I've just been reading this http://society.guardian.co.uk/socialcare/story/0,,2186800,00.html, which interested me because I agree that the term is pointless. It doesn't tell you anything useful about someone, and just stigmatises them. I was a bit perplexed at the attempts to come up with another term, though. Surely the point is that everyone is different, so any broad-brush terms like schizophrenia or depression aren't all that helpful. What is it with our society (particularly medical people) that feels the need to give labels to what are unique and individual experiences? Can't they see that if they change the label, that label in time will have the same destructive impact of schizophrenia? It's not which label you use, it's the fact that labels are used at all.

I yearn for the day when we can ditch these labels and diagnoses, and people start by simply asking someone "how is life for you, and what would help make it better?"

I agree entirely, but I'm afraid that if we abolish all labels there are people who will only invent more.

Whoa dudes.

Remember one important thing about labels and jargon when used appropriately.

They're frequently there to ensure that all concerned parties are talking about the same thing. Schizophrenia and depression are too 'broad brush' to be useful, but abolishing labels is, IMO, a pointless excercise.

You'll end up with people either starting to sue the new terms in a derogative manner, or cause an increased confusion.

I'd rather see efforts made to educate people than to obfuscate issues by changing names.

Ugh, the link in the OP is to the Guardian! Which is only marginally better than the Daily Mail IMO for its hatred of the disabled! :rant:

Shared and mutually understood terminology is a necessary precursor for understanding. With no accepted and meaningful terminology how do you describe what's happing to you? Abolishing labels is pointless - de-stigmatising labels is very useful and should be what we aim for :)

Whoa dudes.

Remember one important thing about labels and jargon when used appropriately.

They're frequently there to ensure that all concerned parties are talking about the same thing. Schizophrenia and depression are too 'broad brush' to be useful, but abolishing labels is, IMO, a pointless excercise.

You'll end up with people either starting to sue the new terms in a derogative manner, or cause an increased confusion.

I'd rather see efforts made to educate people than to obfuscate issues by changing names.

I'm not sure. I think what happens when you have labels is that somebody says to someone else "Mr. A. has syndrome X", and the other person immediately starts to make assumptions about Mr. A, many, if not most of which, will be inaccurate. With more definable conditions like cancer, then obvioulsy diagnoses are important. But with far more variable conditions like Autism, schizophrenia and personality disorder, just how helpful are they? Not very, I reckon.

Shared and mutually understood terminology is a necessary precursor for understanding.

Actually, it's often a necessary precursor for misunderstanding. Saying someone has schizophrenia tells you almost nothing about them except that they experience some form of mental distress. To find out what that person's own experience is requires you to sit down with them and find out - they will tell you in their own words. If we try and reinterpret their words and substitute our own, we impose our own meanings, which in this context are irrelevant and misleading.

Actually, it's often a necessary precursor for misunderstanding. Saying someone has schizophrenia tells you almost nothing about them except that they experience some form of mental distress. To find out what that person's own experience is requires you to sit down with them and find out - they will tell you in their own words. If we try and reinterpret their words and substitute our own, we impose our own meanings, which in this context are irrelevant and misleading.

This only holds if the terminology isn't mutually understood. If all parties understand what is meant by the term schizophrenia then there should be no misunderstanding. I wasn't claiming that the term will tell you everything about that person but the term itself only becomes meaningless or confused if it is not clearly understood.

I understand what's being sugegsted here, but let's take autism. It's one I know a little about. Iappreciate that it's a whole spectrum of disorders, but if someone says 'Fred is autistic' then I know there are likely to be a range of behavioural problems that I MAY encounter.

Now, these may be not noticable at all, or they may be devastating - but at least I'm prepared. And because I'm not a bigot I'll live and let live and go by what is presented to me.

If I was told that Fred had Asperger's Syndrome, then again, because I've got some knowledge of the condition I can again make certain assumptions about behaviour.

But if it was a subject I knew nothing about, then there IS a need for a term that will be meaningful to me as a member of the public who has to work with someone, for example. I have a right to know what sort of behaviours may be presented to me - having terminology that is clear to professionals in the field but meaningless to the rest of us will confuse people until the new terminology is taken up widely. Then you have a NEW set of labels to deal with.

De-stigmatising and educating people is a more effcetive way forward, IMO; simply changing the terminology doesn't change the assumptions and biases in people's minds. For example, the classic one here is the re-naming of 'The Spastic's Society' to 'SCOPE'. The terminology was unfortunate, but hailed back to the 50s/early 60s when the term 'spastic' actually had medical meaning - it still does. The term was abused by people - like many terms are - but still meant something to the public. The name SCOPE tells us little about what the charity does, and even now there are many local and regional Spastic Societies who've chosen to hang on to teh meaning offered by teh old name.

You can't cahnge people's attitudes by renaming stuff - people simply move the assumptions and stereotypes from the old names to the new names.

This only holds if the terminology isn't mutually understood. If all parties understand what is meant by the term schizophrenia then there should be no misunderstanding. I wasn't claiming that the term will tell you everything about that person but the term itself only becomes meaningless or confused if it is not clearly understood.

But the problem with terms like schizophrenia is that they are an attempt to describe, under one term, the unique, personal and varied experiences of a vast array of people, and therefore there can be no mutual understanding. In the article, it points out that there can be marked differences in how many people are described as schizophrenic between different cultures and countries, suggesting that what we are talking about is they way in which individuals react to particular situations. I defy you to come up with a word which will accurately describe how different people will react to certain circumstances.

simply changing the terminology doesn't change the assumptions and biases in people's minds. For example, the classic one here is the re-naming of 'The Spastic's Society' to 'SCOPE'. The terminology was unfortunate, but hailed back to the 50s/early 60s when the term 'spastic' actually had medical meaning - it still does. The term was abused by people - like many terms are - but still meant something to the public. The name SCOPE tells us little about what the charity does, and even now there are many local and regional Spastic Societies who've chosen to hang on to teh meaning offered by teh old name.

You can't cahnge people's attitudes by renaming stuff - people simply move the assumptions and stereotypes from the old names to the new names.

This is true, which is why I questioned the usefulness of trying to come up with new terms. People are bound to make assumptions and resort to stereotypes when we use single words to describe a large number of people - how could it be otherwise? By grouping people together under a label, we set the prerequisite for stereotyping. Only by accepting that an individual's experience is unique, and finding out about that experience from them, do we stand any hope of truly understanding anyone.

Bottom line is, for most people, that their attitude towards the emotional or psychological health problems of strangers is 'How will this person's behaviour affect me?'

And therein lies the problem.

Educating the population about the the range of problems and behaviours encountered is probably the best we can offer in practical terms.

its silly its like people that are fat and dont like the word fat they are big boned LOL if you have schizophrenia your a schizophrenic simple as
pussy footing around
im fat infact im obese but as you see i dont sugar coat nothing

But the problem with terms like schizophrenia is that they are an attempt to describe, under one term, the unique, personal and varied experiences of a vast array of people, and therefore there can be no mutual understanding. In the article, it points out that there can be marked differences in how many people are described as schizophrenic between different cultures and countries, suggesting that what we are talking about is they way in which individuals react to particular situations. I defy you to come up with a word which will accurately describe how different people will react to certain circumstances.

Theres isn't one but that holds true for pretty much any physical or psychological ailment. The term schizophrenia doesn't attempt to describe the entirety of condition but is a high level term covering a spectrum of symptom that are frequently seen together. Just because person X doesn't exhibit every symptom doesn't mean that the term is null and void, it simply means that you have to accept that medicine is not an exact science so has to have a degree of flexibility in it's terminology.

Theres isn't one but that holds true for pretty much any physical or psychological ailment. The term schizophrenia doesn't attempt to describe the entirety of condition but is a high level term covering a spectrum of symptom that are frequently seen together. Just because person X doesn't exhibit every symptom doesn't mean that the term is null and void, it simply means that you have to accept that medicine is not an exact science so has to have a degree of flexibility in it's terminology.

I think that's kind of the point. The medical world still insists on its right to define and categorise people according to its own terms, and has very little interest in allowing people to describe themselves and their experiences in their own terms. The existence of terms such as schizophrenia hasn't done much to assist medicine in actually doing much about it, whatever it is.

I think that's kind of the point. The medical world still insists on its right to define and categorise people according to its own terms, and has very little interest in allowing people to describe themselves and their experiences in their own terms. The existence of terms such as schizophrenia hasn't done much to assist medicine in actually doing much about it, whatever it is.

Terminology is needed to classify and organise. Should we perhaps do away with the term "car" because it is too general and doesn't adequately describe the variations in every make and model?

The Spastics Society rebranded itself, and renamed itself "scope"...

So, instead of the PLD's (Precious Little Darlings) calling children/ adults with Cerebral Palsy "Spastics", "spazz" "joeys" etc, they were now dubbed ......



"Scopeys"

great, huh?

Terminology is needed to classify and organise. Should we perhaps do away with the term "car" because it is too general and doesn't adequately describe the variations in every make and model?

Why do you need to classify and organise people?

As one who was labelled schizophrenic by a psychiatrist who decided anyone with religious belief was mentally unstable. It turned out I had M.E which was causing depression. It's taken a long time to shake off the lable and its still on my medical records. That's the trouble with lables. A wrong diagnosis can follow you around all your life.

Why do you need to classify and organise people?

If your going to attempt any scientific approach to a problem then you need to know what the problem is ergo you need classification and organisation of the problems to focus the appropriate intervention to the appropriate parties.

The problem is that many people throw lables at people without doing any system. Children have been labled dyslexic (generally that doesn't have a scientific basis as true dyslexia is due to neurological damage not being just a bit behind in decoding.) Attention deficit is put on may children who are really having behavioural problems due to problems in the family. Autistic or Asphergers can be put on bright children who find it difficult socially. As for Schizophrenia it has been a lable which seems at one time to have been in vogue for a huge number of mental problems. Far from helping lables have often prevented people getting to the cause of the problem. Far easier to give out drugs and say they can't help it than work with the person or family and see what is at the bottom of the behaviour.

