Thread: Family
View Single Post
Old 12-19-2009, 05:56 AM   #11
vanir
Forumite
 
vanir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: south of Gundagai
Posts: 632
There may be some confusion about protocols to determine psychological health as well here.

In most developed nations the mental health facility is two-pronged. Generally speaking, at their core, psychologists are concerned with counselling, whilst psychiatrists are concerned with biochemical medicine. The main change introduced in recent times has been the advent of psychology and menial counselling services as opposed to psychotherapy, which is more expensive and unsuitable for mundane, although serious personal issues (because of cost-benefit ratio).

The mental health facility essentially works towards mental competency in this fashion, followed by concerns of social health and well being.

The primary requisite for mental ill health is simply that the patient is pathologically distressed. It is really that simple and the patient, not any social standards whatsoever are the measure here.

Some interesting observations however, cultural sociology influences individual psychological well being, as do personal outlooks and beliefs, perceptual adoptions, self hypnosis, intellectual assumptions, schooling, peer group pressure, drug use of any kind (including coffee and cigarettes), habits, lifestyle and living environment...

It is indeed an American phenomenon to describe psychological well being with terms like "charge scale" and "colour grades" or similar. It does not sit nicely with me either, it infers a complete lack of any individual role in personal well being, as though it is all mechanical and someone must pay a mechanic if they want it fixed when it breaks.
In any case the yankocentric terminology is used in substitute for simple terms like "patient discomfort" or "distress" which some may say places too much responsibility on the shoulders of the patient.

Regardless cultural differences in terminology, the same core is used which identifies circumstances for patients so they may make informed decisions about their lives.
Psychologists do not instruct patients to adhere to social standards for good health. They tell them, in certain cases contradicting the cultural expecations and community standards of your particular area may be contributing to personal distress, or otherwise complicate issues of psychological discomfort. Social anxiety is frequently a feature of poor psychological well being and if it cannot be curbed to get at the root issues (typically with counselling) it needs to be medicated to get it out of the road that way (a more extreme measure with potential side effects).

Also mental health workers of all kinds would be frequently frustrated with the observation a good portion of mental health patients cause the majority of their own issues needlessly, whilst the rest cause the majority of their own issues unavoidably and it is the latter the institution is really designed to assist.

Poor mental health can sometimes be characterised by that joke about the fly in the soup.
"Shhh, not too loudly Sir," the waiter replies, "Or else everybody will want one."

Here is the maxim of good mental health. Regardless of all other issues, presuming no involvement of criminal behaviour (which in the modern age defines aberrant), if you feel good about yourself, okay with the world, are a functioning human being and don't frighten small children on contact, you can see little fairy godmothers and still epitomise good mental health. That's the truth.
Patient distress is the core prerequisite for any and all mental health issues (although patient distress may not exhibit until say, the police are telling you strangling kittens is illegal, but that's beside the point, it has nothing to do with social standards since criminal law deals with that).
vanir is offline   you may: quote & reply,