Monthly Archives: September 2020

You Deserve to Be Treated with Dignity and Respect.

This is a personal message to those of you whose emotional wellbeing and quality of life are impacted by a ‘mental’ disorder. I write as someone who knows what you are going through, and who understands the system. I have dealt with social anxiety disorder throughout my life. I have spent the last 16 years researching and developing methods to alleviate the impact of mental dysfunctions. I know the disease model of mental health has been ineffective and demeaning, and I emphasize the importance of adopting a Wellness Model that treats you with dignity and appreciation for your abilities and potential. 

You are not alone.

  • 1 in 5 adults and 1 in 6 children (ages 6-17) have a diagnosable mental illness.
  • 20 million adults and 5 million adolescents experience mild to major depression.
  • Anxiety disorders impact 45 million adults and 13 million adolescents .
  • 60% of those have both anxiety and depression. Substance abuse is often comorbid.
  • The estimated rate of infection for minorities is 1.5-2.5 times higher.
  • Anxiety and depression are the primary causes of the 56% increase in adolescent suicide over the last decade.
  • Sexual and gender-based adolescents are almost five times more likely to attempt suicide.

There are four essential facts I want you to recognize.

Number 1: You are not abnormal. A disorder, or what they used to call a neurosis, is a common part of natural human development. Mental health professionals have a saying. Question: Why do 26% of American adults have a diagnosable mental disorder? Answer: Because the other 74% haven’t been tested.  Scientific American speculates that mental disorders are so common, almost everyone will develop at least one diagnosable disorder at some point in their life. It is, simply, a condition that negatively impacts your emotional wellbeing and quality of life. 

Number 2: It is not your fault. You were infected, most likely, during your childhood. In the rare event onset happened later in life, the susceptibility originated in your childhood. The infection is a consequence of some physical, emotional, or sexual disturbance. It could be hereditary, environmental, or the result of trauma. Any number of things could have caused it. Perhaps your parents were controlling or did not provide emotional validation. Perhaps you were bullied, or you are from a broken home. It is never your fault and it may be no one’s fault.

Number 3: Forget what you have been told. You have been negatively informed by the disease model of mental health, and influenced by mental health stigma. The disease model focuses on diagnosis, deficit, and denigration. Through its diagnostic process, you cease to be an individual and become your disorder. The Wellness Model emphasizes your character strengths and virtues that generate the motivation, persistence, and perseverance to recover.

You are not ‘mental.’ Not only is the description inaccurate, it promotes hostile perceptions of incompetence, unworthiness, and undesirability. It is the dominant source of stigma, shame, and self-loathing. It feeds the pervasive public stereotype of the dangerous and unpredictable, deranged person who should be isolated in an institution. 

They once thought mental illness was demonic possession. They blamed it on the moon, sorcery, witchcraft, and bodily fluids. In the early 20th century, it was your cellular structure. The biological approach says it is in your brain; the pharmacological approach pushes drugs to balance your chemistry and hormones. The fact is that simultaneous mutual interaction of your human system components is required for sustainability of life and your disorder.

Your dysfunction is not ‘mental,’ biologic, hygienic, neurochemical, or psychogenic, but all of these things facilitated by all your human system components – your mind, body, spirit, and emotions working in concert. Realistically, we cannot eliminate the word ‘mental’ from the culture. The disease model’s guide for 70 years is called the Diagnostic  and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. So, we have to change the common perception of the word. The Wellness Model’s primary objective is the reformation of language, power structure, and perspective throughout the mental healthcare community and beyond.

And finally, number 4: You deserve better ― from the ‘mental’ healthcare industry, your doctor, family, peers, media, and community. ‘Mental’ illness is a stigma, formed by ignorance, prejudice, and discrimination. It is supported by public opinion, family rejection, a misinformed community, media misrepresentation, and the disease model of mental health. No wonder so many avoid treatment, reject diagnosis, or refuse to disclose their condition.

General public opinion considers you dangerous, unpredictable, and socially undesirable.

37% of family members hide their relationship with their child or sibling in order to avoid bringing shame to the family. Many disordered are family undesirable, a devaluation more life-limiting, and disabling than the illness itself.

The media stereotypes you as a hysterical, unpredictable, and dangerous schizophrenic. Half of news stories on ‘mental’ illness allude to violence. You are either a homicidal maniac, an emotionally challenged childlike prodigy, or a rebellious, hair-brained, free spirit.

