In America, the polarization of opinions is incredible. Many Americans, for example, have enormous respect for President Trump, while many others have the polar opposite opinion.
There is something similar to this when it comes to how Americans feel about psychiatrists. There are many people who hold the belief that psychiatrists are enormously helpful to our society by relieving suffering while others believe that psychiatrists have sold out to the pharmaceutical industry, consequently leading to enormous harm.
We get to see and hear favorable positions for the psychiatric point of view from the numerous ads on TV, radio, and print media sponsored by the fabulously wealthy pharmaceutical industry, which has the biggest lobbyist group in Washington, DC (see HERE). This information is presented frequently to people whether or not they wish to be exposed to it unless they choose to live in a cave.
The resources available for presenting the alternative view is relatively minuscule and is not likely to be heard unless citizens actively seek it out. Nevertheless, those who are interested find arguments such as these: 
Psychiatrists have become addicted to the enormous financial benefits of transforming human suffering into a language of mental illness and then convincing people that they need to spend the rest of their life on psychiatric drugs. The consequences to society of this mental illness/drug approach is an enormous increase in people becoming disabled due to the negative drug effects. There is also some recent research suggesting that when women on these drugs become pregnant, there is an increased risk of miscarriages, and if the infant is brought into this world alive, she or he is at an increased risk of serious health consequences.
In my opinion, one of the best places to obtain the arguments about the harmful approach of psychiatric drugs is at the “Mad In America” site that readers can access HERE. It does a great job of defending its position with sound scientific research.
An essential part of the mental illness/psychiatric drug approach involves convincing people that the suffering they experience is a symptom of mental illness. But does that really make sense?
Suffering and Mental Illness
The latest version of what is viewed by psychiatrists as the most authoritative American text on mental illness is the DSM-5. It tells us that mental disorders “are usually associated with significant distress in social, occupational, or other important activities (APA, 2013, p. 20).” There is some additional vague wording here about also having a “dysfunction.” Although my focus here is on the suffering component of the definition, I will say a few words about the functioning part of the definition shortly.
Internationally, the most authoritative text according to psychiatrists is the International Classification of Diseases (ICD, WHO, 1992). It tells us that mental disorder “is not an exact term, but it is used here to imply the existence of a clinically recognizable set of symptoms or behaviour associated in most cases with distress and with interference with personal functions” (p. 11).
Notice that the phrase “significant distress” appears in both definitions. This is the “suffering” component of the definition. Also notice that although this suffering component of the definition is “usually” associated with mental disorder, it is not really a requirement.
I
n case this vague definition does not provide enough wiggle room for clinicians to label all people seeking their services as having a mental disorder and to prescribe a drug for it, the ICD tells the clinician, “When the requirements are only partially fulfilled, it is nevertheless useful to record a diagnosis for most purposes” (p. 8). This type of double talk is one of the reasons why many people view the mental illness construct as too vague for scientific purposes.
Now, let’s go back to the “level of functioning” part of the description in a definition of mental disorders. That part is actually very useful. It is for this reason that I have written a whole post on this topic titled, “Mental Illness or Below Average Functioning.” In brief, if someone is concerned about their level of functioning, we would be much better off saying that, rather than converting this very clear description into pathological mumbo jumbo. By leaving out the psychiatric jargon, we have a clearer understanding of what the person seeking services wants addressed. And it is my contention in the post I wrote on this topic that it would lead to a more reliable and valid bases for scientific research. In my view, the only point in converting a concern about a person’s level of functioning into a language of mental disorders is to support a sales pitch aimed at selling drugs.
Isn’t Suffering Just a Natural Part of Life?
Now, lets get back to the “suffering” component of the mental disorder definition. According to Buddhist philosophy, the first Noble Truth is that to live is to suffer. According to Christian philosophers that I have read, suffering is something to make us think. It is a tool to get our attention and to accomplish the Lord’s purposes in our lives in a way that would never occur without the trial or irritation. In Judaism, the Talmud teaches us that the righteous suffer in this world in order to increase their reward in the Eternal World. Rabbi Eliezer, in the Talmud, welcomed his suffering, calling his pains ”my friends.”
If we look outside the religious teachings, we find that giving birth is accompanied by suffering, and yet it makes more sense to classify this experience as a natural part of creating new life rather than a pathological condition. When writers receive rejections from publishers, or a loved one dies, suffering often accompanies these experiences.
Psychiatrists classify people as having a mental disorder even if no unusual level of suffering is present (e.g., attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, conduct disorder, mental retardation, schizophrenia, narcissistic personality disorder, etc.). 
Add to all of this the problems one encounters when one tries to decide objectively how much suffering, beyond the “normal” amount that one experiences during life’s parade of disappointments, is required to ascribe a diagnosis. In the end, can we really determine if one’s “suffering” is really a symptom of a disorder, or just life being life.
In my view, the quick diagnosis and drug prescription approach that has become the finically rewarding approach by modern psychiatry is a serious mistake. 
In saying this, I am not seeking to encourage people to be disrespectful to people who choose to take psychiatric drugs. It is their life, and it is their right to make the best decision they know how to make, and I wish them well. At the same time, I believe suffering may best be served by exploring what it could potentially provide. In my own life, I have seen numerous examples of people growing from their suffering. And one of the hardest lessons I had to learn, when seeking to be of help, is that there are times when it is best to address another’s suffering not by trying to fix it, but to stand respectfully beside the person’s misery and sharing what they are going through.
——————————-
Some people will enjoy reading this blog by beginning with the first post and then moving forward to the next more recent one; then to the next one; and so on. This permits readers to catch up on some ideas that were presented earlier and to move through all of the ideas in a systematic fashion to develop their emotional intelligence. To begin at the very first post you can click HERE.
Some promote the idea that depression is a disease with genetic factors playing an important role in its development. This line of thinking is theorized to reduce stigma because it reduces any blame for the person who is having the experience. But others say that promoting the idea that this group of people have faulty genes will actually increase stigma even if it does reduce blame.
The current study attempted to replicate the initial findings with a large sample of over 38,000 people of European ancestry, using methods that are viewed as “rigorous best practices.” The team of researchers involved in the study found that the presence of the 5-HTTLPR genotype did not increase a risk of depression, even in those who experienced significant life stressors and traumatic events. However, as expected, stress and trauma by themselves were strongly associated with the development of depression.
As we have seen above, the argument that depression is a genetic disease currently has little scientific support. Nevertheless, there are people who will continue to insist that it is due to genetics because some research indicates that if you have family members who experience depression, you are at an increased risk of also having this type of experience.
There are many examples of people who, when they become depressed, take to their beds for a period of time. And indeed, some people who become depressed, though not most, will violently end their lives.
I am not seeking to eliminate this support, though I bemoan the fact that for many the only support that is offered is a prescription for drugs which I believe in the long run leads to far more harm then good.
To counter stigmatizing these individuals, it is far better than pathologizing their experience if we focus on pointing to the numerous examples of people, such as Abraham Lincoln, who suffered deeply from depression experiences, and yet made enormous contributions to our society. Equally important is to explain that simply being at an increased risk for something doesn’t mean someone has a disease. Risk takers, such as the Wright brothers, are well known to be at an increased risk of an early death, but that characteristic allows some folks to bravely enter into a tiny capsule to explore the moon.
At 39-years of age, Ron had been a respected employee in a department store for nearly ten years. If he had made it to ten full years, he would have qualified for some extra benefits. Upper management chose to replace him with someone new a week before the ten years were up. Discovering that landing a new job was leading to one rejection after another, Ron fell into an anguishing depression.
“You’ve been paying for mental health coverage on your health policy for over fifteen years. You might as well take advantage of it and see if a professional can help you through this.”
At his first appointment with Dr. Sigmund, a cigar smoking psychologist, Ron discovered that to access mental health services with his health policy, he would have to be labeled as a person with a mental disorder. “I don’t want that kind of nonsense in my medical record,” he told Dr. Sigmund. “I’m not mentally ill! I’m just going through some tough times right now and I can use some professional help getting through this.”
“Listen, Doctor, I’ve been paying for this mental health coverage for years and no one ever told me I had to be given a stigmatizing label to access services. That’s not fair.”
In fact we have recently learned that these disorders are properly viewed as genetic diseases. The evidence is pretty plain. We have learned that these types of conditions run in families, and genetic research has even identified the actual genes that are involved.”
