Hassling with the "Need" to Medicate Mental Conditions

I think I'd be a great psychiatrist:

1. I like sitting.

2. Physical exams are my worst competency in clinicals.

3. I have several mental conditions (possibly), but I most definitely have one.

4. I treat people with mental conditions like people.

5. I see people with mental conditions as people.

Now let me elaborate:

In clinical neuroscience we end up watching a lot of patient interviews. One day we saw one with a schizophrenic. Later, me and a group of people got into a discussion, and I was the only one on my side of the argument, which was basically, the person seemed fine and functional enough, and why should we deem him “flawed”?

Yes, he had once been an irritable and a frequent assaulter. But on medication, he seemed talkative—enough, he had moods—enough of them, and he seemed normal—enough.

[One small point, shouldn’t normal be set by the patient? For example, when I was depressed, I knew I didn’t want to be depressed, and I considered the feeling abnormal and I wanted it corrected. But if I have occasional hallucinations that I enjoy, why change that? Or if I have synesthesia? That’s enjoyable. Right? And like, all famous actors have dyslexia. And they talk openly about it and it seems normal now, although you could easily argue it’s not.]

No one agreed with me. "Here," they said, "is a deeply troubled man. He assaulted over 100 patients, nurses, and doctors at his first hospital—etcetera etcetera. He was barely lucid. He wasn’t making sense. He wasn’t talkative."

But these things seemed normal to me. The great variance of human personalities also includes medically treated schizophrenics.

And why are we so eager to eliminate imperfections? Even the term imperfections makes it sound like there’s a one true normal (there isn’t) or that there’s only so many ways a person can be functional (there aren’t). I don’t want to sound like the preachy 2^nd grade teacher you were scared of because they loved diversity thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiis much, but in all honesty, I hate the idea that mental illness has to always be treated and that we all automatically look down on people with mental illness because society has trained us to fear the abnormal, especially the mentally so. I’m not just saying this because I have a mental illness, but as a person who has known, talked to, interacted with, and dated people with mental illnesses, I say we should all work on the way we see others with DSM-logged disorders.

If you’re born with something, you shouldn’t have to awkwardly try to hide it constantly. And while most mental illnesses aren’t entirely genetic, many of them have a strong genetic component. Even more importantly, if you don’t want to hide it, you shouldn’t be forced to.

Schizophrenia an interesting mental illness. While I haven’t yet studied the topic enough to know if most schizophrenics are violent, I do know that public perception of schizophrenics paints them as violent.

[Side note: There was a great episode of Law & Order: SVU that involved a schizophrenic who appeared to have killed the woman who was in charge of his group home. No one trusted him and he was in a panic for the entire episode. Until the person who murdered the woman murdered him. I rarely cry watching law shows. I bawled.]

Most schizophrenics probably don't want schizophrenia. But what if they don't mind it? Similarly, most people with bipolar disorder I don't want it, but what if they don't mind it? Should we medicate people? And when we do, are we actually doing it to protect others? Or are we just doing it to quiet an imperfection, an imperfection we are holding on with us and projecting onto the larger world? I think this is especially a problem for doctors, who control so much power to change a person's life. Wouldn't it be best to understand what quality of life such a person wants first?