Therapeutic Nation: Half of College-Age People Had "Psychiatric Episode" in Last Year
Ba-lo-ney! A study claims that nearly half of our young people of college age have had a psychiatric episode in the last year. From the study:Almost half of college-aged individuals had a psychiatric disorder in the past year. The overall rate of psychiatric disorders was not different between college-attending individuals and their non–college-attending peers. The unadjusted risk of alcohol use disorders was significantly greater for college students than for their non–college-attending peers (odds ratio = 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.50), although not after adjusting for background sociodemographic characteristics (adjusted odds ratio = 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.44). College students were significantly less likely (unadjusted and adjusted) to have a diagnosis of drug use disorder or nicotine dependence or to have used tobacco than their non–college-attending peers. Bipolar disorder was less common in individuals attending college. College students were significantly less likely to receive past-year treatment for alcohol or drug use disorders than their non–college-attending peers.
Of course, that depends on what is meant by a "psychiatric disorder." We have become such a therapeutic nation, that to get this result must involve what we could call psychiatric disorder inflation. Note, for example that nicotine addiction--smoking--is a psychiatric disorder according to the study. That means my dad was suffering from a psychiatric disorder: We just didn't know it all those years when he diligently supported the family, taught me how to throw a baseball and fish, and provided deep love and friendship to my mother. But apparently, he needed to be on the couch. I think I'll hide that bit of bad news from mom who was wistfully talking about how much she loved her late mate just yesterday.
Boys-being-boys is today, often diagnosed as a psychiatric disorder. I recall when President Bush was reelected, a new psychiatric disorder was created for people upset about the outcome.
In my experience doing family law--which I loathed--psychologists and psychiatrists were often called in to determine what was best for children in custody or visitation disputes. In my experience, the "expert witnesses" were often more messed up than the breaking-apart family.
Everything that hurts, or causes difficulties, or leads to grief is not a psychiatric disorder. Sometimes it is just life. Studies such as this seem more like industry-boosting to me than actual science.
If I am wrong, we are in real trouble. But I don't think I am and so I repeat: Baloney.
Labels: Therapeutic Nation. Psychiatric Disorder Rate Among College Age Adults.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 8:49 AM
4 Comments
4 Comments:
I think it's a bit more complicated than either take suggests, Wesley. For instance, I know firsthand that the diagnosis of bipolar disorder has increased significantly in the last few years and that this diagnosis seems to be determined via trial and error in some cases. I experienced this myself when a psychiatrist I went to thought that I had bipolar disorder (I don't), and wanted to see if this was the case by giving me a very powerful anti-convulsant drug that can cause Stevens-Johnson syndrome, which is basically a flesh-eating rash that can kill someone in 2 weeks if it isn't treated right away or is a particularly viscious reaction. All of the other possible meds caused acne, fatique, or dulled cognitive function. I said no, if those were the choices, I'd rather be bipolar. That's because I wasn't experiencing severe bipolar symptoms or episodes-if I were, to the point where I might harm myself, than I can see the doctor prescribing the medication. But she wanted to prescribe it in order to gauge my reaction to it and diagnose me that way. That is wrong. I also have a friend who has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, of whose case I am skeptical. She does have some issues, but she doesn't exhibit the symptoms of bipolar disorder, at least not from my perspective.
On the other hand, and this is where the complexity comes in, I do think that there is a prejudice against certain psychiatric differences as being in the person's head or made up that enable disability prejudice, particularly toward those with learning disorders. For instance, an oft-cited argument for our status as a "theraputic nation" is the alleged over-diagnosis of ADD/ADHD in everyone from children to adults. I often feel that the problem isn't over-diagnosis or, even in some cases, medication, but how the person is treated after the diagnosis is made and the medication is prescribed. When a doctor responds to changes in a person's life that are causing him to exhibit his ADHD more visibly, the answer isn't to prescribe medication, but to confer with the person or his family to see what steps can be taken to compensate for the new problems. When more medication is prescribed right away, people with these disorders are treated as if their normal human reactions to issues are inappropriate, when, if they didn't respond by being upset, that would be inappropriate, and people who have various issues do express stress in ways that can call attention to those issues. That is when medicating is wrong. Moreover, medication should be avoided if possible because it is, quite simply, a bad compound in general. ADD meds are stimulants and cause withdrawal symptoms like increased feelings of depression, fatique, irratibility, headaches, nausea, etc.
On the other hand, I do think that medication is a legitimate step if a child or person's endeavors/lives could improve with its administration. For instance, if a child is making Cs at school because he is having a problem concentrating despite his teacher and parents efforts, and taking medication can help him focus enough to reach his full potential of getting a B or A, than I think it's a legitimate step.
The only problem in this case is not the psychiatrist who prescribed the medication, which is the argument that some make, but is often the school, which does not offer enough choices or simple, universal modification to the classroom or curriculum that could, in many cases, alleviate the need for medication or enable students to take less of it.
My point in citing all of this is that often, people in academia especially make the argument that people with ADD and LD undercut academic rigor by being prescribed medication, which some academics feel is subversive to the process of designating which students are the "best" and which ones are average. One quote that sticks out in my mind is, "someone has got to be average." When people take that line, I feel like they are saying that some people with disabilities need to do poorly on their tests so that smart people can feel good about themselves.
Finally, 50 percent is high and depends on how that study defined psychiatric disorder. For instance, a psychiatric disorder could be anything from mild ADD to severe clinical depression. So, it may be that 50 percen do have a psychiatric disorder, but the reason that figure is so high is probably because it counts everyone with any disorder, not just those who have severe ones.
Back when I was in college, we called "alcohol use disorder" irresponsible drinking. When we started going stir crazy in grade school we went to recess or the teacher had us all stand up and do the hokey pokey. It was probably frustrating for our third grade teacher, but none of us were ever medicated and we all calmed down (relatively) by high school.
BALONEY is right. There are too many people unwilling to do real work and messed up in the head themselves and they are allowed to run around loose and have created this whole industry of psychiatry, psychology, "counselling," family law, etc. Most of them couldn't do an honest day's work well and honestly enough to survive. This crew feels entitled to have a college education now, whether it contains an education or not, not that they know the difference (or care) and is all full of themselves, and if enough people aren't "diagonosed," they'd be out of jobs. Enough of the rest of society respects their "credentials" so that there's a real mess now. As for "bipolar," the term gets tossed around like candy by professionals and lay people in society alike without even knowing what it means. Enough people are uneducated (by which I don't mean whether they have degrees, but whether they are able to think), and enough people have accepted the death culture, already, and when enough people get labelled, and enough are medicated, we'll be all set for dictatorship.
I take meds to regulate major depression and anxiet disorder. Some people really need medication or therapy because the brain needs help getting re-wired. The brain's your input/output device. When it goes screw-ball, your mind suffers GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. That's fair. That's necessary.
But so many people today are on medications that I can't see it all being necessary. I'm on one med for both anxiety and depression. I had originally been on three. It wasn't necessary, so I dropped two of them, was monitored, and went, "yay," because the one works fine.
I don't know. I see some legitimacy to the arguments that people do sometimes need psychiatric intervention, especially since I can't always function if I don't have my meds. (I stop sleeping and eating and go into major panic attacks for no reason sometimes when I'm not on them.)
But for goodness sake, not every "disorder" needs to be treated like it's the end of the world. Most of the time the brain will re-balance itself when left alone for about a year, or maybe less if the mind is put to work re-wiring the brain. So much of the time we seem to be falling apart and we're not.
I think we're over-doing it. Not everything that goes wrong in the head is really "wrong."
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home