Healthcare professionals are often undertrained, misinformed, and inflexible. You know how your disorder impacts your emotional wellbeing and quality of life far better than your doctor. Clinicians deal with 31 similar and comorbid disorders, over 400 schools of psychotherapy, multiple treatment programs, and a constantly evolving plethora of medications, but they do not know the personal impact of your disorder.

The mental healthcare community is drowning in pessimism. There is evidence to indicate the problem is endemic in the medical health community, and universally systematic, which means that it impacts you personally, and the disease model is the culprit. Clients report instances where staff members are inordinately rude or dismissive. Complaints include coercive measures, excessive wait-times, paternalistic or demeaning attitudes, one-size-fits-all treatment programs, medications with undesirable side-effects, stigmatizing language, and general therapeutic pessimism.

The etiology-driven, disease model defines you as incapable, deceitful, unempathetic, manipulative, difficult, irresponsible, and incompetent. These descriptions are straight from the manual. This ‘defective’ emphasis has been the overriding psychiatric perspective for over a century. By the 1952 publication of the first DSM, the focus had drifted from pathology (the science of the causes and effects of diseases) to pathography (the breakdown of an individual’s problems, categorizing them to facilitate diagnosis). Pathography focuses on a deficit, disease model of human behavior, Which disorder poses the most threat? What behaviors contribute to the disorder? Are you contagious? What sort of person has a mental illness? It is these attributions that form your self-beliefs and image.

To iterate, the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders describes 31 dysfunctions. Most share symptomatology and are comorbid. Estimates show that 60% of those with anxiety also have symptoms of depression, and both are comorbid with substance-abuse. The following are closely related to or comorbid with social anxiety: major depression, panic disorder, alcohol abuse, PTSD, avoidant personality disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, substance abuse, eating disorders, schizophrenia, ADHD, and agoraphobia.

Diagnostic criteria change dramatically from one edition to the next. Causes and symptoms are added, removed, and rewritten without evidence that the new approach is better than the prior one. Researchers cite substantial discrepancies and variation in definition, epidemiology, assessment, and treatment. One clinic reports that 8.2% of their clients had generalized anxiety; 0.5% were correctly diagnosed. A study of 67 clinics reported that 76.4% of social anxiety clients were improperly diagnosed.

That is why the Wellness Model focuses on the individual over the diagnosis. The disease model focuses on the diagnosis. The Wellness Model emphasis your character strengths and attributes that generate the motivation, persistence, and perseverance to recover. A battle is not won by focusing on incompetence and weakness; it is won by knowing and utilizing our strengths, and attributes. That is how we recover―with pride and self-reliance and determination―with the awareness of what we are capable.

Recoveryis an individual process. There is no one right way to do or experience recovery. You are not toasters, mass-produced in a factory. You have unique DNA. There has never been a single human being with your sensibilities, memories, and abilities. Your personality is comprised of distinct phenomena generated by everything experienced in your lifetime. It formed itself by core-beliefs and developed through social, cultural, and environmental experiences. It is your current being and the expression of that being―your inimitable way of thinking, feeling, and behaving.

One-size-fits-all approaches have never been able to address the complexity of your individual personality. Any evaluation and treatment program must comprehensively address your individual complexity. Recovery programs must be innovative, fluid, and targeted.

Clinicians must assimilate your culture and earn your trust. They do not have to become you; they must attempt to understand your culture in order to relate to you. An LGBTQ+ person will not be served well by a fundamentalist Baptist psychotherapist. Any clinician or program must consider your environment, history, and autobiography in conjunction with your wants, needs, and aspirations.

You deserve to be treated with dignity, and appreciation.

Your dysfunction has impacted your life since childhood; recovery is a long-term commitment. The Wellness Model creates the blueprint then guides teaches and supports you throughout the process of recovery, but you must do the work. The Wellness Model helps you reengage your intrinsic character strengths and attributes that generate the motivation and persistence and perseverance to recover.

Any suggestion of undesirability is a devaluation more life-limiting and disabling than the illness itself. You deserve to be treated with dignity and appreciation. 

Video: Wellness Model

The Wellness Model of Mental Health in the 21st Century

The disease or medical model has been the approach towards mental health since the dawning of civilization. It is called the pathographic perspective. Pathography is the history of our suffering. The Wellness Model focuses, not on our disease and deficits, but on our character strengths, virtues, and achievements. A disorder, condition, or dysfunction is what used to be called a neurosis. A neurosis is a common part of natural human development. It is, simply, a condition that negatively impacts our emotional wellbeing and quality of life. 

ReChanneling.org

Positive Psychology and the Wellness Model

The Disease Model focuses on the problem; the Wellness Model emphasizes the solution.

The disease or medical model of ‘mental’ health focuses “on a deficit, disease model of human behavior.” The wellness model focuses “on positive aspects of human functioning.”[i] This disease model ‘defective’ emphasis has been the overriding psychiatric perspective for well over a century.

We must move away from the disease model, which assumes that emotional distress is merely symptomatic of biological illness, and instead embrace a model of mental health and well-being that recognizes our essential and shared humanity. Our mental health is largely dependent on our understanding of the world and our thoughts about ourselves, other people, the future and the world.[ii]

In 2004, the World Health Organization began promoting the advantages of the wellness perspective, declaring health, “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.”[iii] The World Psychiatric Association agrees, stating, “the promotion of well-being is among the goals of the mental health system.”[iv] As positive psychologists point out, “psychological wellbeing is viewed as not only the absence of mental disorder but also the presence of positive psychological resources.”[v]

The wellness model’s chief facilitator is positive psychology (PP), which originated with Maslow’s[vi] seminal texts on humanism, and was legitimated by Seligman as American Psychological Association president in 1998. The focus of positive psychology and other optimistic approaches, is on virtues and strengths “not only to endure and survive, but also to flourish.”[vii]  PP describes recovery as people “(re-) engaging in their life on the basis of their own goals and strengths, and finding meaning and purpose through constructing and reclaiming a valued identity and valued social roles.”[viii]

Positive psychology is a relatively new field (since 1998) that ostensibly complements and supports rather than replaces traditional psychology. “Positive psychology serves as an umbrella term to accommodate research investigating positive emotions and other positive aspects such as creativity, optimism, resilience, empathy, compassion, humor, and life satisfaction.”[ix]

PP has been defined as the science of optimal functioning, its objective “to study, identify and amplify the strengths and capacities that individuals, families and society need to thrive.”[x] Cultural psychologist Levesque[xi] describes optimal functioning as the study of how individuals attempt to achieve their personal potentials and become the best that they can be.

Research has shown that positive psychology interventions “improved well-being and decreased psychological distress in mildly depressed individuals, in patients with mood and depressive disorders, [and] in patients with psychotic disorders.”[xii] Studies supports the utilization of positive psychological constructs, theories, and interventions for enhanced understanding and improvement of ‘mental’ health. “The things that allow people to experience deep happiness, wisdom, and psychological, physical and social wellbeing are the same strengths that buffer against stress and physical and mental illness.”[xiii]

A range of approaches promoting wellbeing have been tested in intervention research.  A recent study found positive psychology interventions showed “significant improvements in mental well-being (from non-flourishing to flourishing mental health) while also decreasing both anxiety and depressive symptom severity.”[xiv] Continuing research suggests that a positive psychological outlook not only improves life outcomes but enhances health directly.[xv] A meta-analysis of 51 studies with 4,266 individuals utilizing therapies focusing on mindfulness, autobiography, positive writing, gratitude, forgiveness, or kindness, found PPIs “significantly enhance well-being . . . and decrease depressive symptoms.“[xvi]  

The academic discipline of positive psychology continues to develop evidence-based interventions that focus on eliciting positive feelings, cognitions or behaviors.[xvii] Independent research shows PPIs “decreased psychological distress [in individuals] with mood and depressive disorders [and] patients with psychotic disorders . . . improving quality of life and well-being.”[xviii] Positive psychology offers promising interventions “to support recovery in people with common mental illness, and preliminary evidence suggests it can also be helpful for people with more severe mental illness.”[xix]

Disease (Medical) Model

  • Pathography/etiology
  • DSM intractability
  • Systemic pessimism
  • Disease, deficit and denigration
  • One-size-fits-all recovery programs
  • Doctor-client power relationship
  • Rampant Misdiagnosis

Wellness Model

  • Communication
  • Optimal functioning
  • Emerging research data
  • Positive language, perspective
  • Client strengths and abilities
  • Program integration
  • Individual dynamics

Positive Psychology

  • Optimal human functioning
  • Support and enhance traditional psychology
  • Emphasize character strengths & attributes
  • Evidence-based interventions
  • Balanced, holistic perspective

