Columns

This week's essay follows two different paths of thought, and I hope it is followable. I'm speaking of our own attitudes as mental health consumers and I'm speaking of the problems that come about through use of force on mentally ill consumers. Here it is...



Your world, consisting of stimuli reaching your mind and body, and how you process these stimuli, is partly a product of attitude. However, when someone does harm to you, you did not bring this on yourself. Attitude is only one of many factors that determine what we experience.

If we suffer from psychiatric illness, it skews how we perceive our surroundings, and how we perceive everything. This is not attitude; this is a medically caused condition affecting the mind.

Most "normal" people do not see things accurately. It takes a lot of work to teach the mind to work well and to have clarity of perceptions. And this is applicable to both mentally ill people and to the non-afflicted. People see what they expect to see, whether accurate or not. The difference with a mentally ill person is where the brain has a gross malfunction, one that might be harmful to the brain itself. (It is believed by many people that untreated psychosis, if it takes place a long time, causes loss of gray matter. This, belief, however, may not be definitively proven.) 

That leaves us with the remaining idea that untreated psychosis causes inability to function in the human environment. This seems obvious. Psychosis puts an individual at risk. If you can't perceive a "Walk" and "Don't Walk" sign at a crosswalk as it was intended, you are at risk of being hit by a car, or of causing a collision of nearby cars. If you can't interpret people's speech normally, you cannot communicate. These things are incredibly basic to the degree that everyone assumes you have them. Severe psychosis can impair this. It causes mind to be inoperative. Medication is needed. 

So, where does attitude fit in? Attitude is applicable upon a patient becoming stabilized and ninety percent rational. (I'm giving you that ninety percent figure off the top of my head, as an educated guess.) Attitude does not really exist if a person is fully psychotic, because the disease is running the show. In my case, I've programmed in a few fail-safes that took effect the last three times that I became severely mentally ill; they prevented me from losing my life and from being incarcerated. Yet this is not the same thing as me being well. 

Once a mentally ill person is stabilized, 'attitude' goes into effect. This makes a substantial difference. If we are agile enough in our thinking, it is easier to sustain the concept that we have a mental illness, yet we realize it doesn't have to invalidate who we are. This, in turn, causes more cooperativeness with taking medication and other treatment. 

The above does not come about through being forced. Despite the best of intentions and despite the apparent or real urgency to give treatment to a mentally impaired person, when you externally force someone to be medicated, emotional trauma enters the picture. This hinders the ability to judge for ourselves that we need treatment. Because of this, I believe that long-term forced meds should be reserved only for those who have the worst and most life-threatening cases of 'noncompliance'. 

Once you force compliance on someone, it may introduce a permanent need to put that individual into a controlled life-situation. Think of it analogously to invading a sovereign country, installing an artificial government that can't sustain itself without U.S. presence, then later withdrawing troops. The 'vacuum' you've created causes a bloodbath in that country. Disaster is often the aftermath of force, whether you're speaking of a country or a mentally ill individual. 

On the other hand, you should never argue with a 'crazy person.' Someone who is ill to the point where they're not rational will never respond to reason, and there is ample justification to call paramedics and in some cases police. One hopes the local police have adequate training in restraining a mentally ill person without harming him or her. 

Now, a shift in course: 

Attitude can consist of the self-value that tells us we can continue to be ambitious. We can continue to strive for excellence. If we don't strive for excellence, we could at least strive for adequate. I'm not kidding. If we are determined to have something going for us, it will become a reality. Being medicated doesn't have to close the door on all ambition. 

Don't worry about what others think you can't do--you will ultimately prove them wrong. I'm not telling you to try unrealistic things. Something that you can see as realistically attainable should be tried. And if your attempt is unsuccessful, nonetheless, it is still good experience. 

If you are unable to do something you wanted to do, because the medication or the illness impaired you, or because the thing was just too difficult, don't get down on yourself. Under my belt I have decades of trying to do things and falling flat on my face. Fear of failure doesn't have to stop you, and neither does fear of success. If you don't believe you deserve to succeed, it is self-sabotage right from the start. I've been there and I continue to struggle with it. 

When stabilized, attitude matters. So does perception. It also matters what others tell you. Other people could be discouraging to the point where you become deflated from their talk right after you voice an ambition. Don't get into an argument about it. Just take the first step...