A MENTAL health expert once told Jo McFarlane: “If you ask ‘why do people have schizophrenia?’ a psychiatrist is likely to say ‘because you hear voices’.
“But ask ‘why do we hear voices’? and the answer boils down to ‘because you have schizophrenia’.”
She’s something of an expert on the subject herself, having been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder herself, one of a series of mental health diagnoses, over many years.
Some psychiatrists too have concerned about labelling mental health conditions
She’s worried that much of modern psychiatry is hugely subjective, and reliant on treatment with psychoactive drugs based on limited scientific evidence.
In one instance, a doctor she only saw once decided on the basis of that five minute consultation to change her diagnosis. “It was pretty arbitrary,” she says, and had a major detrimental effect on how she was subsequently treated. She later received an apology, and was told the label she was given had stuck: “because it was the last thing in her notes so no one thereafter bothered to read my case history”.
There is no shortage of former psychiatric patients like Jo, and current ones, willing to be critical of their treatment.
That’s not surprising and some might fall back on the cliche common in popular culture that not thinking you have a mental health problem can be part of that problem.
But Jo is not denying she needed help. She had 17 years of therapy with one particular worker. “We used to fall out quite a bit and she sectioned me lots of times. I probably did need that, I was very suicidal,” she says.
She has also welcomed diagnosis, in the past. “There is a comfort in saying ‘this is as a result of my biology’. And I’m very grateful for some of the support I’ve received. But with more distance, I’ve become more critical of the whole system.”
In particular, she says, she doubts the scientific basis for the conditions she has been told she suffered from.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel