Comments on: What is mental illness, mental health, mental disorder?

By: Bipolar Quiz

Bipolar Quiz — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 10:54:01 +0000

Hi,
I would think that the diffinition between mental illness and disorders has to do with heridtage and if the cause of the condition is due to outside factors i.e. trauma of some sort, or if is genetic and biological in its nature. Although the terms can be hard to sort strickly into two cats. Most things are somehow croosconnected.
Henry

By: dr gaurav

dr gaurav — Mon, 05 Sep 2011 15:27:58 +0000

please tell me that ‘ is there any difference between mental illness and mental disorders….? if yes, what is the difference …..please sir….

By: DaftBlogger

DaftBlogger — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 22:58:33 +0000

Well, they might but not as far as we don`t PROVE the necessity of such a terminology switch. Whether we agree on the term being employed and the question being asked what matters is the essence of this questioning process: Which condition of mental disorder deserve professional health care? Only experience can answer such question and we shall see its answer emerge with time as we gather more and more facts about the longevity, harmfulness and disadvantages of the so called “mental disorders“. The terminology is a mean not an aim. It is just the process of indicating a phenomenon. I think medical community shall better focus on other arguments such as models of mental illness, like categorical versus dimensional, a promising prospective under which the new DSM is being prepared.

By: TheShrink

TheShrink — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:00:33 +0000

Clever lawyer folk (and managers who sleuth these things out) tell me that it should still be called the Mental Health Act 1983. And that’s what folk in clinical practice and confereneces and the like say. And most importantly, what the statutory forms say.

Hence, my anxiety around shifting terminology from the Mental Health Act 1983 to anything else!

By: Frontier Psychiatrist

Frontier Psychiatrist — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:55:16 +0000

Shrink –

erm, I can’t say that I’ve given the matter a lot of thought. Should the above most correctly read:

‘The Mental Health Act 1983, amended in 2007…’ ?

By: The Shrink

The Shrink — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 16:05:02 +0000

“. . . Mental Health Act 2007 . . .”

Noooo!

Please, please, please tell me you’re not calling it that in practice, and it was just referenced as a link?

We’re still using the Mental Health Act 1983 (since the 2007 legislation ammended the primary legislation but wasn’t sufficiently comprehensive to replace the original Act), so although it’s the Mental Health Act 1983 I’d accept that a more pedantic (and legally correct) term would be to refer to it as the ammended Act . . . but to refer to a 2007 Act is just confusing, no?

By: Soveda

Soveda — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:57:33 +0000

This is one of the most fascinating things about mental health. The lack of numbers to define “well” and “ill” means you have to be more than just a technician.

By: ron peponis

ron peponis — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:56:27 +0000

Doc – all of the talk about definitions is very well – within the industry. People on the street only see one term MENTAL ILLNESS and they only take away one meaning from that DANGER.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:45:11 +0000

You might be interested in Derek Bolton’s ‘What is mental disorder?”

http://www.amazon.co.uk/What-Mental-Disorder-International-Perspectives/dp/0198565925

Bolton’s a professor of philosophy and psychopathology at the Institute of Psychiatry, and the book gets good reviews in the BJP and other places. He spends a lot of time discussing Wakefield’s evolutionary approach to the problem of definition.

Anyway as you know I’m close to the ‘presence of suffering’ position (and I think the stuff about harm to others can be dealt with via considerations of autonomy and decision-making capacity).

With regard to your post, I would ask you “why do we need to define the term ‘mental disorder’ anyway?” Asking such a question presupposes the utility of the concept. Why do we need to know if someone’s suffering qualifies as ‘mental disorder’ before we help them? Surely all that matters is that they are suffering, and that they are asking us for help? We may wish to ask what ‘form’ their suffering takes, but that’s different from asking if their suffering meets mental disorder criteria. People become so bewitched by debates over whether someone has a ‘proper mental illness’ or not, eagerly flicking through their DSM’s or ICD’s for reassurance and moral guidance. In the meantime, the person being discussed continues to experience profound pain and helplessness.

My own view is that the disadvantages of the term outweigh the advantages. More importantly, when all is said and done, we don’t really need the term anyway. Rather than ask “what is mental disorder?” or “does mental disorder exist?”, a much more useful question to ask is “are we justified in helping this person?” In fact, losing the term mental disorder (with all the negative consequences attached to being ‘diagnosed’) makes it easier for professionals to help. Not having a boundary between the ill and the well (and not having one’s passport repeatedly stamped) makes travelling between different emotional states easier for everyone.

On the other hand, I definitely do think we need to classify those recognisable processes and patterns which normally (but not always) lead to subjective psychological distress or impaired decision-making capacity, but I’d like to see less evaluative language used. Terms such as ‘phenomena’, ‘process’, ‘pattern’, ’system’, ‘type’, ‘form’, ‘taxon’, ‘condition’, ’state’ would all be improvements on existing terms such as ‘pathology’, ’symptom’, ’sign’, ‘disorder’, ‘illness’, ‘disease’ or even ‘disability’.