who gets to speak up about mental health?
in the process of coming up with a useful definition for mental health, we also realized that there are different ideas who “gets” to have a mental illness and who doesn’t. depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder – all these are “accepted” mental illnesses. but what about the mental health of people with addictions, brain injuries, aspergers or ADHD, just to name a few? are they taken seriously when they speak about mental health? and what about the perceived hierarchies among mental illnesses – from anxiety being “better” than schizophrenia to binge eating disorder being more “noble” than a crack addiction?
so i thought today i’d do a bit of thinking out loud about the topic.
it occurred to me that this whole topic is not just about who, but also about when, why, how and what. today, i want to talk about “who.”
who is perceived to have the authority to speak up about mental health? a story comes to mind told be a clinical psychologist who has supervised and taught other psychologists on an international level. “i used to give talks at hospitals,” he said. “often, afterwards, someone would walk up to me and the first thing they’d ask me was whether i was a psychiatrist. when i told them no, i’m a psychologist, they immediately dismissed me and all that i had said.”
it’s almost funny that even at that level, you can’t win; there is a pecking order wherever you go.
so here’s part 1 of the “who” question:
who gets to talk about mental health? mental health professionals, and if yes, what kind? professionals (or “simply” workers) in the helping profession? people with “serious” mental illness; people with any sort of mental illness; people with addiction, etc.? people whose loved ones are experiencing mental illness? everyone?
part 2 is: who do we get to talk about?
ever been to a psych ward and overheard a nurse yelling across the hallway to another nurse, “you better watch your step with joe, he doesn’t want to take his meds again!” that brings up the interesting question of subject and object. who gets to be the subject – the doer, the talker, the actor – and who gets to be the object – the done-to, talked-about, acted-on? can these roles be interchangeable?
in the next few days i’ll talk about the other parts – when, why, how and what. in the meantime, i’d love to hear your opinion, especially:
do you think that in order to talk about mental health (or mental illness), a person needs to be qualified? if so, what are the qualifications?