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

[onedomino]

You didn't read the article then:



This was not a $20 million dollar government study, the primary sponsor of the study is the National Institute of Mental Health. Follow the money friend...

Then the "study" says that mental illness is chronic and highly prevalent, therfore causing us to look around to see how many of our friends are chronically mentally ill and finding that the numbers do not match to the reality that we know and see every day.

Read the article? I posted the thing, which I now regret. The study referred to "those people who had suffered from a mental illness at some point in their lives..." The NIMH is a government agency!! http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/index.cfm. I give up. Believe whatever you want. Ignore the research.

 

[onedomino]

And what do you make of the fact that however many clinically disordered people there are, half recover without treatment? Doesn't that make you wonder if they should really have been described as disordered to start with?

Many people who go to the doctor for physical illnesses (e.g., colds, flu, infections, etc.) would also recover without treatment. Does that mean they were not sick? Of course not. The same is true of mentall illness.

 

[GotZoom]

Many people who go to the doctor for physical illnesses (e.g., colds, flu, infections, etc.) would also recover without treatment. Does that mean they were not sick? Of course not. The same is true of mentall illness.

How many of this 50% are truly mentally ill? Are the stats the same for all the decades from the 50's on?

I wonder what effect lack of parenting skills and a stable home life have on this study. Kids back then couldn't pull the kind of stunts they do today to get out of school. Then it translates into the same thing for work. "Cough, cough, I don't feel good..I can't go to work." "Oh, I feel blue...I better see the doctor."

If mom and dad told little Johnnie or Jamie to get their ass out of bed and go to school - they aren't sick - and little Johnnie or Jamie knew they couldn't pull that kind of BS with mom and dad so they didn't try - what would little Johnnie and Jamie be like today?

 

[USViking]

Read the article? I posted the thing, which I now regret. The study referred to "those people who had suffered from a mental illness at some point in their lives..." The NIMH is a government agency!! http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/index.cfm. I give up. Believe whatever you want. Ignore the research.

Yes, I read the article, including the part you are yelling about here, and I stand by the questions I have already posed about it.

And having the august words "Government Agency" stamped on one's forehead does not confer infalliblility- that is one thing everyone can agree with, isn't it?

 

[Said1]

Read the article? I posted the thing, which I now regret. The study referred to "those people who had suffered from a mental illness at some point in their lives..." The NIMH is a government agency!! http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/index.cfm. I give up. Believe whatever you want. Ignore the research.

I think it's ok to assume this is accurate, given that there are usually reasons causing anxiety and depression. Some are really mentally ill for whatever reason, but I'm sure most of here have had bouts of depression brought on by events in our lives. I for one have, even though I didn't cry for a disability pension, much less a day off.

 

[USViking]

Many people who go to the doctor for physical illnesses (e.g., colds, flu, infections, etc.) would also recover without treatment. Does that mean they were not sick? Of course not. The same is true of mentall illness.

So if they do not need a doctor, they are not really very sick, are they?

What the study did, I believe, was lump the trivial (runny noses, etc.) together with the truly serious (hypertension, etc.).

Probably some Blue-state bureaucrats with academic alphabet soup stuck to the ends of their names trying to explain to themselves how half the country could possibly have voted against the candidate of their choice.

 

[onedomino]

And having the august words "Government Agency" stamped on one's forehead does not confer infalliblility

I never said that it did. I was responding to No1ToVote4's assertion that it was not a government agency that conducted the research.

 

[Mr. P]

I saw this article in the paper, and it is a crock.

"Extended sadness" is a mental disorder symptom?! "Extreme anxiety" is an actual disorder? These are part of the burden that each human being must bear for a lifetime.

.....

I was was going to say the same thing..guess that pumps it up to 100% doesn't it?

 

[no1tovote4]

Read the article? I posted the thing, which I now regret. The study referred to "those people who had suffered from a mental illness at some point in their lives..." The NIMH is a government agency!! http://www.nimh.nih.gov/about/index.cfm. I give up. Believe whatever you want. Ignore the research.

The NIMH seeks funding like every other portion of the Federal Government, as I said FOLLOW THE MONEY. This particular Government entity gains funding if there are more mental illnesses than if there are less, they have a direct and pointed reason to redefine mental illness to include many normal reactions to life and therefore increase their funding and power.

