Politics and mental health a poor mix


September 12, 2011

“Psychiatry has a way of becoming a political football in public discourse.”

“Psychiatry has a way of becoming a political football in public discourse.”

Imagine a tribunal where the public could challenge clinical decisions by neurosurgeons or cardiologists. It would be ridiculous. But mental health is different. Unlike other medical specialties, it resembles law or politics: fields where subtle variations in the interpretation of a word can alter the entire trajectory of a patient’s treatment.

That’s why the right to appeal clinical decisions by mental health professionals through a tribunal, announced recently by the NSW government, met with public approval. Mental health possesses a built-in capacity for abuse that is greater than in other areas of medicine. A patient’s psychiatric diagnosis has enormous cultural power in many other fields, from the marketing of antidepressant medications, to general practice, disability claims and legal proceedings.

The contestable nature of mental health is also why there is a constant battle to keep it free from politics. Some of the 20th century’s most despotic regimes used mental health to oppress opponents, coining disorders such as ”delusions of capitalism” in the Soviet Union or ”politically paranoid” in China. But psychiatry has a way of becoming a political football in public discourse regardless of how authoritarian or democratic the society.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Today it is increasingly a tool of progressive politics, used to highlight the human pain apparently caused by harsh policies. In the case of asylum seekers, for example, any emotional distress is automatically viewed through the lens of mental health. Resilient individuals who have escaped harsh circumstances and coped with far-reaching travel are suddenly classified as fragile, undone by bureaucratic delay and limited incarceration. There is no doubt mental illness exists among asylum seekers, but its prevalence is vastly overstated.

In one of the more farcical applications of psychiatry to political debates, a report this month linked inaction on climate change to the possibility of worsening mental health. Released by the Climate Institute, it suggested that increasing natural disasters might be linked to climate change, which might lead to increased costs in mental healthcare. The evidence for every link was slight at best, yet the novelty of the report ensured widespread attention.

It was launched by Professor Ian Hickie, who has been rightly recognised for giving mental health a greater profile, but who has also played politics to do so.

Hickie has done more than any other clinician to promote tick-a-box diagnosis, particularly among general practitioners, who now regularly prescribe antidepressants through questionnaires alone. With former Australian of the Year Professor Patrick McGorry, Hickie has made overblown claims about the prevalence of mental health.

It is disingenuous to suggest, as McGorry has done, that there is no conflict of interest because their organisations are non-profit. Their bodies shared in $2.2 billion of funding in the federal budget. Their exorbitant claims – such as one in four people will suffer mental illness – are indicative of a blurring of the lines between illness and normal, human responses to adversity.

Another good example of the uneasy relationship between politics and mental health – and how one can colour the other – is the former Victorian premier Jeff Kennett, a tireless campaigner in raising awareness for depression who openly admits he uses the term not in its medical context, but as a synonym for emotional distress.

The fiercest critics of this modern therapeutic culture in Western societies have argued that the decline of the political left is at the heart of the trend – in particular, the collapse of any ambition for social change.

Having given up on the notion that human beings could collectively change the world, the argument goes, the left has instead focused on people adapting to their circumstances.

While conservatives have always had a modest narrative about the human subject, emphasising fallibility, tradition and an inferiority to God, social democrats now present a picture of people as even more powerless – weak, feeble citizens continually at risk.

It is admirable that governments recognise the contentious nature of mental health, and that people who suffer from or treat the horrific effects of serious mental illness can help lift its profile. But the growing manipulation of this very malleable field in political debate is a much less edifying trend.

Dr Tanveer Ahmed is a psychiatrist.

2 responses to this post.

  1. It would be interesting to see who sits on this tribunal that reviews mental health decisions. Psych Survivors? Bio-ethics people? Or people just wanting to give a rubber stamp to the psychiatrist’s opinion?

    Mental Health hearings are nothing short of Star Chamber proceedings. If you refuse to incriminate yourself, then this is prima facie evidence that you lack insight. Therefore, you will be forced to undergo help. If you incriminate yourself and confess, then you will be forced to undergo help.

    The author is dead on with his opinions about abrogation of the Left to change anything about the world and their desire to force others to accept it as it is. This is not the noble liberal cause I grew up to respect.

    However, I have to take issue that it would be odd for public review of the opinions of cardiologists and neurosurgeons. Public review would be unnecessary for such decisions, because the patient would have full right to accept or reject medical advice and/or to get an opinion elsewhere, unlike psychiatric decisions.


  2. As a patient who was periodically hospitalized for long periods of time in over crowded horribly depressing conditions and constantly given differing diagnoses(I am bipolar) I have now come to be hopeless and convinced in hindsight that psychiatry has done far more to destroy my life than help me in any positive way. Not to mention others I have known personally. And when I think of the literal millions of dollars that were allegedly spent to treat my “problem” over the years and the slum I have recently come to inhabit at the age of 63 I am beyond feelings of rage and impotency because there is literally nothing to be done at this point of my life to give it any kind of joy or purpose other than the few times I managed alone to commit some harmless act of civil disobedience that allowed my family, with the help of all too willing authorities and psychiatrists, to have me committed again and again so that I would not embarrass myself, them or some one else.

    I would just like to end this by saying that I read tonight that the “mentally ill” kill 1,000…or was it 10,000 people a year? Not that it really matters one way or another when I wonder how many millions the World oligarchy kills or manages to have killed with the disproportionate amount of wealth that it assures is institutionalized and the overwhelming impoverishment and despair that results directly because of it.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: