The Times is really going down the pan. The standard of journalism has been slipping since before I left for university, and the switch from broadsheet to tabloid format just highlighted their slip from a serious newspaper into the relms of their sister publication, The Sun, and the numerous free papers that one can pick up on a ten minute stroll through London.
So I read the article in the Times Literary Supplement on “The Madness of Big Pharma” with little expectation of fair, balanced, well informed writing. But even with that mental steeling msyelf, I was still enraged.
Under the pretence of reviewing the book Mania, written by renounded pyschiatric whistle-blower David Healy (who is actually a bit of a knob, but that’s a completely seperate rant), Andrew Scull goes on that old rant of how mental illness, in particular “manic-depressive psychosis” (which he then explains is the common term for bipolar disorder disorder – someone really needs to tell the mental health community we’ve been going with the wrong name all along), is actually just a form of weakness, and if we’d all man up and chuck away the meds – which aren’t actually working, of course – then the world would be a brighter place for everyone.
I’m so angry, I’m having trouble writing in a sensible and coherent manner without resorting to name calling (you dick, Andrew) and SCREAMING IN ALL CAPS about how for some reason a literary journalist is qualified to discuss mental illness in such a frank and demeaning way. Luckily, a guest post is up over at Mental Nurse which does much better at it:
It’s a hatchet job, from the arts and entertainment section of the Times – specifically, the Literary Supplement – of the diagnosis of manic depression, done by being quite selective about what is actually mentioned about the book in question…
I love “a disease (if such it be)”. Because of course, here we get to the nub of the matter. I’m not really ill, it’s not really a disease, I’m just either a poor wee victim of the evils of big pharma, or alternatively, a malingerer who needs a kick in the arse, or again someome who has caused themselves problems in their life and needs some therapy so I can talk about how I feeeeeeel…
Why is it so damned important to people at the Times that I happen to take medication for my disorder? Why do we see article after article in the media, on one pretext or another, that promotes the view that mental illness is not real, that mental illness is not as severe or not as big a deal as sufferers say it is, or that taking medication for it is evil, or a crutch, or an excuse for not wanting to “confront” one’s issues because therapy is so much work etc etc etc? (DeeDee Ramona)
Go over there. Read it. Comment on it. Repost it. Because the more people that actually get how mental illness works, how it effects sufferers and those around us, and how similar it actually is to “real” illnesses like asthma and diabetes, the less likely we are to get articles like the above published and the more likely it becomes that treatment will be taken seriously and become more and more effective.
But returning to my diatribe, in conclusion I’m sorry Mr Scull that I’m making your world so distasteful by my support for big pharma, but I quite like my Lamictal and being a fully functioning member of society. I can prove it works, both by independant medical studies (PubMed can help you here, but surely you already know this as a medical journalist. Oh, wait…) and my own personal experience (stable with the drugs, unstable when I stop seems good enough for me) so whether you like it or not I’m going to keep treating my chronic mental illness in the same way you’d treat any other chronic physical illness.
Oh, and finally? Laura Anderson of Charlottesville, US: BPD is short for borderline personality disorder, a completely seperate illness with completely seperate methods of treatment. Though I should expect that kind of ill-informed behaviour from Have Your Sayers by now…