|
|
I would have to conclude, given the historical account provided by the text, that the mentally ill are often treated inhumanely when economic resources are low. Initially I would have thought that etiological theories would have played a greater part, with belief in supernatural causes for mental illness resulting in more cruel treatments than with belief in natural causes. However this does not seem to be a particularly significant factor. Supernatural theories of demonic possession have been linked with both compassion (e.g. ancient Egypt) and torture (e.g. Europe during the Middle Ages) (Firestone & Marshall, 2003). Similarly, natural theories have involved both humane (e.g. Europe during the early Renaissance period) and inhumane treatment (North American institutions prior to the 1970s) (Firestone & Marshall, 2003). On the other hand, there do appear to be several instances of particularly cruel treatment that seem to have been related to economic factors. For example, patients at the Bethlem Royal Hospital (c.1547) were made to partake in a sort of freak show for tourists in order to raise much needed operating funds for the institution (Firestone & Marshall, 2003). Also, during the 18th century, large numbers of poor people resulted in increases of admittances to “workhouses” such as the Bicetre. Despite Phillipe Pinels’ efforts to improve the quality of treatment being provided in these institutions, overcrowding made better care impossible and the mentally ill were treated as less than human (e.g. chained to walls, beaten and starved) (Firestone & Marshall, 2003). Thus it seems that the care we provide the disadvantaged is often greatly influenced by the economic resources at our disposal – good intentions simply aren’t enough. 2.2 In a sense, one could argue that anyone who commits a serious crime is suffering from some sort of mental illness. After all, mustn’t there be something wrong with a person’s psychological functioning, even temporarily, to allow them to murder of harm another? More specifically though, I can think of three types of disorders that we treat more as criminal than as illness: that is, the actions of psychopaths, pedophiles and sexual offenders (people with courtship disorders). Often, due to the nature and severity of the crimes committed by people with these disorders, we are reluctant to treat them as ill, preferring instead to think of them as simply “evil”. The problem with this tendency is that treatment is perhaps not given enough attention, reducing the likelihood of helping people with these disorders improve their behaviour. 2.3 There are certainly several pros and cons that can be highlighted concerning the use of the term ‘mental illness’. First of all, it has the advantage of being fairly clear in its meaning – conveying to the listener that there is problem with ones’ ‘mind’. On the other hand, unlike the term ‘psychological abnormality’, ‘mental illness’ transmits very strong implications of biological rather than psychological causes for the disorder. In this sense it would seem useful to distinguish between ‘mental illness’ and ‘psychological abnormality’ to reduce potential confusion (though the two terms are usually used interchangeably).
|
