Sunday, September 26, 2021

Comments by Corinna

Showing 14 of 14 comments.

  • Well, many people link “medicine” and science in their minds. Yet we know there was no chemical imbalance so using chemical cures doesn’t really work. So we still need science to refute the liars, and anything that weakens our connection to science weakens our overall argument.

    You are right, “medical model” is only a term heard from advocates, so we advocates should be able to change our language if we want.

    It’s very difficult to make those points about distress if someone has already tuned out your conversation because they think you are in denial of science.

  • This is easy enough to explain, and also very easy to fix on the part of most advocates. The trouble is the word “medical model.” Because the recovery model IS a medical model – it’s evidence and science based.

    To clarify, say “disease model” for people who believe extreme emotional states come out of the blue with no previous abnormal life situations. “Disease model” says the underlying cause is permanent. It’s says mental health issues are biological, chemical or structural in origin. It says the treatment should be chemical or surgical or electrical, and we know how well those work.

    “Distress model” says that strong emotional experiences are a normal response to abnormal events, that all people can equally experience these states given enough emotional distress and not enough supports or resilience.

    Please, please people, STOP saying “medical” model. The distress model IS a Medical Model – it’s more science based and evidence based than the Disease model. Saying “disease model” points the blame squarely on those selling the disease and selling false storytelling with diseases that have no evidence base. Saying “distress model” says clearly that our problems are universal but completely resolvable.

  • Yes, being an entrepreneur is not all peaches and tea. (My husband talks in his sleep and “Let’s not try peaches and tea,” is one of his funnier stories about it.)

    Pros: Choose your own work site, choose your schedule, choose your customers/partners, work from your passions, being your own boss. It’s the new normal – 25% of Americans are doing some sort of freelance/contracting/entrepreneurship.

    Cons: Less access to health care (in US), less regular income, having to supervise employees, learning how to do accounting and business skills, being your own boss.

    It also helps to avoid market areas that are shrinking or in crisis like photography, journalism, big cars, oil discovery, conventional farming, drugging mental patients, big pharma, etc.

    Growing market areas are software design, website development, phone applications, peer provided mental health care, real mental health solutions, organic farming, social entrepreneurship, social messaging, wellness techniques, community collaboration, art and creativity, etc.

  • The issue is not who funds NAMI. Everyone knows who funds NAMI. That is a given, and they are working on it. The issue is that everyone who is clueless about mental health reaches first for NAMI.

    Either we have to help NAMI change their messaging to be more accurate despite their funding, and some chapters are showing this is possible, OR we have to create a our own public relations, volunteer, and promotional coalition big enough to have people find us first.

    BUT neither of those goals is helped by saying how awful NAMI is.

    Unless you have a different idea of how to get the real story out? I know your Involuntary Transformation blog get some decent readership.

  • Excellent post. Yes, many, many people have been seriously damaged by NAMI and their inaccurate storytelling through the years. Many NAMI chapters are modernizing but many are still harming people.

    However, if we who have been harmed by NAMI keep acting out our old traumas and seek revenge, then how are we any better than them for hurting us? How can we convince them by screaming at them? It’s very easy to beat someone, it’s very hard to win them.

    First do no harm.

  • Can Jim put up a Facebook cause or post the Pay Pal link on his site or use Peer to Peer lending or something like that? All the readers of this site could chip in $5 or $50 and help him out and knock this out in a week or so.

    As for the pharma execs, there is precedent for making them personally liable and not just their companies.

    The government has the ability to move in this direction and our phone calls and letters to our elected officials can make this happen sooner. How about someone volunteers to start one of those online petition processes so we can all voice this one?

  • The real question is, “What do we tell people who say, ‘My meds work.’ ”

    Because every person who has ignored me uses this line. When I try to tell them about emotional distress causing “symptoms” instead of some unproven disease, they don’t want to hear it. When I tell them maybe their meds just work because the withdrawal symptoms are nasty, they don’t want to hear it.

    How do you approach med users who love their meds? Anyone figured out effective techniques yet? The trouble is that the distress vs. disease model and the meds as painkillers only explanation involves a lot of science and digging. It’s very tough to communicate in the 30 – 40 seconds we usually get as advocates.

  • Missouri put up a bill that judges could send anyone they “thought” had a mental illness to jail for “evaluation” for 6 weeks. You can see a few problems with this, of course. That bill got shut down, though. In Missouri the Corrections Department got money from the state to hire insurance companies to provide mental health care, then does things like charge for 60 minutes of therapy when only 5 minutes were delivered. So adding people to the corrections rolls was highly profitable. My friend Edward Duff brought this out and got that insurance company’s contract canceled.

    Many advocates completely ignore the corrections side of things when they have some of the worst issues going on in mental health care.