Government Study Says 50% Will Be Mentally Ill at Some Point in Their Lives

[USViking]

Has anyone said they aren't----you obviously have no idea what modern science has done in respect to the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness. Educate yourself instead of contributing to the stigma which prevents millions of people from being happy.

How about answering my question? I only scanned the link, and it appears the conclusions were drawn soley from questionnaires and interviews.

Find me another study based chemistry and biology which supports this study's conclusions, and I will come over to its side.

I am glad to know progress is being made in the treatment of mental illness.

That does not have anything to do with the conclusions of the study under discussion.

 

[GotZoom]

Probably, although, like I said earlier, there are also those who suffer periods of depression and anxiety caused by other events in their lives. Again, I'm not saying medicate the problem, I'm saying depression and anxiety can be triggered by other things in your life, which should be worked out.

I absolutely agree. My problem is that 30 years ago when these things came up in elementary school, the answer was parents and possibly a paddle.

Not drugs.

 

[dilloduck]

So by the same argument, if Johnny's parents would have kept him away from the drugs and just disciplined him - Johnny wouldn't have the depression and anxiety that came from the "misdiagnosis."

Doctors cause cancer in laboratory rats.

How much of this 50% are people who didn't really need the treatment?

It was just easier (for them and/or the parents) and profitable (for the doctors) to diagnose them and give them a pill.

We have no way of knowing how Johnny may have turned out if he had been treated differently so the point is moot. Could have been better--could have been worse. The study does not say everyone with a mental illness needs professional treatment OR does it say what kind. Your accusation that treatment is only given because parents are lazy and Dr.s want to profit is assinine and dangerous. Are mistakes made??? OF COURSE More mistakes however are made on the side of NOT treating people who need it and not providing insurance coverage for them. How long are we going to pretend that mental health isn't important ???????

 

[Said1]

I absolutely agree. My problem is that 30 years ago when these things came up in elementary school, the answer was parents and possibly a paddle.

Not drugs.

Unless there is some sort of brain chemical imbalance or dietary cause (sugar!!!!) anxiety and depression ARE symtomatic of other things, like ADD often is, not always though.

 

[dilloduck]

How about answering my question? I only scanned the link, and it appears the conclusions were drawn soley from questionnaires and interviews.

Find me another study based chemistry and biology which supports this study's conclusions, and I will come over to its side.

I am glad to know progress is being made in the treatment of mental illness.

That does not have anything to do with the conclusions of the study under discussion.

Disagree with the study all you want----if you have any basis and proof for debunking it I would be glad to hear them--right now you are writing it off with baseless opinions

 

[USViking]

You are good at denying facts. Explain how your statement referring to the research as pertaining to individuals who "have shown signs of suffering from significant mental illness" is in anyway comparable to understanding that the study pertains to individuals who have a mental illness "at some point in their lives."

I do not follow you at all here.

Go ahead and tell me how:

individuals who "have shown signs of suffering from significant mental illness"

in anyway contradicts:

individuals who have a mental illness "at some point in their lives."

 

[dilloduck]

I absolutely agree. My problem is that 30 years ago when these things came up in elementary school, the answer was parents and possibly a paddle.

Not drugs.

get over it----neither the study nor any poster is advocating drugs as the only way to treat mental illness and you stigmatize the medications that save peoples lives.

 

[dilloduck]

How about answering my question? I only scanned the link, and it appears the conclusions were drawn soley from questionnaires and interviews.

Find me another study based chemistry and biology which supports this study's conclusions, and I will come over to its side.

I am glad to know progress is being made in the treatment of mental illness.

That does not have anything to do with the conclusions of the study under discussion.

All mental illness does not have a biological, chemical or genetic etiology---If this was the only criteria used in the study, the study would be seriously flawed and even I would question it.

 

[USViking]

All mental illness does not have a biological, chemical or genetic etiology---If this was the only criteria used in the study, the study would be seriously flawed and even I would question it.