First, Dr. Sigmund declares that “Without a mental disorder diagnosis, which I must place on the insurance form, I can’t see you.” This is pretty often true. In the United States, if you want to take advantage of your mental health insurance coverage, insurers require a mental disorder diagnosis [see 
In my opinion, it is not sound science that came up with these types of labels, but rather, a business model that serves the pharmaceutical industry and psychiatry. Psychologists have gone along with the plan for practical reasons. Additionally, some actually are convinced that the labeling system is indeed based on principles of science. For a full critique of their position, see 
In the parable, Dr. Sigmund declares that “these disorders are properly viewed as genetic diseases.” Is this a fair statement? The simple answer is no. To reasonably arrive at this answer, we’ll have to spend some time going step by step through some basic ideas.
Even identical twins won’t always have the same set of these types of characteristics despite the fact that a pair of identical twins have the same set of genes.
To understand why the answer is no, we have to first understand that all species have a great number of characteristics, and each of their characteristics vary to some extent between different members of their species. For example, human beings have a typical height, they can run at a typical speed, etc. The average height of male humans is about 5 feet, 9 inches. Some, men are, however, somewhat taller, others are somewhat shorter, and some are quite a bit taller or quite a bit shorter. Similarly, some men can run at the average speed for men, while others can run at various rates that are different from average.
If someone is above average in height, this does not mean he or she will be above average in running speed. Each of our numerous characteristics can be either within the average range, above average, or below, and because someone is below average in some set of characteristics does not mean that he or she will not have some characteristics that are average or even above average. And these differences are a great boom to the human race. If everyone was brilliant in academics and also had a strong genetic desire to be a professor at Ivy League universities, who would build the roads, drive our trucks, grow our crops, serve in law enforcement, cut our hair, tend to the sick, serve as fire fighters, staff stores, serve us in restaurants, etc.? People with different interests and talents enhance our own lives.
If you do end up shorter than average this does not mean you have a genetic disease, even if we can demonstrate that taller people tend to have some advantages over people who are shorter. Saying that people who are shorter than average have a dysfunction would be stigmatizing while clouding the fact that we cannot determine a person’s overall functioning based on just one set of characteristics. Being shorter, when combined with the rest of a person’s characteristics, can lead to him or her being more useful in a variety of ways.
Let’s move on now from discussing a person’s height to a more complex set of characteristics–athletic performance. There is some evidence that athletic performance might be a set of characteristics that, to some degree, 
Rather than pathologizing below average athletic skills, I’ve seen physical education teachers who encourage such children to participate in some after school programs that develop skills in sports that can be practiced non-competitively, such as running, bicycling, and golf. Some of these children take to such programs willingly and end up staying in fine physical shape the rest of their lives. If they don’t, they suffer the consequences and all of us end up paying higher health premiums because they are at an increased risk of getting sick. At the same time, their other sets of characteristics, when combined with their couch potato ways, may offer them and the rest of us some valued fruits.
I know that some psychologists say, it is only the sets of characteristics that can be linked in some way to a “dysfunction” that are properly labeled as a disease. But the dysfunctional descriptor is so vague that it can be applied to the vast majority of people, and, perhaps, everyone.
How about becoming a psychiatrist? This may run in the family. If we find that becoming a psychiatrist increases the likelihood of committing suicide, which some data suggests, are all of them to be viewed as having a genetic disease, or would it be clearer, and more scientific, to say their set of characteristics is a “risk factor” for some negative outcome? I believe the latter is more scientific.
Instead, psychologists have a conversation with the person seeking mental health services.
As I read the research on this issue, it became plain to see that genes can be likened to the buds of a beautiful flower. If they meet up with the right soil, sunlight, water, and care, they typically blossom into something beautiful. But even with a great deal of wonderful nourishment, sometimes they get tangled up with some surrounding weeds. Stigmatizing labels don’t help in such situations. Instead, some wise gardening can make a beautiful difference.
Today, if your behavior, thoughts, or feelings begin to concern you or a family member, for a fee many doctors will translate your experiences into mental illness terminology. Synonyms for mental illness, are mental disease, mental sickness, mental disorder, and psychopathology. These terms, as metaphors for experiences someone doesn’t like, have been with us for centuries. When used in this way, it can communicate something about an experience that others relate to. However, when we move from using these types of concepts as metaphors to believing wholeheartedly that they are proper scientific terms, we begin to lose the respect of those well grounded in the principles of science.
