I've noticed something whilst looking on the posts here on Sheffield forum, and that is the use of the word psycho as a derogatory term. It is often used in the media and film in a negative way, especially refering to people who commit crimes.

What I'm hoping is to make people think when they use this word, and how. It is often used to describe extreme behaviour, or when someone is behaving in a weird/bizarre way you don't like.

It is used in a throw away way. When actual pychosis is a serious illness. It doesn't do anything to improve attitudes to mental health. Someone who is psychotic doesn't neccessarily behave in extremely antisocial ways, or commit crimes like the term psycho is often associated.

Is it acceptable to use the word in this way? Does it have a separate meaning?

What can be done to improve attitudes and fear surrounding those suffering from severe mental illness.

I think - personally - that the use of the term psycho is not as derogatory or harmful as your post may imply. You tell someone they are being psycho does not mean they are psychotic - just that their behavious is extreme at a particular time.

Or to describe someone as being a psycho implies that their overall behaviour is outside what you would generally accept as being the norm.

And the word does not always infer violence or antisocial behaviour. I have been called a psycho for making people laugh - for acting the clown, and for just generally being in a hyper happy mood.

It is all a question of what you are going to take offence at and political correctness and we have seen enough of that madness (PC - I mean).

Dragon

Originally posted by Zenmaster
What can be done to improve attitudes and fear surrounding those suffering from severe mental illness.
Perhaps if we stopped using the term 'learning difficulties' as a blanket term that hides the actual needs of some individuals and bundles too many symptoms together we would have greater understanding of individual mental problems/illnesses?

As someone who's suffered from depression, I'm VERY careful about handing out labels.

However....I encountered the below definition of 'psychosis'.

"A mental disorder characterised by gross impairment in reality testing as evidenced by delusions, hallucinations, markedly incoherent speech or disorganised and agitated behaviour without apparent awareness on the part of the patient of the incomprehensibility of his behaviour."

I think that that is pretty fair and if someone is truly psychotic then I guess people in the vicinity do have reason to be a little concerned about the situation.

Many people who are described as 'psychotic' in the media are exhibiting that sort of behaviour, IMHO, not because of any mental illness but because they're 'bad' rather than 'mad'.

However, if someone genuinely suffers from psychosis, then their behaviour IS likely to be such as to cause problems for themselves and others around them, although the intent is not necessarily there. For people who are affected by the behaviour of someone who is truly suffering a psychotic episode, then the intention of the sufferer is irrelevant - the sufferer and the people affected must be protected - for both the safety and well being of the sufferer and the people around.

For someone suffering from a serious psychotic illness, then I believe that it IS possible to go over teh top in the 'protection' of the rights of the patient - not ensuring medication is taken, etc. It is not fair on the sufferer or on society as a whole.

Joe

Interesting point Strix. I was interested to learn that in some local authorities autism was classed as a mental health problem rather than a learning disability (don't know what other word to use). I'm not sure how helpful these terms really are. Your right it does nothing to improve peoples understanding.

Originally posted by Zenmaster
Interesting point Strix. I was interested to learn that in some local authorities autism was classed as a mental health problem rather than a learning disability (don't know what other word to use). I'm not sure how helpful these terms really are. Your right it does nothing to improve peoples understanding.

Part of the labelling process is to actually avoid dealing with the problem.

As soon as you label something as 'mental illness' rather than learning disability then the LEA no longer has to sweat. They can pass the problem to the local health authority who then have to take responsibility.

Labels rarely help solve anything; they provide a short hand for the behaviours and situations to be encountered in dealing with someone carrying that label.

To deal with the problems you have to get your hands dirty and, well, deal with the problems! You don't deal with them by changing the label, re-writing the definition or some indulging in some other beaurocratic excercise.

Joe

Ah, I'd not made the connection with bureaucracy before Joe.

It is sad and frustrating that these words are an excuse to turn people with very real needs into statistics.

Heaven forbid that we should be able to assess somebody's needs and provide them with adequate care/supervision/help without departmentalising them

One thing I noticed was that when I became ill, no one used any labels, I was given magic pills and told they would make me better.
No explanation of what was wrong with me, five years later I finally got my doctor to explain it. Saying, you suffer from stress was unhelpful to me, I did not really understand my illness. Most people don't become psychotic due to stress.

Although I have a better understanding of my illness, I find it hard to make others understand. As soon as you say pyschotic episode people get freaked out. I had someone visit my flat once (a new friend), they asked me what my pills lying on the table were, I said antipsychotics, they soon ran out the door never to return.

So yes, blanket terms are avoiding the issue and can reduce understanding. But some terminology is needed. I now say to people I get stressed, to avoid any stigma.

Where is this thread going? Not sure why I started it?

Originally posted by Zenmaster
Is it acceptable to use the word in this way? Does it have a separate meaning?

I always think of the film when people use the word 'Psycho'.

'Mother-m-mother, uh, what is the phrase? She isn't quite herself today.'

Sorry, I think we may have dragged it a little 'off topic' ;)

It happens sometimes :rolleyes:

You've got me worried now anyway. Sometimes I get some of the symptoms you describe :suspect: