From The Times of London: “‘Treatment.’ Does it actually work? How well? When politicians wrap themselves in the flag of ‘increased spending on mental health,’ what treatments are they actually talking about? Do we know how much they achieve? What do they cost? […]
[…] does the use of medicalese to describe what may simply be unusually striking instances of common human qualities and responses encourage us to reach too easily for a mental ‘disorder’ to blame? The Times reported yesterday the results of a survey of more than 9,000 young people which suggests that one in four young women ‘has mental illness.’ So the state is called in. And soon politicians are congratulating themselves for ‘recognising the scourge’ of mental illness, and demanding an NHS ‘parity of esteem’ between those sick in mind and those sick in body. And the cost mounts. And it’s unclear whether the benefits follow. Is anyone in government really thinking this through? […]
We should never be unkind. We should always be ready to listen and to comfort. We must not airily dismiss. And if drugs of proven efficacy can sometimes help, we should not rule these out. Beyond this, though, and until a proper science worthy of the name can point the way, we should be cautious about throwing too much money at too speculative a profession. In our understanding of the mind and treatment of the mind, we are still in the Dark Ages. Results, please, first.”