Let’s consider The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, which William Shakespeare wrote in about 1604. This play offers its audience a magnificent tale of adultery, fratricide, revenge, and feigned madness by a protagonist. When reading Hamlet, we see how Shakespeare uses metaphors to vividly evoke in us the experiences of his characters. Thus, when Hamlet becomes dissatisfied that his mind keeps identifying flaws in his plans for action, he describes these plans as becoming “all sicklied o’er with pale cast of thought.” By extension, the reader senses that when Hamlet’s plans become “all sicklied o’er,” he, too, becomes in a sense, “sicklied o’er” with feelings of frustration, anguish, and helplessness.
Literature regularly uses this type of metaphor. Ralph Waldo Emerson, to take another example, once wrote:
I actually like Emerson’s disease terminology here because the context in which he uses it so obviously reveals that he is using it metaphorically. Notice how he cleverly uses diseases associated with childhood to evoke the feeling that individuals who worry themselves over problems of original sin and so on are acting, in his view, childishly. In this context, disease, to Emerson, was a metaphor for immaturity. If he were a man of science, in contrast to a literary personality, we would expect that he would use terms with clearly defined, objective meaning, that avoid value judgements.
At the time, medical writers were already heavily pathologizing a great number of experiences. Thus, James cited W. Griesinger, the author of The Pathology and Therapy of Psychological Illnesses, and T. S. Clouston, author of Clinical Lectures on Mental Diseases. As James delved further and further into the experiences being pathologized in this way, he came to believe such terminology was “simple minded” and “superficial medical talk.”
Does it make sense to say that when people are suffering, they have a “mental disorder?” Well, consider the experience of giving birth. It is typically accompanied by suffering, and yet it makes more sense to classify this experience as a natural part of creating new life rather than a pathological condition.
When writers receive rejections from publishers, or a loved one dies, suffering often accompanies these experiences. Yet, we do not typically describe them with pathological terms.
For example, cortisol levels in saliva and heart rate variability has some connection with a person’s self-reports of how much stress they have experienced in recent days, while hair cortisol levels have some connection with longer term exposure to stressful experience. Other measures of stress utilize a list of stressors, such as the recent death of a loved one, living in poverty, etc. The person being assessed places a check mark next to each of the stressors on the list that applies to him or her. These check marks are then used to calculate how much stress the person has been experiencing.
Having indicated some of the problems of unambiguously, and non-subjectively applying the descriptors of suffering to the concept of mental disorder, we now turn our attention to the descriptor, “dysfunction.” As with the notion of suffering, the pathologizers almost never use the various scientifically validated measures of functioning to determine if someone has a mental disorder. A pretty good such measure is the Scales of Independent Behavior-Revised. It has norms for functioning in such areas as social interaction (communication skills, language comprehension, language expression), personal living skills (eating and meal preparation, toileting, dressing, personal self-care, domestic skills), community living skills (time and punctuality, money and value, work skills), and gross and fine motor skills. Rather than using measures of this type, pathologizers rely on their professional privilege to make a subjective estimate of dysfunction.
In the most current edition of the DSM, someone who is experiencing abnormal levels of distress might be considered to have a mental disorder. But the issue of the boundary between normal and abnormal experiences lies at the heart of the most contentious disputes in the field of psychopathology today. A major problem with using the term abnormal as one of the defining attributes of mental illness is that it leads us to forget the fact that natural to all organisms is substantial variability across individuals and within individuals. Having above average or below average functioning in various areas of our many areas of functioning is normal. Displaying rare behavior patterns that are highly valued, such as the great altruism of Mother Teresa, are not viewed as mental disorders. Psychopathology is applied when someone does not like a particular experience. Thus, a term that masquerades as a scientific term is really a value judgment masquerading as a scientific term.
Although there are some fairly well developed scientific measures of the three major factors (suffering, functioning, and abnormality) that the psychopatholgizers tend to claim are usually part of the mental illness experience, these measures are almost never used in their “diagnostic” determination. Instead, subjective indicators of these three factors are combined into an even more subjective abstraction called “mental illness.” This process is not scientific despite claims to the contrary.
Rather than a scientific concept, the mental illness concept has been very useful as part of a highly lucrative business plan for the pharmaceutical industry and medical doctors, which includes psychiatrists. This plan has doctors first convincing people that the experiences referred to as mental illnesses are scientifically real illnesses just like physiological pathologies. It then provides license for doctors, in as little as fifteen minutes, to declare that they have provided their patients a diagnosis, and to send them on their way with a prescription for pills. With this plan, billions of dollars flow their way.