Biology, chemistry, and genetics must play some role if not the only role,
and if they are missing, then causes and symptoms can never be adequately explained.

 

[GotZoom]

We have no way of knowing how Johnny may have turned out if he had been treated differently so the point is moot. Could have been better--could have been worse. The study does not say everyone with a mental illness needs professional treatment OR does it say what kind. Your accusation that treatment is only given because parents are lazy and Dr.s want to profit is assinine and dangerous. Are mistakes made??? OF COURSE More mistakes however are made on the side of NOT treating people who need it and not providing insurance coverage for them. How long are we going to pretend that mental health isn't important ???????

No on here is saying mental health isn't important.

What I am saying is - I am not thoroughly convinced that EVERY person of this 50% is truly mentally ill.

There is too much history of doctor's being lazy or motivated by money as the reason for the diagnosis. Does this happen with everybody? Of course not. Has it happened in the past with some people? Of course it has.

Nearly everybody knows somebody who is taking some kind of drug (prozac, etc) who really doesn't neet it. They went to the doctor and said, "I don't know what is wrong...I'm just kind of down lately." And the doctor says, "Here, try these. They will make you feel better."

Of course they will make you feel better.

THEY ARE UPPERS (or DOWNERS).

AC Milan got beat in a soccer match a couple of weeks ago. I felt kind of sad for a few minutes afterward.

Was I suffering from any kind of mental disorder? Is their basis for the 50% simply talking to people who have been "sad" at one time of their life?

 

[no1tovote4]

I question every study that I see, even the ones that seem to espouse what I agree with. Human motivation will often skew the results of a study and it must be shown that that motivation did not have cause to skew the results. In this case, a government funded institution puts out a study that people seem to be taking at face value simply because it was government funded. Without regard to the fact that in order to keep their funding, and maybe even increase it, they have huge motivation to increase the number of mentally ill beyond the scope of actuality.

I personally do believe that mental illness is a problem, and even will go so far as to say a large problem. However, this study would include anybody who lost a parent to death as they would be significantly depressed for more than three weeks, it isn't a mental illness it is grief and it is natural.

Much like the charts that show obesity currently used by the medical community would make most of the huge bodybuilders into obese people, clearly they are not obese, nobody with 2% bodyfat could be considered obese. Why are we so quick to jump into the pool when the Psychologist says something, but not when Medical science says something? We use our reason to deduce that they are simply overdiagnosing the problem by simply observing that those bodybuilders are clearly not obese. We can do the same here, and should be able to do so without somebody saying how "unqualified" we are to use logical deduction in one case, but not in the other.

Using logical deduction is not something that the layman has no access to, in fact without it we would be beholden to every study walking lockstep and helping those poor obese bodybuilders to lose weight.

A study that says that "significant depression" is anybody that is depressed for three weeks or more, when we clearly know that natural grief almost always takes longer than three weeks to get over, then saying that it must be accurate because Psychologists said so simply denies the fact that even we, not being psychologists, can still use logical deduction and realize that this has been overdiagnosed.

 

[GotZoom]

.....

A study that says that "significant depression" is anybody that is depressed for three weeks or more, when we clearly know that natural grief almost always takes longer than three weeks to get over, then saying that it must be accurate because Psychologists said so simply denies the fact that even we, not being psychologists, can still use logical deduction and realize that this has been overdiagnosed.

Bravo!

 

[dilloduck]

Bravo!

The energy-packed speech with which people spout thier disagreement over a simple definition speaks volumns about the attitude people have towards polls, the government, Dr.s , insurance companies and psychogical probelms. So you think that a 3 week depression should not be labled as a mental illness. What's the big deal if others think it should be?? AGAIN--there is NO insistance that all mental illness even be treated--NO insistance that it be medicated -and NO label tatooed on your forehead. How does this study cause any harm to anyone?

 

[GotZoom]

So you think that a 3 week depression should not be labled as a mental illness. What's the big deal if others think it should be?? AGAIN--there is NO insistance that all mental illness even be treated--NO insistance that it be medicated -and NO label tatooed on your forehead. How does this study cause any harm to anyone?

I don't think it should be labeled a mental illness just because someone is depressed for 3 weeks.

Why are they depressed? Death in the family? Loss of job? Can't lose weight on their diet?

This person who is depressed because they can't lose 5 pounds goes to the doctor and says they are depressed. The doctor gives them medication.

MY PROBLEM WITH THIS IS: The doctor giving this person meds. How about a little background on this person? Is there really another reason behind their depression? Let's find out before we just say, "here, take this."

If someone has a mental illness, because of any reason, then absolutely - let's treat them...make them better. Of course.

However, if their diagnosis is simply based on a school's not wanting to deal with an unruly child, or the doctor's laziness or greed, then that is a problem.

And ultimately, that will do nothing but end up hurting those who truly needs help.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't think it should be labeled a mental illness just because someone is depressed for 3 weeks.

Why are they depressed? Death in the family? Loss of job? Can't lose weight on their diet?

This person who is depressed because they can't lose 5 pounds goes to the doctor and says they are depressed. The doctor gives them medication.

MY PROBLEM WITH THIS IS: The doctor giving this person meds. How about a little background on this person? Is there really another reason behind their depression? Let's find out before we just say, "here, take this."

If someone has a mental illness, because of any reason, then absolutely - let's treat them...make them better. Of course.

However, if their diagnosis is simply based on a school's not wanting to deal with an unruly child, or the doctor's laziness or greed, then that is a problem.

And ultimately, that will do nothing but end up hurting those who truly needs help.

Broadening the definition will not stop nor encourage Dr.s, parents or anyone from screwing up. Patients come in and DEMAND a pill to calm them down or pick them up. Who is responsible for that?

 

[no1tovote4]

The energy-packed speech with which people spout thier disagreement over a simple definition speaks volumns about the attitude people have towards polls, the government, Dr.s , insurance companies and psychogical probelms. So you think that a 3 week depression should not be labled as a mental illness. What's the big deal if others think it should be?? AGAIN--there is NO insistance that all mental illness even be treated--NO insistance that it be medicated -and NO label tatooed on your forehead. How does this study cause any harm to anyone?

That wasn't the question, and as an example, how does the "obesity" study hurt anyone when it overdiagnoses the issue?

The question was whether this study is scientifically accurate based on logical deduction and reason. As I said before, I question every study that I see before I jump behind it and start pushing. There is a reason for that, I like to believe in what I push.

 

[GotZoom]

Broadening the definition will not stop nor encourage Dr.s, parents or anyone from screwing up. Patients come in and DEMAND a pill to calm them down or pick them up. Who is responsible for that?

Both the parents and the doctor.

Mom and Dad would rather let the medication raise their child and the doctor would rather write the scrip (and collect the fee) than truly diagnosing the problem.

Imagine that....parents parenting? A doctor doing his job?

 

[no1tovote4]

Imagine that....parents parenting? A doctor doing his job?

Sounds like Plato's Utopia...

 

[GotZoom]

Sounds like Plato's Utopia...

Or a parent and the doctor doing the right thing.

 

[dilloduck]

That wasn't the question, and as an example, how does the "obesity" study hurt anyone when it overdiagnoses the issue?

The question was whether this study is scientifically accurate based on logical deduction and reason. As I said before, I question every study that I see before I jump behind it and start pushing. There is a reason for that, I like to believe in what I push.

I can understand skepticism---I are one----I just don't see anyone challenging the study with ALL of the facts because they are not available. Some people have casual doubts? Cool but they are certainly not enough to completly refute was has been presented and no one has looked into the problem at 1/10th the depth that these researchers have. I can tell by the completely erroneous statements that have beens made regarding mental health. Challenge it all you want-just do it with some researched rebuttal--not off the cuff biased opinion