Forthcoming Reports and Position Papers:Discrimination Study | Prevention Paper
| On This Page: The Real Experts | Top Four Discriminators | First-Hand Experiences | Prevailing Messages | Pros and Cons | Rethinking Stigma | Ending Discrimination
![]() As people with first-hand experience in the mental health system, we are the experts on the oppression we face. Yet public awareness of stigma and discrimination has been shaped almost exclusively by groups who are not directly affected – mental health professionals, citizens’ and family members' advocacy groups, government policy makers, the pharmaceutical industry and the media.
These are among the questions to which the California Network of Mental Health Clients set out to find answers.
Discrimination: Who tops the list? Responses from participants in a series of focus groups we conducted shed new light on social and institutional oppression in a wide array of forms, and challenge mainstream depictions of who most often discriminates against mental health clients.
Read more from the Executive Summary of "Normal People Don't Want to Know Us" [Top]Looking oppression in the eye: Focus group participants recount experiences of discrimination. “My
psychiatrist tried to force me to take meds, and eventually I ended up
having to take them against my will. They made me take the meds for a
year.” “Mental
health service providers don’t listen or take me seriously. Even
though I speak truth, I am discounted as 'crazy’ because I don’t make
eye contact, appear normal.” “My
family had me involuntarily committed. They called the police, watched
them put me in handcuffs and treat me like a criminal – even when I was
seeking treatment.” “I had just been harassed and then brutalized by police, and “Locked
units like this don’t let us have any books on our legal rights or
empowerment; we can’t access resources like computers or the Internet
either.”
“People
on the street ask me rude questions. ‘Don’t you know how to stop
shaking? What’s your problem? Are you from a mental institution?’
They give me funny looks.” Read more from the forthcoming CNMHC report "Normal People Don't Want to Know Us" [Top]Anti-stigma campaigns: Which messages are being heard, and from whom? Drawing from anti-stigma messages with which they were familiar, participants in our study most often cited the statements that people with psychiatric diagnoses are no more prone to violence than others (culled from the 1999 MacArthur Risk Assessment Study) and that recovery is possible (NMHA, many consumer organizations and mental health professionals), the highly publicized message that mental illness is caused by a chemical imbalance, it’s nobody’s fault, and recovery is possible with proper treatment and medication (based on messages from NMHA, NAMI and various drug companies), and the observation that the media perpetuate stigma and discrimination but offer no high-profile media message against it (based on the work of Otto Wahl and others). Also frequently cited were a number of overtly stigmatizing messages participants had seen or heard in the media, including the myths that mental patients are incompetent, stupid, and unable to make decisions and that segregation of “the mentally ill” is in all of our best interest.
Read more from the forthcoming CNMHC report "Normal People Don't Want to Know Us" [Top]
Prevailing anti-stigma messages: How do they measure up? Without a doubt, the most hotly debated messages in our focus groups were three variants of the “medical model” argument, favored by NMHA, NAMI and a number of pharmaceutical companies, that mental illness is caused by a chemical imbalance, it’s nobody’s fault, and recovery is possible with proper treatment and medication. Responses on both sides focused primarily on the ethics and efficacy of a model centered on prescription drugs and patient compliance with drug regimens. The “medical model” had some loyal supporters among the participants – who agreed, for example, with the claim that mental illness is a biologically based disease like diabetes or cancer, so early intervention and treatment with appropriate medications are key to recovery – but the vast majority regarded claims of a “biochemical imbalance” with great suspicion, challenging and debunking such statements as unproven, stigmatizing and potentially harmful in terms of their influence on clients’ health, safety and informed consent. Even more dramatically, with the exception of one, participants roundly rejected the President's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health's much trumpeted claim that stigma is problematic mainly insofar as it discourages people from seeking treatment. That message was frequently criticized for ignoring the sources and impact of stigma and discrimination on clients’ everyday lives. Read more from the forthcoming CNMHC report "Normal People Don't Want to Know Us" [Top]Rethinking stigma When we asked participants to define the terms stigma and discrimination, most drew from their personal experiences:
| News,Views & Events:News & Views | Upcoming Events | PresentationsNews & Views:
|