Reply to comment

I am torn as to the reason why we make a distinction in our vernacular between physical illness and mental illness. Is the distinction due to the fact that there is a certain stigma against depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia etc. (what we term mental illnesses)? Or does it stem from the the lack of a defined "cause--> problem --> symptom---> treatment" trajectory for these "mental" illnesses? At least in the medical community, I'm inclined to think its the latter; medical professionals likely want to separate the illnesses which they can classically treat (strep throat, infections, even cancer) to those that may require talk therapy, exposure therapy, CBT and highly personalized, complex treatment plans. I think that this distinction, however, is a construction of convenience rather than of true difference. In fact, many "physical illnesses" may have their root in "mental causes." Migraines can be triggered by stressful events, and perhaps learning to better cope with anxiety or taking anxiolytics could lead to a reduction in the number of migraines. (I recognize that this a slippery slope, however---are migraines an illness themselves or a symptom of a larger illness?) 

In terms of the military community viewing mental illness as a weakness, and less difficult to deal with than physical illness, I feel that the issue of phantom pains in amputees throws a real wrench into this argument. Phantom pains result when after an amputation, the brain believes that the amputated limb is still there and functional, and consequently sends nerve impulses to the area. This seems to me a truly "mental" illness- pain in a limb that's no longer present? But the military views this as a legitimate physical condition and offers treatment. I feel that this example illustrates extremely well that physical and mental illness clarifications are merely a consequence of convenience and in some cases, bias.