Positive Psychology 2.0.  One of the early challenges of positive psychology was its inattention to the negative aspects of the individual. Recognizing this imbalance, psychologists advocated a more holistic approach to embrace the dialectical opposition of human experience. Positive Psychology 2.0 (PP 2.0) evolved as a correction to this singular focus on optimism so that it could “move forward in a more inclusive and balanced matter,[xx] incorporating both positive and negative aspects of the holistic individual. As one psychologist put it, “people are not just pessimists or optimists. They have complex personality structures.”[xxi] PP 2.0 recognizes the individual achieves optimal human functioning by living a meaningful life that comes through full engagement. PP 2.0 is a balanced approach, one that “equally considers positive emotions and strengths and negative symptoms and disorders.”[xxii]

The positive psychology perspective maintains that individuals with a ‘mental’ disorder can live satisfying and fulfilling lives regardless of symptoms or impairments associated with the diagnosis.[xxiii] Positive psychology aims “to emphasize the positive while managing and transforming the negative to increase well-being.”[xxiv] 

Positive psychology focuses on enhancing wellbeing and optimal functioning rather than ameliorating symptoms. By emphasizing wellness rather than dysfunction, the positive-psychology movement aims to destigmatize ‘mental’ illness. Positive psychologists believe “the constructive use of positive psychology perspective is generally needed in contemporary research to complement the long tradition of pathogen orientation.”[xxv]

——————-


[i] Mayer, C.-H., & May, M. (2019). The Positive Psychology Movement. PP1.0 and PP2.0. In C-H Mayer and Z. Kőváry (Eds.), New Trends in Psychobiography (pp. 155-172). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-916953-4_9.

[ii] Kinderman, P. (2014). Why We Need to Abandon the Disease-Model of Mental Health Care. (Online.) Scientific American. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/why-we-need-to-abandon-the-disease-model-of-mental-health-care/ 

[iii] Slade, M. (2010). Mental illness and well-being: the central importance of positive psychology and recovery approaches. BMC Health Service Research 10 (26), 1-17 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-26 10(26)

[iv] Schrank, B., Brownell, T., Tylee, A., & Slade, M. (2014). Psychology: An Approach to Supporting Recovery in Mental Illness. East Asian Arch Psychiatry, 24, 95-103 (2014).

[v] Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing Well-Being and Alleviating Depressive Symptoms with Positive Psychology Interventions: A Practice-Friendly Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 65(5), 467–487 (2009). doi:10.1002/jclp.20593

[vi] Maslow, A.H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4): 370-396 (1943). doi.org/10.1037/h0054346; Maslow, A. (1954). Motivations and Personality.  New York City: Harper & Brothers; Early edition.

[vii] Mayer, C.-H., & May, M. (2019). The Positive Psychology Movement. PP1.0 and PP2.0. In C-H Mayer and Z. Kőváry (Eds.), New Trends in Psychobiography (pp. 155-172). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-916953-4_9.

[viii] Schrank, B., Brownell, T., Tylee, A., & Slade, M. (2014). Psychology: An Approach to Supporting Recovery in Mental Illness. East Asian Arch Psychiatry, 24, 95-103 (2014).

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Carruthers, C., & Hood, C. D. (2005).  The Power of Positive Psychology. Parks and Recreation.  .file:///C:/Users/rober/ OneDrive/ Pending/New%20Psychobiography/carruthers%20x.pdf 

[xi] Levesque, R. J. R. (2011). Optimal Functioning. In Levesque R. J. R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Adolescence. New York City: Springer. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1695-2

[xii] Chakhssi, F., Kraiss, J. T., Sommers-Spijkerman, M., & Bohlmeijer, E.T. (2018). The effect of positive psychology interventions on well-being and distress in clinical samples with psychiatric or somatic disorders: a systematic review and metaanalysis. BMC Psychiatry 18:211, 1-17 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1739-2.

