The Lindsay Clancy trial is drawing attention to some important issues in our country. Primarily involving psychiatry, mental illness, and the law. Clancy pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity after admitting to the murder of her three children. She suffered from what psychiatrists call postpartum psychosis. This is a condition that goes beyond the normally understood tenets of postpartum depression. According to an article entitled A Review of Postpartum Psychosis, roughly two out of every one thousand women who give birth may suffer from this condition, whereas thirteen percent experience postpartum depression alone. Furthermore, psychiatrists say that PP itself is likely what they call an “overt presentation of bipolar disorder after delivery.” The symptoms of PP are often paranoid delusions, confused thinking, and disorganized behavior. Another interesting aspect of this trial is the fact that many women are standing in solidarity with Clancy. They are excusing the murder of three children in the name of bringing awareness to women’s mental health issues. There are questions that need to be considered here. First, what is mental illness? Does it exist at all, or is it an abstract concept that was developed and accepted by society to describe and excuse behaviors that are yet to be fully understood? Second, does mental illness excuse criminal behavior? Many people believe it does, as they argue that the mentally ill cannot be held accountable for their actions. Finally, what do we do with people who commit atrocious crimes such as this when they are found not guilty by reason of insanity? The current model suggests that we hospitalize them, coerce them into treatment for their disorder, and then let them go when they are allegedly cured. This article will explore these questions while asking if we, as a society, are taking the right approach to any of these issues.
What is mental illness? This is an emotionally charged question, as millions of people across the country are prescribed powerful, mood-altering drugs to treat a condition they believe themselves to be suffering from. Interestingly, Thomas Szasz points out in Law, Liberty and Psychiatry that most diagnoses of mental health come from people seeking help for symptoms or behaviors they perceive themselves having. They question something they are doing, or the way they are behaving, and seek out psychiatric help precisely because the medicating of behaviors has become so normalized. Szasz argues in both Law, Liberty and Psychiatry, and The Myth of Mental Illness, that mental illnesses do not exist in the way that we understand typical diseases. What does that mean? Basically, illnesses, or a state of health for that matter, cannot exist biologically in a mental state. The term mental itself denotes the processes, or state of being, of the mind. He compares this to the existence of actual diseases of the brain, which, like other biological diseases, can be biologically identified and specifically treated. This isn’t to say that people aren’t suffering from something. Szasz likes to refer to symptoms commonly ascribed to mental disorders as problems of living, as many of these problems can likely be attributed to a traumatic event or too much stress. The bigger point to consider here is the question of whether treating emotional problems like an identified, biological disease, with powerful mood-altering drugs, is the right approach.
Read Full Article: https://thewashingtonstandard.com/psychiatry-morality-the-excuse-of-mental-health/
