than providing a humane treatment facility? In fact our views of people describe and focus primarily on their DEFICITS rather than on their STRENGTHS.

Years of PATRIARCHAL CONTROL kept women and children locked up for life at the whim of men’s subjective opinion of “mental” stability. We have begun to be more accepting of visible ills, although I don’t think the history of our societal treatment of such folks as the “Elephant Man”, the Circus “freak shows”, or the stigma for any physical difference has progressed too far. Mental institutions were a truly horrible place. Our treatment of individuals in these facilities remains criminal in many instances. Historically, society drew a sharp line between “mental” illness and “physical” illness. These years created a deep chasm of stigma for anyone with a condition that was not visible.

Unfortunately, once we began looking at the rights of individuals suffering with mental illness and the laws allowing involuntary commitment that had gone too far - society over-reacted, closing down mental institutions and removing the support many individuals need when we changed the laws to provide rights for individuals with mental illnesses, however. We just have created a new way of banishment that is less visible. Currently, the 1 in 100 individuals with Schizophrenia and their families have little help from society. Involuntary commitment laws are so strict that these individuals often become homeless and handled through the criminal justice system in jails rather than through the medical psychiatric professional system.

We need to take a second look and realize that mental and physical health is connected with humanity. We need to stigmatize individuals in society who focus on deficits, show prejudice, mistreat, and harm individuals who struggle with these human conditions. We need to have less fear and more compassion for these individuals, spend money on research, and provide a way for families to help those who cannot always help themselves. Of course, we need to protect these individuals and give them rights that provide a way out of hospitalization once they are stabilized. But there has to be an avenue that provides early treatment of their psychosis rather than letting them suffer and ending up homeless and jailed. It’s time for America to grow up and quit behaving so Puritanically towards the multi-faceted human condition.

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

The author doesn't know what he's talking about.
Posted by: SpiderWoman on Aug 8, 2008 12:35 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While Richard Friedman is right on target that the media creates a false impression of the mentally ill, he goes completely astray when he states the common line that mental illness has a physical basis. This is utterly false.

No physical difference in the brain of any person diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or attention deficit disorder has ever been shown. It is a myth created by the pharmaceutical industry for the sole purpose of selling drugs that are designed to affect the nonexistent physical-chemical disorder that they claim causes the problem.

SSRIs - selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors - do what they claim to do. They prevent neurons from absorbing serotonin. But, the fact is that no one has ever demonstrated that depressed people have this particular problem.

Neuroleptics effectively lobotomize people's brains. Barbiturates are given to children because they're unruly.

People's brains are routinely screwed with so that pharmaceutical corporations and psychiatrists - among many other physicians - can make money.

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

Ripple Effects of Mental Health Help
Posted by: tribaldancer on Aug 9, 2008 9:26 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So here's a truth I learned the hard way. After years of struggle I began cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and have continued it until today - approximately 4 years later. No drugs. No hospitalizations. Ever. Just CBT. I am a highly educated senior executive in the not-for-profit sector and have been for over 10 years. About a year ago my life insurance policy was up for renewal. Wonder what happens when you try to re-qualify for life insurance and the underwriter (I tried 6) discovers you are under the care of a mental health professional? There are many, many structures in our society and culture that continue to stigmatize mental health. Knowing what I know now would I choose my mental health or my family's potential financial security in the event of catastrophic illness or sudden death? Do I really live in a world where that is the choice I face? In CANADA ?!??!!!

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

maryweiss
Posted by: maryweiss on Aug 14, 2008 7:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dr. Friedman is, of course, correct. The mentally ill are actually less dangerous than the guy standing on the street corner smoking a cigarette, or perhaps, your next door neighbor.

Also, what most people do not know, because the pharmaceutical companies do not want us to know, is that people with serious mental illnesses can and do get well without the brain disabling drugs that Big Pharma makes literally billions on each year.

Please Google and read Bruce E. Levine's article regarding this in which he talks about an alternative: Soteria House. His article ends with "A real choice is not a choice between Prozac and Zoloft, not between Zyprexa or Risperdal (I would add 'Seroquel' as that's the drug that killed my son Dan). An example of a real choice is the choice between establishment psychiatry or Soterial House."

Read what was done to my son under: TwinCities.com, then "Death of No. 13". Then read "Mad in America" by Robert Whitaker, or anything by Dr. Peter Breggin, Dr. Marcia Angell, Dr. Grace Jackson, etc. The truth is out there. Then, write to Senator Charles Grassley and tell him you're fed up with Americans being led around by the pharmaceutical companies and their deadly drugs. Tell him you want a bill that will fund Soteria Houses. Then - finally, Google Soteria Alaska and learn about the Soteria Hosue that will be opened in Anchorage, Alaska this year. Help them: If you can, send them $5.
Tell the drug companies we are not going to take it anymore. If you want you can e-mail me at maryweiss36@hotmail.com.

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