Reply to comment

 It is disheartening that societies around the globe tend to cast out those who vary from the norm. People with “mental illness” are different from what is accepted as the norm but to stigmatize them is insulting. Some of the greatest minds in history have been persons who have been treated for their illness, i.e. John Nash, Picasso, Vaslav Nijinsky.

            Presently it seems that the best “medicine” to cure these individuals so that they may be more acceptable is to send them away for therapy or treat them with drugs. This is absurd because people should be accepted for who they are no matter what the circumstances. If they are putting themselves or others in harms way, then perhaps resorting to these methods of treatment would be acceptable otherwise it is ridiculous. In addition, by forcing individuals to participate in these “treatments,” we are playing into the stereotype that these individual need to be fixed and hence therefore promote the stigmatism that comes with mental health disorders. A person in harms way when he or she cannot survive on their own and must be institutionalized to merely survive-fed, clothed, and sheltered. Drug therapy is used to shorten the recovery phase.

            It seems that we are always trying to send “mentally ill” patients out for treatment but perhaps it is us that are in need for treatment for this phobia we have associated with individuals who are different. At the very least, there needs to be some neutral ground and I think Dakota’s suggestion that “in addition to a doctor’s physical, everyone should be required to see a therapist before entering school and getting a job”  is a good plan however, there will never be enough therapists to see all job and schools applicants.

When experimenting with humans, there are ways in which all participants can be fully informed and whether they choose to listen or not are their responsibility. For instance, writing out a script when explaining the risks and guidelines then recording it and playing it for each participant may be one way to eliminate any biases researchers would typically have when presenting an experiment that they would like to do. It is not right or useful to target any group of people as subjects because of their likelihood to participate. This is a big ethical problem to deal with  since it would be considered taking advantage of peoples weaknesses to get what they want. I found Prof. Grobstein’s ideas of communism and “jury duty,” making everyone participate, to be an interesting approach to neutralizing participation.