Thursday, October 6, 2022

Comments by cloughman

Showing 5 of 5 comments.

  • It seems like the jest of the “myth” is what is diagnosed as “mental illness” according to current methodologies is nothing more than non-conformist, anti-social, immoral behavior according to Szaszism? And there is no known biological or physiological cause of this? Yet one lay observation of a TBI should dispel that notion. When you see someone’s mental capacity, behavior, and changes in the “mind” occur when the brain is injured, that is evidence of an illness, is it not? So why cannot that be the case with causes not as evident as a TBI, but is related to complex trauma? As with most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle, with social/environmental, biological, physiological causes producing symptoms which are real and exist, just as the unseen mind is real and exists, and can become unhealthy, and therefore “ill.” Argue semantics about calling it an illness, but let’s not jump off the deep end of atheistic beliefs about the existence of something when there is clear and convincing evidence of its existence.

  • It is a concept distinguishing between services delivered by providers who make recovery-oriented or treatment decisions for the recipient of the services (provider-centered) vs. services delivered by providers where the recipient of the services make recovery-oriented or treatment decisions for themselves, with the provider as a trained guide (person-centered). It is a very important and real distinction that makes a difference in one’s healthcare, whether it be mental or physical health.

  • Neesa has hit on some very good tensions. As an ED for a peer run organization that provides Peer Support in a drop in center environment AND traditional treatment services such as case management, mental health assessment and psychotherapy, this article hits on some very practical ethical considerations that our practice deals with as well. However, we have found that when both disciplines are using the Recovery Oriented System of Care (ROSC) model, it helps tremendously to see the NASW ethical boundaries as a healthy guideline to ensure that the agency is providing person-centered services, with peers stating their recovery goals and providers coming alongside the peer to help them work on those goals.