Reply to comment

I agree that there is an inconvenient stigma associated with mental illnesses. I believe that the reason that psychology/psychiatry is so far behind the rest of the health care fields is, in large part, due to this stigma. Our society gives such deference to Western medicine and "hard sciences". As a result, these institutions have set the precedent for what is to be expected from a health care field and from health care professionals. Unfortunately, psychology, and especially neuroscience, is not as cut-and-dry. Psychology doesn't always "fit" in as a "hard science" because of the variability involved in the study of psychology (or neuroscience), especially the study and treatment of mental illnesses. With mental illnesses, there are multiple possibilities for presenting symptoms, as well as potential treatments for each individual set of symptoms.

When our conversation in class turned to the criteria of an illness, I was surprised to hear so many people agreeing with the dismissal of depression as merely a series of symptoms. To say that depression is not an illness would further stigmatize the condition, I fear. In a weird way, the term "illness" validates the condition and those diagnosed with depression. If it were not to be considered an illness, I believe more people would adopt the attitude of the military in regards to awarding Purple Hearts to people with PTSD or depression. That is to say, people may expect that depression would be easy to "get over" on an individual level even though evidence leads us to conclude that talking to anyone, especially a mental health care professional, helps people become less depressed. I believe that depression is an illness. There is a biological basis to the condition and it notably affects a person's daily functioning if left untreated. What makes it something other than an illness? If it weren't titled an illness, would it be considered a less legitimate condition?