The "research" isn't any more qualified in such a soft science than personal observation. Give up if you must, but you should be able to see that reasoned perusal of the article and study give us reason to question the validity of the results when there is clear reason to suspect that this government entity may have reason to skew the result of the study so that they will have not only a continued existence, but larger funding as well.

Nodding in agreement just because the "government" says so is simply another way of doing this:

 

[no1tovote4]

I never said that it did. I was responding to No1ToVote4's assertion that it was not a government agency that conducted the research.

Unfortunately I didn't look to make sure, but it still didn't take my reasoning into argument that human motive may have a way of skewing the results and in fact actually makes it more salient. The competition for funding at the Federal Level between departments such as this should make you immediately question the results of their "studies". There are far too many immediate reasons that making normal human reaction to life a "mental disorder" would be helpful to the factual funding of such an organization that it makes it even more questionable than if it were simply funded by a University.

Oh, and I am not "ignoring" the research, I am simply questioning the research. Amazingly, this is what scientific method is all about, especially in such a "soft science" field.

 

[Avatar4321]

Big government is responsible to 90% of the so called mental illness.

 

[dilloduck]

The report comes amid debate about whether adults and children should be screened for mental disorders, and where the line between illness and health should be drawn. The answers will have an enormous effect on who receives treatment and which disorders are covered by insurance.

I see by the responses to this article that the fear, ignorance and denial of mental illness still runs rampant in America. Being diagnosed as mentally ill does NOT exempt a person from responsibility for thier behavior but may enable them to recieve help for behavior that can be socially destructive and cost America billions of dollars a year if left ignored and untreated.
The purpose of this article is to determine the scope of the problem and what should be done about it. Physical ailments are redefined and definitions broadened constantly to determine insurance and treatment eligibility. Why the problem with mental ailments? If you think anyone who works for a government agency that treats mental illness is there to get rich, you better think again. Better yet go apply for a job and see how much less you get paid than people who do the same job in the private sector.
The article does not say that all mental illness needs treatment or that 50% of people are mentally ill all the time. It also does not identify all the causes of mental illness. It very simply states it's findings related to its' prevalence over the lifetimes of all Americans. Mental illness is not one disease. It comes in multiplte forms for multiple reasons.
It amazes me how some mock the "popping" of a pill to treat mental illness as a joke. Do you have any idea why we do not have the snake pits with chains, bars and personal restaints that were prevalent prior to the discovery of psychotropic drugs?
If nothing else, please do some serious research before you pooh pooh mental illness. Schizophrenia, Major Depression or Anxiety disorders or not just things that you can "decide" not to have.

 

[USViking]

I see by the responses to this article that the fear, ignorance and denial of mental illness still runs rampant in America. Being diagnosed as mentally ill does NOT exempt a person from responsibility for thier behavior but may enable them to recieve help for behavior that can be socially destructive and cost America billions of dollars a year if left ignored and untreated.
The purpose of this article is to determine the scope of the problem and what should be done about it. Physical ailments are redefined and definitions broadened constantly to determine insurance and treatment eligibility. Why the problem with mental ailments? If you think anyone who works for a government agency that treats mental illness is there to get rich, you better think again. Better yet go apply for a job and see how much less you get paid than people who do the same job in the private sector.
The article does not say that all mental illness needs treatment or that 50% of people are mentally ill all the time. It also does not identify all the causes of mental illness. It very simply states it's findings related to its' prevalence over the lifetimes of all Americans. Mental illness is not one disease. It comes in multiplte forms for multiple reasons.
It amazes me how some mock the "popping" of a pill to treat mental illness as a joke. Do you have any idea why we do not have the snake pits with chains, bars and personal restaints that were prevalent prior to the discovery of psychotropic drugs?
If nothing else, please do some serious research before you pooh pooh mental illness. Schizophrenia, Major Depression or Anxiety disorders or not just things that you can "decide" not to have.

No one here has denied that many forms of serious mental illness exist.

The issues raised here legitimately question the diagnostic assumptions of the study which is the subject of this thread, and the plausibility of its conclusions.

 

[onedomino]

No one here has denied that many forms of serious mental illness exist.

The issues raised here legitimately question the diagnostic assumptions of the study which is the subject of this thread, and the plausibility of its conclusions.

As though you would even be remotely qualified to do that. One must assume you are either a trained psychologist or psychiatrist specializing in the prevalence of mental illness in the US. Oh wait, you are the one who specializes in how high the bar should be.

 

[dilloduck]

No one here has denied that many forms of serious mental illness exist.

The issues raised here legitimately question the diagnostic assumptions of the study which is the subject of this thread, and the plausibility of its conclusions.

If you question extreme anxiety or extended sadness as being a form of mental illness you are ignorant regarding mental illness. The subject of the thread is the a study that claims 50% of Americans suffer mental illness at some point in thier lives----what evidence can you show me to contradict that other than a laymans opinion based on no research?

 

[Annie]

If you question extreme anxiety or extended sadness as being a form of mental illness you are ignorant regarding mental illness. The subject of the thread is the a study that claims 50% of Americans suffer mental illness at some point in thier lives----what evidence can you show me to contradict that other than a laymans opinion based on no research?

I'm not speaking for Viking, but this reminds me of a thread -=d=- started awhile ago on ADD. My take on this and that, yes the disease(s) exist, are they over diagnosed? Over prescribed? Definately.

 

[USViking]

As though you would even be remotely qualified to do that. One must assume you are either a trained psychologist or psychiatrist specializing in the prevalence of mental illness in the US. Oh wait, you are the one who specializes in how high the bar should be.

Everyone on this planet is much more than remotely qualified to comment on whether half the people he has ever known have shown signs of suffering from significant mental illness.

I would say it has been not even 5% in my case, and if I am off by a factor of five, which I doubt, that would only get us up to 25%.

What have your own observations been?

There is no doubt in my mind that the ludicrous figure arrived at by the study we are discussing is being rebutted by scientific specialists as we speak.

The subject is so trendy, however, that sexed-up studies like this one are bound to get the lion's share of attention. I can only hope that more rational minds eventually prevail, and that the brouhaha fades away before the compassionate liberals AND conservatives of this country decide to start shelling out a few bazillion dollars to treat conditions best left to the passage of time alone to cure.

 

[dilloduck]

I'm not speaking for Viking, but this reminds me of a thread -=d=- started awhile ago on ADD. My take on this and that, yes the disease(s) exist, are they over diagnosed? Over prescribed? Definately.

Actually most mental illnesses go undiagnosed and untreated until it's too late. Are all Dr.s good at treating them---not any better than those who treat physical illness. Is this any reason to not attempt to educate people as to its' prevalence and treatments available ?? Hardly.

 

[Annie]

Actually most mental illnesses go undiagnosed and untreated until it's too late. Are all Dr.s good at treating them---not any better than those who treat physical illness. Is this any reason to not attempt to educate people as to its' prevalence and treatments available ?? Hardly.

I'm not arguing that. My guess is the 50% number is used to descibe the fact that many have 'significant depression' for an extended period of time-more than 3 weeks. That doesn not normally necessitate meds or visits to a psychiatrist, such as with the loss of a significant family member. While some will become 'chronically depressed' for most this is a situational depression, that needs to be experienced in order to 'cope'.

 

[dilloduck]

Everyone on this planet is much more than remotely qualified to comment on whether half the people he has ever known have shown signs of suffering from significant menatal illness.

I would say it has been not even 5% in my case, and if I am off by a factor of five, which I doubt, that would only get us up to 25%.

What have your own observations been?

There is no doubt in my mind that the ludicrous figure arrived at by the study we are discussing is being rebutted by scientific specialists as we speak.

The subject is so trendy, however, that sexed-up studies like this one are bound to get the lion's share of attention. I can only hope that more rational minds eventually prevail, and that the brouhaha fades away before the compassionate liberals AND conservatives of this country decide to start shelling out a few bazillion dollars to treat conditions best left to the passage of time alone to cure.

Wrong again--this study will disappear in a week--you seeing a bunch of news reporting on this study?? People are afraid of mental illness and deny it's prevalence---until it hits them or someone they love. Sure everyone can fling out an opinion on this study--issue is--Who are you going to believe--Obviously not someone who has no experiance with it.