Clinical Psychology, Mental Health - Essay Example

A diagnosis of mental illness can be a devastating diagnosis for most patients because of its physical and psychological implications, as well as the stigmatizing considerations which seem to follow mental illnesses. The stigma against mental illness is largely negative and often unfounded with these diseases being generalized as dangerous or even dysfunctional diseases. Such stigma often colours the perception of society against the disease, especially as patients often believe such wrong perceptions as well. Panic disorder is one of these diseases which have been wrongly perceived by society, with patients perceived as neurotic, dramatic, or plain crazy. The behaviour of patients is often in accord with such wrong perceptions and stigma. As a result, these individuals are often unable to carry our normal functions as members of society. The challenge for mental health practitioners is on managing the perceptions of patients against their own disease, ensuring that these patients are able to function well in society despite their diseases. Clinical Psychology Introduction Diagnosing mental health is one of the most controversial and difficult aspects of mental health care. There are elements of the diagnostic processes which are based on subjective observations and these observations cannot be verified or supported by objective data. The diagnosis is often based on the symptoms that patients express and how the mental health practitioners interpret such symptoms. As a result, the risk of misdiagnosing mental health illnesses is an ever present issue in mental health care. In fact, incidents of misdiagnosis have already been observed among various patients with normal patients being labelled as mentally ill when they are not, and with mentally ill patients being misdiagnosed with the wrong illness. Misdiagnosis for a mental health issue is a problematic issue in mental health care because it can subject patients to various medical procedures which they do not need; moreover, it can also open them up to negative stigma in their social and work environment. The label of mental illness can open one to various discriminatory practices from the rest of society. The importance of accurate labelling is therefore very much important. This paper will discuss the argument that diagnosis is more than just a label. It will also evaluate the psychological implications for individuals receiving a diagnostic label. Specifically, panic disorder shall be evaluated as a diagnostic label in this discussion. A general discussion on mental health labelling will first be presented, including the stigma and impact related to mental health labelling. This will be followed by a specific evaluation of the implications of labelling on panic disorder patients. A summary and conclusion will provide a strong and well supported assessment of the issue raised. This paper is being carried out in order to provide this student a clear and logical evaluation of the subject matter for use in the future mental health practice. Body Diagnostic labelling The conceptualization of deviant acts has long played a crucial role in the practice of labelling. This practice is one which involves the labelling of the deviant act based on acts which do not fit the normal parameters of socially-accepted practices (Scheff, 1984). It is also a practice which implies stigmatized behaviour of the so-called mentally ill. Labelling is an issue in mental health because it presents with various psychological effects on the patient (Scheff, 1984). A diagnosis of mental illness can prompt a person to seek professional mental help and to eventually secure proper mental help and treatment (Mirowsky and Ross, 2003). Being diagnosed and treated for mental illness would allow these individuals to normally carry out their functions in society. A diagnosis of mental illness can have significantly catastrophic effects on individuals mostly because of the distress and disability associated with it (Corrigan, et.al., 2004). The diagnosis can harm those who are labelled with mental illness because it can deprive them of relevant work and social opportunities which are crucial to normal societal functioning. The diagnosis of mental illness has been known to prevent individuals from finding and “keeping good jobs” and securing safe housing (Ben-Zeev, et.al., 2010, p. 319). In addition, employers often do not hire workers with mental health issues and landlords seek to protect their safety as well as the safety of their other tenants from these mentally ill individuals. Self-stigma can also be seen when people are diagnosed with mental illness (Lauber and Rossler, 2007). Before the onset of any mental affectation, most individuals are made aware of the stigma related to mental illness. When they are diagnosed, their beliefs are revived, often to the significant detriment of their own sense of self (Lauber, and Rossler, 2007). The current culture is rich in stigmatizing perceptions and images against people with mental illness; and for those diagnosed with mental illness, they may easily accept the stigma, including the wrong and negative connotations about their disease (Corrigan, et.al., 1999). However, these individuals would likely endure diminished self efficacy and less confidence in their future. Mental health experts Link and Phelan (2001) argue that individuals with mental health issues usually internalize the negative perceptions of society about their mental issues. As a result, these patients often believe that they are less valued by society (Link and Phelan, 2001). They also learn to accept these perceptions and sometimes do not bother anymore to seek self-improvements or better life outcomes. They also believe that they are unable to take care of themselves and of other people; and some of them believe that they cannot have their own families, hold jobs, or be socially involved in the community setting (Ozmen, et.al., 2004). This is known as self-prejudice. Self-prejudice can sometimes lead to a reduced self-efficacy as well as poor self-esteem (Link and Phelan, 2001). Reduced self-efficacy and low self-esteem have been considered factors in individuals’ failure to seek work or establish independence (Ozmen, et.al., 2004). Self-stigma can also result in a mind set of ‘why try’ among those diagnosed with mental illness (Corrigan, et.al., 2009). These individuals may want to avoid instances where they would feel publicly threatened or disrespected. They may also take on qualities of social avoidance because they feel unworthy or incapable of handling the challenges of life and of seeking specific life goals. Their lack of confidence would also cause doubts based on self comparisons made in relation to specific stereotypes. Those who internalize their diagnostic labels will therefore likely struggle in securing a favourable self-perspectives (Corrigan, et.al., 2009). Panic disorders Many individuals grapple with label avoidance labels. They also avoid mental health assistance because they do not want to be considered mentally ill or to suffer the stigma that goes with the label (Scheid, 2005). In relation to panic disorders, its diagnosis can cause the diagnosed individual to consider himself inferior to other people, incapable of participating in activities which normal people usually engage in. Panic disorder is considered an anxiety disorder which specifically manifests as persistent and severe panic attacks (Berrocal, et.al., 2007). It is also associated with major behavioural changes often lasting at least two to three weeks; the changes in behaviour include an ongoing worry about future attacks. Panic disorder is often associated with anxiety, but the DSM-IV-TR does not have similar definitions for these disorders. Anxiety is usually preceded by a stressful situation which gradually intensifies, with the intensity escalating for weeks or months (Ankrom, 2009). On the other hand panic disorders are usually acute incidents which are prompted by a trigger and sometimes an unexpected incident. The duration is short, but the impact and the symptoms are very much intense (Ankrom, 2009). Impact of diagnosis of panic disorder The diagnosis of panic disorder can lead to negative thinking patterns which can cause cognitive distortion (Sorsdahl and Stein, 2010). Labelling involves negative or faulty thought patterns which can lead to low self-esteem and a general dissatisfaction in one’s life (Sorsdahl and Stein, 2010). Under these conditions, people’s thoughts formulate and support a person’s reality. In effect, pessimism and fear impact on the manifestation of issues like depression and anxiety. Individuals who have been diagnosed with panic disorder often develop negative thought patterns (Stuart, 2006). Labelling usually causes individuals to negatively perceive themselves and to wrongly believe that their weaknesses are a major part of their identity. Labelling is seen when individuals perceive themselves in a negative light. Such self-blame would later impact on an individual’s self perception (Stuart, 2006). For those with panic disorders, the negative thoughts associated with the situation or object which causes fear creates patterns of behaviour which under normal circumstances may actually be avoided (Stuart, 2006). However, a diagnosis of panic disorder can lead those diagnosed towards negative thought patterns. They are led to believe that their behaviour is part of their normal thought patterns. These individuals would often negatively describe themselves. Some of them even label themselves as “crazy” or “neurotic,” sometimes “pathetic” (Widiger and Samuel, 2005). These labels become the explanations for their behaviour, especially for instances where they commit mistakes. Sometimes, even if certain behaviour is not associated with the diagnosed panic disorder, associations to the diagnosis are being made anyway (Kobau, et.al., 2010). There is a significant amount of generalization made in order to describe the person. If, on the other hand, a more realistic understanding of patterns of behaviour is carried out, the individual may understand that