h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Different ways of thinking about Mental Illness - A1122869
Author: Z - Still the Scout who can't Spell - U185843

Hello!

Do you think this makes sense? do you think it's a balanced and reasonable overview.

it really needs work on the flow.

the way the language is used in the entry, it jumps around all over the place.

however on the larger point that the article attempts to cover, the main problem is that we don't generally have a clue about either the causes or the effective treatments of mental illness.

as a lot of the current suggested treatments carry considerable side effects, and refusing those treatments can get the control of your treatment reassigned to the doctor who was going to give you a treatment you didn't want, the best description we can give off current mental health services is barely this side of medieval.

(I thought I would give them the benefit of the doubt )

No xyroth that isn't my basic point. If that's the impression that is given I need to give this a complete rewrite. My point was that these are all over simplified models. There is evidence that all three types of factors play a part for most mental illnesses, and that treatments drawn on all three models do work.


I've recently completed a placement in a psychiatric hospital, and I found the system to be far from barbaric. In fact they were a group of caring proffessionals trying to do their best for the patients. Even if a patient was being treated compulsary they would spend days, sometimes weeks searching for a treatment with the least number of side effects that was the most acceptable to the patient.

I've tried to work on the flow. It is however very general critism, so it's difficult to see if the minor changes that have been made have made a difference. Perhaps if you could be a bit more specific, which parts don't flow well?

I've just realised my response to xyroth was unfair, this entry isn't about the compularsay treatment in anyway at all, nor are my personal experiences relevent at all.

Ok here are my thoughts on this entry:

1) the subject matter is good, and will definitely be good for the guide (GFTG).
2) The title didn't match what I was expecting. That doesn't mean to say it's wrong but I would have preferred something like "Different Medical Perspectives on Treating Mental Illness".

3) You just dive in there with "If you have a myocardial infarction, commonly known as a coronary, MI, or heart attack, the facts are not up for debate". I can't see too many people wanting to read further into this entry. This opening paragraph, while having good content, needs to be written more appealingly.

How about:
"In diagnosing mental illnesses, doctors are placed at a disadvantage because they cannot directly observe the illness - only its effects on the behaviour and well-being of the patient. Contrast this to a physical illness, such as a heart attack, where an initial diagnosis may be arrived at from a checklist of symptoms (e.g. [tightness of chest, blah,blah,blah]), but could be subsequently confirmed through observation of the heart's arteries and whether they are successfully supplying blood to the heart."

At very worst I would split the opening paragraph into 2. The split being at the "... get to the heart muscle before it died. [SPLIT] However if you have a ..." point.

4) I would consider restructuring your entry as:

- Intro
-- observing physical illness.
-- mental illness caused by genetics, environment, interaction of both.

- What is a Model?
-- The Swan [I really like this example, it's good, to the point and different].

- Case study of mental illness.
-- Example of 33-year old person who is afraid of snakes.

- Biological models.
-- explain them.
-- explain how they would treat the snake-a-phobic.

- Psycholgical Models.
- explain them
-- explain how they treat ...

- Social Models.
- explain.
- explain treatment example.

- Concluding finale.

Alternatively - leave your e.g. at the bottom and bullet point each model's explanations.

5) A comment on models. "Models" are the basis of all science - physical and mental. But they perhaps apply even more to psychology because we cannot directly measure things, only indirectly measure them with tools such as questionnaires, interviews and Rorschach tests.

6) With the greatest of respect, your grammar takes away from the entry. Just the insertion of a few commas, apostrophes, bit of spell-checking would greatly assist the reader. Perhaps export it to Word, do the checking in there and import back?

Hope this gives some specifics. Good luck.

BBS

Brilliant! This is the reason I submit my work to PR, I thought that it was finished, but now I've seen how to improve it considerably. I've taken all of your suggestions on board, and added some a section on how the social model leads to a fundamental disgreement with the concept of treatment without the consent of a patient.

I have cut and pasted the piece into Microsoft Word and carried out the spelling and grammar check. I've also spent a lot of time trying to get the grammar correct, though i do find this difficult with my own writing.


Thanks for all your time, I'd be interested to know what you think of it.

Hello Z

I like this A few minor points...

The article seems to jump quickly from the case study to biological models, and it isn't really clear that you're about to examine several different models. Making that clear would have improved the flow for me.

As for the headers, I would put 'A Case Study' as a header and the models as subheaders. That's just opinion though and makes little difference in any skin but goo.

Agree with BBS about the title. A little unclear.

This sentence could be improved
"Because she finds this embarrassing, so as a result she is embarrassed to leave her house in case she sees a spider. "

How about 'Because she finds this embarrassing Anna avoids leaving the house in case she sees a spider.' It's not great, but that or something similar might scan better.

Love the closing paragraph.

D

Hi, I've made the changes you suggest.

I'm not sure what to change the title to, and I'd appricate your contributions.

"Models of Mental Illness" is a little dry, yet "Approaches to Medically treating mental illness" is inaccurate, as the pscyhological and social models are used by many psychologists and counsellors who fall out of the medical proffession.

Thanks a lot for your input, I'm glad you like the final paragraph.

It's looking better ...

I still have some comments, but not enought time to go through with a tooth-comb.

1) Title could be : "Different Approaches to Treating Mental Illnesses".

2) Although improved, it is still very difficult to read. Probably due to the use of big words - which is unavoidable given the subject matter. I think the solution is to chop some sentences in two.

I'll try to give some examples later when I have time.

3) A bit of bold and italicising of key words e.g. model, biological explanation should make it easier to get the flow.

Later,
BBS

Do you think this is better?

hi Z.

this is definately an improvement.

however I would dispute a small section about anna's case and the shrink.

while I would agree that the shrink has their own agenda, and believes they have the patients best interests at heart, there are a lot of mental health service users I know who would agree with me that the shrink woould try and deal with their idea of what anna's problem happened to be, rather than dealing with the bits that were actually causing the problems for anna at the time.

In particular, I know of quite a few cases where the situation has literally been critical, and where any interested individual can get a clue as to where the problem areas were, but where the mental health care professionals insisted on treating completely different beliefs which often made the problem worse while completely ignoring the actual problem.

and I speak as someone who has been a regular user of the mental health services since before I left school.

how you could reflect those problems in your article however, I am not sure.

I like the title much more now! IMHO it makes much more sense.

Just a question - is the case study real? (I'll assume it is, as AFAIK that's what case study means.) If Anna is the 33-year-old's real name, you should probably change it. If it's not her real name, you should probably include a footnote "A real person, but not her real name." or something similar. I think.

I've only read about half of this, so I'll read the rest later and then make more comments if necessary.

Niwt

Xyroth

The point I was trying to make in the example is that regardless of which model of psychiartic illness the psychiartrist happens to think is true she should make a descion based on which treatment is supported best by evidence.

Sometimes pscyhiartrists will get the wrong idea of what the situation is, sometimes they'll make the wrong descions. But that isn't exclusive to psychiartrists, we all make mistakes in our jobs, however the consequences of their mistakes are worse. I have to agree that I can't see how it would be represented in the article. It isn't a defense of pscyhiatry.

Niwt, actually the case study was made up.. so I'd better make that clear in the article, I choose an example of an illness that was easy to understand, and could be treated using both biological and pscyhological methods.

If the case study is made up, then I'm not sure it's actually a case study. Maybe you should call it an example instead, or make clear it's made up.

Niwt

Which is what I've changed it to! I realise I used the wrong word now.

Very



I shall now actually read it!

Niwt

Although maybe "Example" would be better than "Imaginary" - sounds slightly more serious.

Niwt

Changed!

Niwt