[xiii] Carruthers, C., & Hood, C. D. (2005).  The Power of Positive Psychology. Parks and Recreation.  .file:///C:/Users/rober/ OneDrive/ Pending/New%20Psychobiography/carruthers%20x.pdf 

[xiv] Schotanus-Dijkstra, M., Drossaert, C. H. C., Pieterse, M. E., Walburg, J. A., Bohlmeijer, E. T., & Smit, F. (2018).  Towards sustainable mental health promotion: trial-based health-economic evaluation of a positive psychology intervention versus usual care. BMC Psychiatry 18:265, pp. 1-11 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1825-5

[xv] Easterbrook, G. (2001). Psychology discovers happiness. I’m OK, You’re OK. The New Republic, Article 27,  6

[xvi] Sin, N. L., & Lyubomirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing Well-Being and Alleviating Depressive Symptoms with Positive Psychology Interventions: A Practice-Friendly Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology: In Session, 65(5), 467–487 (2009). doi:10.1002/jclp.20593

[xvii]  Schotanus-Dijkstra, M., Drossaert, C. H. C., Pieterse, M. E., Walburg, J. A., Bohlmeijer, E. T., & Smit, F. (2018).  Towards sustainable mental health promotion: trial-based health-economic evaluation of a positive psychology intervention versus usual care. BMC Psychiatry 18:265, pp. 1-11 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1825-5

[xviii] Chakhssi, F., Kraiss, J. T., Sommers-Spijkerman, M., & Bohlmeijer, E.T. (2018). The effect of positive psychology interventions on well-being and distress in clinical samples with psychiatric or somatic disorders: a systematic review and metaanalysis. BMC Psychiatry 18:211, 1-17 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-018-1739-2.

[xix] Schrank, B., Brownell, T., Tylee, A., & Slade, M. (2014). Psychology: An Approach to Supporting Recovery in Mental Illness. East Asian Arch Psychiatry, 24, 95-103 (2014).

[xx] Wong, P. T. P., & Roy, S. (2017). Critique of positive psychology and positive interventions. In N. J. L. Brown, T. Lomas, & F. J. Eiroa-Orosa (eds.), The Routledge International Handbook of Critical Positive Psychology, pp 142-160. London, UK: Routledge.

[xxi]  Miller, A. (2008). A Critique of Positive Psychology— or ‘The New Science of Happiness.’ Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42(3-4), 591-608 (2008).  

[xxii] Rashid, T., Anjum, A., Chu, R., Stevanovski, S., Zanjani, A., & Lennox, C. (2014). Strength based resilience: Integrating risk and resources towards holistic well-being. In G. A. Fava & C. Ruini (eds.), Increasing psychological well-being in clinical and educational settings (Vol. 8, pp. 153–176). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

[xxiii]  Slade, M. (2010). Mental illness and well-being: the central importance of positive psychology and recovery approaches. BMC Health Service Research 10 (26), 1-17 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-26 10(26)

[xxiv] Mayer, C.-H., & May, M. (2019). The Positive Psychology Movement. PP1.0 and PP2.0. In C-H Mayer and Z. Kőváry (Eds.), New Trends in Psychobiography (pp. 155-172). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-916953-4_9.

[xxv] Ibid.

Why We Should Avoid the Term ‘Mental.’

“everyone will develop at least one diagnosable disorder”

‘Mental’ Disorder

  • Condition that negatively impacts your emotional wellbeing and quality of life.
  • Called a neurosis by DSM prior to 1980.
  • Facilitated by mind, body, spirit, and emotions working in concert.
  • Source of shame, stigma, and self-denigration.
  • Correctible inability to function in a ‘normal’ or satisfactory manner.
  • A normal facet of human development.

Language generates and supports perspective. Language influences thought and action. Not only is the word ‘mental’ inaccurate in describing a disorder, but its negative perspectives and implications promulgate perceptions of incompetence, unworthiness, and undesirability. It is the dominant source of stigma, shame, and self-denigration. Realistically, we cannot eliminate the word ‘mental’ from models of healthcare. Still, we should utilize it sparingly, and only to differentiate a disorder from a physical injury or ailment.

The first descriptions that come to mind when one utilizes the word ‘mental’ are crazy and insane. A person with a disorder is not crazy or insane. She or he is someone who has a common malfunction that negatively impacts their emotional wellbeing and quality of life. Scientific American speculates that ‘mental’ disorders are so common that almost everyone will develop at least one diagnosable disorder at some point in their life.[i] A disorder is a normal facet of human development that infects at adolescence or earlier. A person cannot be held accountable for their disorder. They did not make it happen; it happened to them. 

In political correctness, the word ‘mental’ defines a person or their behavior as extreme or illogical somehow. During our schooldays, anyone unpopular or different was derisively called ‘mental’ or ‘mental’ retard. The urban dictionary defines mental as someone silly or stupid. The word was used for attention, involving nonsensical references and actions, usually involving violent or divisive behavior, resulting in the general amusement and hilarity of onlookers. Add the words illness or disorder onto the adjective, ‘mental,’ and we have the public stereotype of dangerous and unpredictable, deranged persons who cannot fend for themselves, necessitating isolation in an institution. 