the labels do not actually apply in every situation (Kobau, et.al., 2010). Although the individual may sometimes be neurotic or may act “crazy,” he may however get the job done correctly at most times. The mindset of ‘crazy’ would therefore mislabel the acts of a person, often overshadowing the positive and favourable acts or behaviour which the individual can actually accomplish (Hinton, 2011). Where the negative mind-set is discarded, the individual would also have the power to grow and to consider the different ways he can improve his capabilities and his work. In panic disorder, the focus of the patient is on somatic considerations relating to fear and anxiety. The somatic signs are more tolerated and often allow for sympathetic feelings from other people (Prasko, et.al., 2011). However, the symptoms relating to anxiety are considered more dramatic, with people often believing that the disease is serious. Patients are their families are often significantly affected by the diagnosis and where patients manifest symptoms akin to agoraphobia, their behaviour is often tolerated and the patient is often prompted to forgive himself for such behaviour (Prasko, et.al., 2011). There is an element of avoidance under these conditions, with the patient making the excuse like “weakness” or being too weak to fight off the symptoms (Prasko, et.al., 2011). Such attitude often interferes with treatment and management because some patients feel that this is already part of their personality and that they cannot change it. The general population would likely also be prejudiced against the treatment methods for the disorder (Prasko, et.al., 2011). The family as well as the patient would also be prone to certain perceptions about the treatment, perceiving such treatments as poisonous medications which may change the behaviour of the patient. Some of them would even perceive psychotherapy as ‘brainwashing’ (Prasko, et.al., 2011). Labels or psychological diagnosis can increase stress and unhappiness. It would be patently illogical for these individuals with mental illnesses, including those with panic disorders to be burdened by such stress (Kobau, et.al., 2010). Mental health practitioners are also one of the first to accept the fact that they may not always get the diagnosis right. There may sometimes be a disconnect between what the patient actually believes about himself and their diagnosis (Rounsaville, et.al., 2002). The psychological diagnosis would often put a label to what the patient is feeling, and from such label, the patient may react accordingly. If the diagnosis indicates that the patient would likely have a phobia of enclosed spaces, the patient would likely be programmed to feel such phobia. If the diagnosis would also indicate that the patient would likely suffer from agitation in crowded places, the patient would not likely hesitate to act accordingly, even if he only has a minimal proclivity towards panic attacks in crowded places (Ozmen, et.al., 2004). The impact of the label is therefore internalized deeply by the patient, with such label becoming part of his identity. Diagnostic labelling is rife with flaws, especially when it is used to generalize individuals and lump them into one category. Such labelling also assumes that all individuals who belong in a group are similar to each other and that they have easily identified boundaries (APA, 2000). For mental health practitioners, these labels suit their practice well because it allows them to understand the significant amount of information about certain individuals which they may encounter (APA, 2000). In effect, diagnosis becomes more than just a label for the patients. The diagnosis becomes a tool by which psychological conditions can be understood further and treated accordingly. With the use of the proper tools in diagnosis, the more accurate forms of treatment can also be applied to patients, especially through the use of appropriate psychotherapy and psychopharmacological remedies which can secure relatively normal living conditions for these patients (APA, 2000). Unavoidably however, diagnostic labelling seems to have become the norm in society with mental health patients often generally branded as ‘crazy’ even without any knowledge of their mental health condition. In addition, the negative implications of diagnostic labelling have always clouded whatever favourable opinion or options which can be made available for mental health patients (Baldwin and Johnson, 2004). For those suffering from panic attacks, their condition usually revolves around a great deal of anxiety felt under specific conditions. For different people, the trigger for the panic varies based on what the individual actually fears or what he is panicked by. Where symptoms would make up a diagnosis for panic disorder, the label also becomes a source of stigma against the patient (Corrigan, 2006). One of the most unfortunate stigmas is that these individuals pose a danger to society. Such belief or stigma is inaccurate, but is still very much perceived as true by general society (Corrigan, 2006). Although