Campaign to abolish the term "schizophrenia"

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!

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.