Mental illness is perhaps the least understood, the most highly stigmatized, and the most neglected of all illnesses. Despite recent advances in standardized diagnostic criteria and increasingly well-researched treatments, stigma continues to cloud mental health.
If you disagree, Victoria-born Ted Talk presenter Kevin Breel challenges you with this question: “Would you rather make your next Facebook post about having trouble getting out of bed because of your back, or because of your depression?”
According to a 2012 survey by Stats Canada, approximately 10 percent of the population had experienced a mental illness in the past year. In addition, the World Health Organization projects that depression will become the second leading cause of global disability by the year 2020.
So, if mental illness is remarkably prevalent, with new incidences on the rise, then why does it not receive more attention? In Victoria, mental health services receive a mere tenth of the funding allocated to acute care services. And basic services, such as respite for parents whose children are experiencing severe mental illness, simply don’t exist.
In some cases, the lack of consensus concerning the root cause of mental illnesses contributes towards the difficulty in addressing the lack of mental health services. The five broad explanatory models for mental illness are spiritual, moral character, biological, learning and developmental, and sociological. The public may differ in the extent to which they subscribe to each of these models, which in turn influences their perspective on where, if at all, resources should be allocated within mental health.
Proponents of the developmental model are more likely to suggest further research in the area of cognitive development, whereas someone with a spiritual background may endorse pastoral counselling. These different perspectives, which exist in both professional and public spheres, don’t have to be a source of tension.
Instead of pretending mental health isn’t an issue, because it is, and instead of arguing over where services should be allocated, there ought to be aspects of each of the explanatory models present in our care system. It’s time to consider increasing not only tertiary services, but primary and preventative services as well.
Certain approaches will work better for certain people than others, and a combination of primary, secondary, and tertiary services is essential for managing any illness.
Ultimately, all of this begins with Canadians who are willing to engage in this type of discussion and confront the stigma associated with mental health.
—Mental health no longer a shunned topic
Has not been for a long time.
I appreciate what you’re saying, mental health probably receives more attention now that it has in the past (especially relating to pharmacology). It has still been my experience that many people are unaware of the extent to which mental illness is prevalent among the population. I’ve also found that people find it difficult to talk about their experiences with mental illness.
I’ve read a bit about what you have to say concerning the language that is used in discussions about mental health. The effort that you have put into addressing the issue of language is amazing. I am curious as to what your thoughts are in response to Edward Schumachor-Matos words: “The euphemism treadmill will continue as long as people have negative attitudes toward the concept at hand.”?
It seems to be a chicken-or-egg question…which came first, the negative attitudes or the word “stigma”?