some danger may have been posed at any point in time by any individual suffering from a mental illness, this supposition cannot be applied generally. Conclusion Based on the above discussion, it is important to note that diagnostic labelling is generally a favourable practice because it is a tool which is used by mental health practitioners in determining and defining an individual’s mental health status. Such diagnosis can also help professionals establish a favourable and accurate treatment for patients, allowing them to manage their condition and eventually to live their lives as normally as their condition can allow. In relation to panic disorders, diagnostic labelling can also guide the patients in their behaviour and treatment options. However, diagnostic labelling is also rich with pitfalls, mostly in relation to the stigma attached to it. The possibility of misdiagnosis as well as discrimination is part of the risk which has to be endured by mental health sufferers. In addition, the labelling can also decrease a person’s self-esteem and self-efficacy, even to the point where he is also prejudiced against himself and his abilities to cope with daily challenges. With decreased self-efficacy, those labelled with a mental illness would also find it even more difficult to function normally; on top of this, the prejudice of society against the mentally ill would further exacerbate the social isolation which these individuals are subjected to. The label in effect becomes a dominant part of their lives, almost to the point that they are defined by it. In the end, these individuals would find it hard to establish a place in normal society. References American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Ankrom, S., 2009. Anxiety attacks versus panic attacks: what's the difference?. About.com. Retrieved from http://panicdisorder.about.com/od/understandingpanic/a/anxvspanic.htm Baldwin, M.L., & Johnson, W.G. (2004). Labor market discrimination against men with disabilitities. Journal of Human Resources, 29, 1–19. Ben-Zeev, D., Young, M., & Corrigan, P. (2010). DSM-V and the stigma of mental illness. Journal of Mental Health, 19(4), 318–327 Corrigan, P.W. (2006). The impact of consumer-operated services on the empowerment and recovery of people with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric Services, 57, 1493–1496. Corrigan, P., Faber, D., Rashid, F., & Leary, M. (1999). The construct validity of empowerment among consumers of mental health services. Schizophrenia Research, 38, 77–84. Corrigan, P.W., Larson, J.E., & Rusch, N. (2009). Self-stigma and the ‘‘why try’’ effect’’ impact on life goals and evidence based practices. World Psychiatry, 8, 75–81. Corrigan, P., Markowitz, F. & Watson, A. (2004). Structural levels of mental illness stigma and discrimination. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 30, 481–491. Hinton, D. (2012). Multicultural challenges in the delivery of anxiety treatment. Depression and Anxiety, 29(1), 1–3. Kobau, R., DiIorio, C., Chapman, D., & Delvecchio, P. (2010). Attitudes about mental illness and its treatment: validation of a generic scale for public health surveillance of mental illness associated stigma. Community Mental Health Journal, 46(2), 164-176 Lauber, C., & Rossler, W. (2007). Stigma towards people with mental illness in developing countries in Asia. International Review of Psychiatry, 19, 157–178. Link, B.G., & Phelan, J.C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385. Mirowsky, J. & Ross, C. (2003). Social causes of psychological distress. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Ozmen, E., Ogel, K., Aker, T., Sagduyu, A., Tamar, D., & Boratav, C. (2004). Public attitudes to depression in urban Turkey- the influence of perceptions and causal attributions on social distance towards individuals suffering from depression. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 39, 1010–1016. Prasko, J., Mainerova, B., Diveky, T., Kamaradova, D., Jelenova, D., et.al., 2011. Panic disorder and stigmatization. Act Nerv Super Rediviva, 53(4): 194–201 Rounsaville, B.J., Alarcon, R.D., Andrews, G., Jackson, J.S., Kendell, R.E., & Kendler, K. (2002). Basic nomenclature issues for DSM–V. In D.J. Kupfer, M.B. First, & D.E. Regier (Eds.), A research agenda for DSM–V. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Scheff, T. (1984). Being mentally ill. Piscataway: Aldine Transaction. Scheid, T.L. (2005). Stigma as a barrier to employment: Mental disability and the Americans with Disabilities Act. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 28, 670–690. Sorsdahl, K. & Stein, D. (2010). Knowledge of and stigma associated with mental disorders in a South African community sample. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 198(10), 742-747 Stuart, H. (2006). Mental illness and employment discrimination. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 19, 522–526. Widiger, T.A. & Samuel, D.B. (2005). Diagnostic categories or dimensions? A question for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 494–504. Read More