Dictionary definitions of the adjective ‘mental’ are: (1) of or relating to the mind or (2) of, relating to, or affected by a disorder of the mind. A disorder is not mental. It is administered and facilitated by the mind, body, spirit, and emotions working in concert.

To the early civilizations, ‘mental’ illnesses were the domain of supernatural forces and demonic possession. Hippocrates and diagnosticians of the 19th century favored the humours (bodily liquids). Lunar influence and sorcery and witchcraft are timeless culprits. In the early 20th century, it was somatogenic.[ii][iii] The biological approach argues that mental disorders are related to the brain’s physical structure and functioning.[iv] The pharmacological approach promotes it as an imbalance in brain chemistry. The first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,[v] created to address the influx of veteran shell shock (PTSD), leaned heavily on environmental and biological causes. 

Carl Roger’s study of the cooperation of human system components to maintain physiological equilibrium produced the word complementarity to define simultaneous mutual interaction. All human system components must work in concert; they cannot function alone. Integrality describes the inter-cooperation of the human system and the environment and social fields. A disorder is not biologic, hygienic, neurochemical, or psychogenic. It is a collaboration of these, and other approaches administered by the simultaneous collaboration of the mind, body, spirit, and emotions.

There is no legitimate argument against mind-body collaboration in disease and wellness. We know that emotions are reactive to the mind and body and vice versa. Spirit is not ethereal or otherworldly, but a natural component of human development. While some suggest spirit as the seat of emotions and character, the three are distinct entities. Spirit forms the definitive or typical elements in the character of a person. Emotions are the expressions of those qualities, responsive to the mind and boy.[vi] 

In deference to a wellness paradigm, focusing on the word disorder (a correctable inability to function healthily or satisfactorily) and avoiding the mental description will help alleviate the healthcare system’s negativity. Changing negative and hostile language to embrace a positive dialogue of encouragement and appreciation will open the floodgates to new perspectives and positively affect the disordered person’s self-beliefs and image, leading to more disclosure, discussion, and recovery-remission. The self-denigrating aspects of shame will dissipate; mental health stigma become less threatening. The concentration on character strengths and virtues, propagated by humanism, PP2.0, and other wellness-focused alliances, will encourage client accountability and foster self-reliance, leading to a confident and energized social identity. 

Transitioning from the disease model’s pathographic language to the optimistic and encouraging perspective of wellness models is everyone’s responsibility in the mental health community―its institutions, associations, practitioners, researchers, media, and clients. When ‘mental’ is essential for focus or differentiation, we recommend utilizing quotation marks (‘mental’) to diffuse its negative and harmful perspectives.

You are not accountable for the hand you have been dealt. You are responsible for how you play the cards.

___________________________________

[i] Henderson, C., Noblett, J., Parke,  H., Clement, S., Caffrey, A., Gale-Grant,  O., Schulze,  B., Druss,  B., & Thornicroft, G. (2014).     Mental health-related stigma in health care and mental health-care settings. Lancet Psychiatry,  1(6), 467-482 (2014). doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(14)00023-6.

[ii]  Khesht-Masjedi, M.F., Shokrgozar, S.,  Abdollahi, E.,  Golshahi, M., & Sharif-Ghaziani, Z. (2017). Exploring Social Factors of Mental Illness Stigmatization in Adolescents with Mental Disorders. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 11(11) (2017). doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2017/27906.1083.

[iii] Pryor, J.B., Reeder, G.D., Monroe, A.E., & Patel, A. (2009). Stigmas and Prosocial Behavior Are People Reluctant to Help Stigmatized Persons in S. Stürner, M. Snyder (Eds.) The Psychology of Prosocial Behavior, (pp.59-80). New York City: John Wiley and Sons.  doi:10.1002/9781444307948.ch3

[iv] Gray, A.J. (2002). Stigma in Psychiatry. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 95(2): (2002). doi:10.1258/jrsm.95.2.72

[v] Knaak, S., Mantler, E., Szeto, A. (2017). Mental illness-related stigma in healthcare. Barriers to access and care and evidence-based solutions. Healthcare Management Forum, 30(2), 111-116 (2017). doi:10.1177/0840470416679413

[vi] Mullen, R. F. (2018). Social Anxiety Disorder. (Online.). https://rechanneling.org/page-20.html