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

Entry: Madness - A597396
Author: Zaphod: alchemically treated with lashings of water & "tickety-boo" tea - U176577

With all the madness going on in the world, does 'madness' have a place in the larger scheme of things? Or is it something we can well do without? This entry attempts to examine the strange subject of madness. Also includes euphemisms for 'being slightly mad' as contributed by the h2g2 community.

There is a problem with the first half, to do with the way it is phrased.

While I don't dispute the facts, the way they are presented definately has a problem. It absolutely reeks of the bad journalistic habit of "one schizophrenic get's violent" being presented as "yet another schizophrenic get's violent" with overtones of "and therefore all schizophrenics are violent".

Considering that 1 in 10 of the population will suffer clinical depression within their lifetime, this tone is both unhelpfull, and counter-productive.

most "mad people" are undiagnosed, as they don't actually encounter the psychiatric services at all. of those who do get diagnosed, most of them are not dangerous either to themselves or to anyone else.

Admittedly, they do think differently, but this has advantages as well as disadvantages. This is usually ignored.

Considering the high level of mental health prejudice (both generally and here) this article needs to be much more positive about the advantages of mental health, the problems with the mental health services, and generally less negative about mental health service users in general.

Me thinks that the discussion topic was on the general Madness
as it applies to the World stage. Not the subject related to in 1st posting on the subject. However the posting was well formed and thought out. In the context applied to the World stage it is a noteworthy topic for discussion! As the consequences affect us all.
Donald Gene FitzGerald aka The KID.

If the tone had been better, then I wouldn't haveneeded to have brought the subject up.

but with statistics of 1 in 10 for depression alone, that means that everyone has at least one member of close family who will suffer from the prejudice against mental illness. for this reason the tone becomes very important.

as the old saying goes "if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem" and for this subject, it is spot on.

I get your drift, having dealt people with such conditions. l can understand your views. My intent was not to harm your feelings.With that having been said. l for one don't understand such prejudice. If people were to understand more and condemn less the percentages would be Dramatically redused.
The KID.

PS Should had previewed

My intention is not to cause offense but to point out the awful stigma of mental illness, the causal link between mental illness and madness both historically and in the contemporary popular imagination, and the appropriation of 'madness' by the medical profession - rightly or wrongly. I've taken great pains to keep the entry impartial and objective, as well as to highlight that 'madness' is very subjective and open to interpretation. At its lowest common denominator madness=difference=intolerance/prejudice. Can we agree that terrorism is madness from a civilised perspective but is quite sane and logical from the terrorist viewpoint? Yes, I have looked at the subject in a global sense, at least used it as a starting point. As for the tone, can you give specific examples please.
zaphod

By the way, forgot to mention that I didn't intend to convey that so-called 'mad' people are an homogenuous group with identical needs. Far from it! The diverse characteristics of famous individuals assumed to be 'mad' was a point I was trying to stress.
Zaphod

Xyroth, what evidence have you that most mad people remain undiagnosed and have no contact with psychiatric services. I must warn you I work in the field.

Having friends that are diagnosed diabetic, I canrecognise the symptoms in people who are undiagnosed. When I comment on this and they get it checked, they do usually turn out to be diabetic.

Having been in raucby mental hospital around severly mentally ill people, and having known lots of others, I can similarly recognise the signs, and for those who I mention it to, it turns out that a sizable percentage of them have been diagnosed as having exactly what I spot them having. There is another group, however who have the symptoms but for whom they are not a problem.

Having seen too many people being screwed up by shrinks and other mental health professionals who think that their opinion as to what symptoms (but not what side effects) are tolerable is more important than the patients, I generally advise them to go in for a policy of self-management. If the symptoms later do get unmanagable, they also tend to recieve a diagnosis similar to what I spotted.

The psychiatric and mental health services only tend to get involved when there is a serious problem with self-management, and thus they don't tend to see the rest of the people.

The health service in general also seems to have a problem when you get multiple interacting conditions.

Xyroth, some of your earlier comments have sunk in so I've tried to make the piece less 'bombastic' (if that's what you meant by 'the tone'?) and more user-focused, and finding other contexts and perspectives on madness/insanity, with reference to anti-psychiatrist RD Laing, T Szasz, and philosopher's like Hegel. I've had to leave out a great deal, and my main problem has been following madness out of the mental asylum and hospitals and into the wider world (where it has a more generic social meaning).
See what you think and I'll be grateful for any comments. Have you noticed that out-reach teams are the latest government initiative for working with 'hard-to-engage' community clients. And yes, you're right, these days you have to be really seriously ill to get a hospital bed, and then the care tends to be of a custodial nature (i.e. few staff).
Zaphod

Every is affected by some sort of Psychosis. It's the
degree &sevierity of ? and interest some view it as a weakness and refuse to accept it. post it off on others which can symtoms contagious or at the least have said effect. We all have some sort of odditiy. Just some get caught. understanding is the Key
not another Rx.

The entry has been improved

however, it does still have the large amount of negativity there.

Also is the problem of "mad=ill", "mad=indoctrinated" and "mad=mob" type meanings being used interchangably, and not very descriminatingly.

It needs re-ordering i think.

start with mad=ill, pointing out that while a few people are dangerous to themselves, and even fewer are dangerous to others, most mentally ill people are just as strange and quirky and safe as anyone else.

Then perhaps cover the mad=mob angle, where mod psychology takes over and you get riot, pointing out that this actually has nothing to do with mental health, and has more to do with peer pressure type influences.

Lastly cover the mad=indoctrinated angle, which includes cults, suicide bombers, etc and point out that it is not really connected to any of the other things that go under the name of "mad".

That will change the tone considerably, because while still keeping almost all of the current content, it will distance the mental healt aspects form all of the others, rather than leaving it asit is now where mental health gets a minor mention, and is presented such that it is lumped in with the other types of behaviour.

Thanks v. much for comments. I suppose I could have split it up into 'mad', 'bad' and 'sad' camps - but then that would be too simplistic. I do prefer the medical, social and psychological categories. I'll have to on it, re-read tomorrow and get back to you, as I've had a hard day at work.
Zaphod

I don't mind too muh how you pidgeon hole them, it's the mixing the usages interchangably that realy causes the problem.

keep up the good work.

I've finally re-vamped the entry in the best way I can, incorporating your suggested format. I must say I do feel alot happier with it now. It seems to have a better flow to it. Hope the 'tone' has improved too. Thanks for casting your critical eye and keeping it on the level. Hope to hear from you soon.
Zaphod

Much better. Although I would dispute the actual attitude of mental health professionals.

I know of numerous cases where patients who were viewed as perfectly safe in the community had their diagnosis witheld, were given psychoactive medication under the guise of a "symptom reliever" for some other minor problem, and have encountered a culture of compulsion and profession's of infalability from medical professionals in general, and from mental health services personel in particular.

The attitude of "(s)he's a nutter, so we don't need to be open or get informed consent" seems to be the norm, not the exception.

The professional may aim to build trust, but this is not generally reflected in their actions, despite considerable evidence that if you are open with patients, and they know what's going on then you get significantly better recovery rates.

Keep up the good work, this is shaping up very well.

Phewwwwwww. I think I've come as far as I can with this entry. It's driving me mad. Thanks to everyone who has contributed to the peer review so far. I really appreciate it.
Zaphod