February 27, 2012

Blog Post 4: Story of an Illness

For this section of the course, we are talking about how some people get labeled "sick" for the way their minds work. This is an extremely difficult topic, with much emotion and controversy wrapped up in those labels. It seems that some behaviors people used to shrug off as somewhere in the range of "normal" are now considered problematic. And some behaviors that used to be seen absolute as a sign of mental illness (like homosexuality) are no longer perceived that way (at least by most).

For some, getting a label of a mental illness has been life-saving and affirmative. Not only does it offer them an explanation for whatever symptoms they have been experiencing, but it also offers a chance at treatment. And, because we rely so heavily on insurance, receiving an official diagnosis is often a necessary step for getting therapy and/or treatment. Being given a label has also meant that individuals facing similar issues, barriers and concerns can form community together, and bond over their common experiences. With all of our technological advancements, we keep learning more about the body, and our brains--so are these new and expanded labels helpful? Are they getting us closer to the truth?

One of the downsides to getting a label of mental illness is the stigma that comes with such labels. Such a stigma is potent, because, as we have discussed about labels, they come with a whole package of assumptions. We see people with mental illnesses as "sick" but what else comes in that package--sick? Crazy? Unstable? Dangerous? What happens when your mental illness becomes your master status? Once you have been labeled, are you seen the same by society? Do you still have the same opportunities as everyone else? Or do your choices become more constrained?

One of my favorite examples of this quandary--should we accept this label or not?--is in a really fascinating story of Emanuel Frowner, from the outstanding podcast Radiolab. In the story of the Frowners, the father of the family refuses to believe that Emanuel has any problems, but his other son can see that Emanuel has textbook symptoms along the autism spectrum. Dad wants to avoid Emanuel being treated differently, but his brother wants him to get help--what is ultimately the best thing for Emanuel? The story is moving, and even the comments on the web site are telling about how difficult these decisions are. The clip is about 19 minutes, and is well worth a listen (sorry about the ad!).

There are also more sides to this discussion. For example, who stands to benefit from more widespread diagnoses of mental illnesses? Certainly, pharmaceutical companies stand to make enormous amounts of money from some diagnoses. As we have touched upon in class, there is much more money to be made in treatment than prevention. Does having the potential for profits change the way such companies look at medicine? Are these companies doing great work to solve our health problems, are they looking at more markets to tap, are they impacting policy in powerful ways, or or is there even more going on? What should be the role of drug companies in educating doctors, or the public, about medicine?



The Diagnostic Statistical Manual (DSM) is called "the bible" when it comes to diagnosing mental illness. The DSM-V is scheduled to be released in May 2013 and the process of updating it has been nothing short of intense. Right now at least 8 conditions considered "disorders" will be removed. Various groups have lobbied, protested or fought in a myriad of ways to get their illnesses labeled, so they can get health care, or removed altogether. And those groups are infighting with each other, because some want the label to access health benefits, and others are fighting the stigmas. Should this be how diagnoses are made? By political lobbies and activism, or are decisions made based on sound scientific evidence? And who pays for that scientific evidence--it really gets that messy. On top of everything, many of the people charged with updating the new DSM-V clearly stand to make a lot of money on the very changes they are voting on--should this conflict of interest, which impacts up to 70% of the panel members, be allowed?

For your fourth blog post, you will do your best to disentangle all of this in regards to an "illness" of your choosing. You can choose something that used to not be labeled an illness, but is now, or something that is no longer considered an illness. Or something that is currently going through a surge of awareness, and heightened diagnoses, like autism or ADHD (both of which we will begin to discuss in class). Really, it can be any illness you want to know more about. More than giving a history, you are going to give us an analysis of what has been involved in the process of this illness gaining, or losing, that label. You are going to tell us the academic story of that illness.

Choose something that has been deemed an "illness" either informally, or formally in the DSM. Not necessarily eyelashes--try to take on something with broader implications. Give a brief history of the diagnosis, or medicalization of that illness, then give a sociological analysis of the illness, using questions like these:
  • What were the behaviors or attributes that were seen as deviant, and how did they become seen as deviant/normal?
  • What was the process of medicalization (or demedicalization?) for this illness?
  • Who were the major players in the decision-making process, as far as you can find?
  • What parties stand to gain from the diagnosis?
  • What parties stand to lose from the diagnosis?
  • Are the people that will be impacted by the label part of the conversation, at all?
  • How did/does information spread about this illness?
  • What were/are the roles of social institutions in creating/maintaining the "sick" label?
  • What are the consequences (positive and negative) of having this diagnosis?
  • Are some groups more or less likely to be diagnosed with this illness?
  • What are the underlying social constructions of race, class, gender, size, ability, sickness, mental health, age, beauty, normal, deviance, sexuality, and so forth that impact this illness, and/or its perception?
  • Once this label is assigned, do we as society take any responsibility for the care of those who are labeled? Should we?
  • Who benefits from this illness being seen as an individual problem?
  • What are the possible social reasons for the existence of this illness?

A thorough post will include as many sides of the discussion as possible, to try to show just how complex this all is, and will do a really solid job of connecting to the concepts and materials from the course to their examination. My standards are only increasing; if you have any doubts, make sure you visit the writing center. At this point we should be past any typos or citation errors. Remember you must utilize and cite at least three of the assigned course materials, and you must EXPLAIN sufficiently how they connect to your analysis.

Not sure where to start? Here are a few suggestions, and some links to some places to start your thinking (also, of course, look at the required readings). Once you choose one, if you need some guidance, feel free to email me and/or set up a time to talk--I am always happy to bat around ideas with students. You will probably find you need to go back into the deviance blogs, so you can make sure you are getting a wide representation of perspectives and voices on the impact of these deviant labels (see the list on the right side of the page).

This is not necessarily reflective of what is "out there" but is just pulled from my personal collection I have gathered over the past few years of teaching this course.

Autism/Asperger'sADD/ADHDGender Identity DisorderHomosexualityAlcoholism/Drug AddictionObesityDepression/Mental Illness (sorry to lump these--please be more specific in your own project)
Developmental, intellectual or physical disabilities (sorry to lump these--please be specific for your own project)
Sex AddictionViolenceBonus thoughts:

Posted by
Labels: , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)