The problem is that many people throw lables at people without doing any system. Children have been labled dyslexic (generally that doesn't have a scientific basis as true dyslexia is due to neurological damage not being just a bit behind in decoding.) Attention deficit is put on may children who are really having behavioural problems due to problems in the family. Autistic or Asphergers can be put on bright children who find it difficult socially. As for Schizophrenia it has been a lable which seems at one time to have been in vogue for a huge number of mental problems. Far from helping lables have often prevented people getting to the cause of the problem. Far easier to give out drugs and say they can't help it than work with the person or family and see what is at the bottom of the behaviour.

That's not a problem with the term per se, but a problem with mis-use of the term. Mis-use a term can be extremely damaging and counter-productive but it requires education in terminology not removal of terms!

It is a fault of any lable. Lables are not helpful to the person labled. I know as a former nurse the tendency of professional people to call patients by their lable not their name. Call someone schizophrenic, dish out the pills, job done except it's not is it?

It is a fault of any lable. Lables are not helpful to the person labled. I know as a former nurse the tendency of professional people to call patients by their lable not their name. Call someone schizophrenic, dish out the pills, job done except it's not is it?

No it's not - it's the fault of the person mis-using the term. The term itself is neutral it's up to people to use it correctly or incorrectly. What you are saying here is that people are miss-using a term which is unhelpful and (sometimes) damaging but that is the fault of the people and not the term itself. If the term schizophrenia didn't exist then the people you describe would just miss-use another term.

That's all very well but how would you feel if you are on the receiving end of a misused lable? There are no mental conditions or medical conditions that fit into a neat little box as each person is an individual. Think of some of the lables we have dropped Cretin, Idiot, Mongol, Cripple, Deaf and Dumb, Spastic. These were not terms invented by the ordinary person they were brought in by professional people. Medecine tends to see one aspect not the whole person. It's one size fits all. When did your doctor last weigh you before prescribing a dose? I met a woman who had been labled schizophrenic for 10 years and was on high doses of medecine. After many years it turned out the diagnosis was put on her because she rightly claimed that a Salvation Army officer she was training with assaulted her. After a long time she came off all medication and now is trying to pick up her life. If they had looked more seriously into why she was suffering from shock at the time and hadn't a lable handy perhaps she would have got the correct treatment.

If the term schizophrenia didn't exist then the people you describe would just miss-use another term.

which is exactly why labels are unhelpful, full stop. It's naive to think that it would ever be otherwise. And I'd venture that misuse of terms like schizophrenia is "built in", i.e. they can never do more than describe some vague possible outward signs of mental distress, and will never tell you much that's particularly useful about any particular individual. By having labels we give people the option to be lazy and make all sorts of inaccurate assumptions about people and what might be beneficial to them (as with the guy in the article) - if we give people the option to be lazy, they will usually take it, so we shouldn't give them the option in the first place

Very well put. I agree with you entirely. Lables are encouraged because its cheaper. Having to look at the whole person would involve not only drugs but counselling and psychotherapy. I wonder if the government now pushing to increase pychotherapists might change the state of affairs?

I wonder if the government now pushing to increase pychotherapists might change the state of affairs?

I'm afraid I'm a bit sceptical. What they are focussing on is Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), which while it works well for some people, doesn't work for others. Plus, CBT looks at the way that a person thinks about things, but a lot of peoples' mental ill-health is affected by their situation (e.g. where they live, the fact that employers won't touch them with a barge pole). Let's be honest, there are few quick fixes to some of these problems, and CBT is about quick fixes.

I had a psychology lecturer who reckoned based on data that if we stopped altering the clock we could stop a lot of depression as seemingly having to adjust to the time change causes mental problems. No one has taken him up on that. The other answer would be to cut the hours people work and give them more leisure time. Don't see that happening either.

The Spastics Society rebranded itself, and renamed itself "scope"...

So, instead of the PLD's (Precious Little Darlings) calling children/ adults with Cerebral Palsy "Spastics", "spazz" "joeys" etc, they were now dubbed ......

"Scopeys"

great, huh?

Somehow I find that reassuring.

The call for more therapists (although only of the CBT variety, because NHS bean counters can't cope with less structured forms of therapy) came from Richard Layard in this report to the government http://cep.lse.ac.uk/textonly/research/mentalhealth/RL414d.pdf

In it, he talks about how mental illness affects a large number of people, and speaks of it in terms of causing more misery than poverty. He also discusses the extent to which the GDP is affected by it, the difficulties people face in getting counselling, and about work being better than welfare for people with mental health problems. Bizarrely, although he recognises that mental ill-health is on the increase, and affects nearly 1 in 5 people in the UK, he doesn't ask why this might be the case (in fairness, I don't suppose the government asked him to). I don't know about you, but if I'm aware of a big problem, I want to know where it comes from, rather than just try to fight fires all the time. But I suspect that the government is worried that if people looked hard at why mental ill-health is on the increase, they might find all sorts of social reasons which are not easily fixed, and so best ignored.