Should there be mandatory mental health screening?

[danseen]

In a parallel universe where every day is opposite day.

Perhaps.

 

[keto chameleon]

yes.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

I remember freshman year there was this teen screen mental health thing they had us give out to our parents. I didn't give it to them, and I would've lied on the test thing anyway.

 

[Wunjo]

From a perspective, of course. From one another, absolutely not.

Fear, psychologically speaking, is the most powerful weapon that have ever existed on the arsenal of the mankind and unfortunately it is not a condition that people who knows this glimpse of a fact are not necessarily benevolent, since benevolence is something quite relative, I am to explain a point of view on this. The truth is, logically, we can not really believe in concepts such as benevolence and malevolence, these are, completely related to the eye of the beholder, so, in order to explain this particular point of view, there is a need of construction a cognitive empathy with those who suffer from a mental illness and those who not, if one is to establish a cognitive empathy between the psychiatrists, government officials and what one perceives them to feel, of course one would be able to prove some truth in what they say. Why I am saying all of this to you? It is really simple, actually. As a personal remark, my empathy is based on preference here since it is well agreed that is one of the most effective ways of preventing fanaticism and bigotry, for what is about to be presented to you is mostly based on fated choice.

It can be said that a mandatory mental health screening would be terrible for society and its people in the long term, of course, in short term, people will be relieved from a lot of anxieties, for they will know that the ''mad'' in between them would be ''purged.'' Since people are extremely afraid from their potential of madness, they project that fear on people who have already gone mad as pure hate, for it is hard for a human being to accept the fact that he is afraid or anxious, since we are mostly unaware of our anxieties. This people, will lose their anxiety towards madness and they'd be quite happy to give the keys to their minds and hearts to the psychiatrists and of course thus, to governments. Imagine a political rally made by the party who proposed this, for your imagination will mostly give you discomfort here, for releasing fear unto people and stripping them away from that fear when you are, or your system is the one who released that fear in the first place is the most sure way to gain control over them.

Imagine an organization is offering you mental projection, continuous supervision and a constant state of control.

This, in my opinion is too good to be true, for as human beings we are mostly motivated by agendas that are even hidden from our own selves. Of course now, we can not say that that these institutions are hiding their agendas from themselves, for as an aspiring researcher of psychology, I can define my stance in this matter as anti-psychiatric, and I feel the urge to underline the phrase ''in this matter''. Why there should be no mandatory mental health screening? Ironically, the reason is exactly the same with the argument of why it should be; human nature can not be trusted, be it professional or amateur, there is always another professional all these seemingly trusted professionals serve, judging from this, one believe there is no cure to madness, instead, madness in itself is a cure for such a normal and obedient, easily manipulated and herd-mentality shaped society. Mandatory health screenings, if they one day occur, are going to serve as a proof for this, according to Ni. For even if we eradicate madness from society, the absence of it will be the exact thing that will mother it to be born again.

Our own attempts of curing madness is in fact riddled with fear, anxiety and madness, so we can not define what is mad or what is not at all, can we?

Dear old Sigmund once said that a little neurosis was good for everyone, yet my observations show me that the people are ruled and directed by neurotics that are also the people, and it is this notion of people which define what is mad and what is not, which makes me think of the question that can we really trust the judgment of a neurotic in such delicate areas? I think not, otherwise psychologists and psychoanalysts would not get any supervision. The psychologists and psychiatrists mostly see through the neuroses of society and from a perspective, they also think that collective neuroses and collective psychoses are the things what makes the world go round, in short words that we live in a dangerously mad world, for we think that we know what madness is and by this assumed knowledge we assume that we know what sanity is, which is terrible logic. Mental health specialists define madness as something dangerous to a neurotic society, methinks and that can be called as lazy psychiatry, for we do not cure people from their neuroses, we only cure who pose a threat against people who possess neuroses.

Considering these arguments I think it is healthy to say that what society needs is psychoterapy and psychoanalysis, a mental health screening may present a lot of negative outcomes in these times.

 

[Mole]

I think it is healthy to say that what society needs is psychoterapy and psychoanalysis, a mental health screening may present a lot of negative outcomes in these times.

Since the Western Enlightenment in the 18th century we have romanticised madness. We say, for instance, there is only a thin line between genius and madness. Things are, I am afraid, more prosaic, and the psychologically damaged tend to be psychologically damaging.

 

[Lark]

Since the Western Enlightenment in the 18th century we have romanticised madness. We say, for instance, there is only a thin line between genius and madness. Things are, I am afraid, more prosaic, and the psychologically damaged tend to be psychologically damaging.

I can agree with the bolded but I dont agree that anyone has romanticised madness, not madness proper in any case, perhaps eccentricity or quirkiness or some misnomer for madness.

I actually think that the Lacanian school of thought with its whole "enjoy your symptom" business does engage in the errors you speak of but its only possible because they are generally considering neurotics rather than psychopaths.

 

[lunalum]

Routine and frequent, yes.


Mandatory, No.

 

[Obfuscate]

ugh, no... there are enough conditions for "compulsory care" as it is...

you should read Szasz...

The Myth of Mental Illness - Wikipedia

 

[Lord Lavender]

While a good idea in theory this has too many dystopian implications such as goverment and public bodies using the info in less moral ways but on the other hand this idea does have merit in its most ideal form as if we can screen people we can spot mental problems in their infancy before they can grow into something far worse and more damaging so I can see the merit of this idea as it could reduce crime rates and make the population overall happier as many people have undianoised mental health issues that cause them issues and unhappiness such as depression, anxiety e.c.c.

I think mental health screening of some kind should be more widely accessible but not forced.

 

[miss fortune]

my first reaction is "oh good! I suppose we get little symbols to wear on our clothes to let the population know to walk on eggshells around us!"

while mental healthcare should be more widely available, it should not be compulsory, nor should the results be made public in any manner

there are enough stigmas attached to mental illness that it would be really shitty to make such results public

 

[ceecee]

my first reaction is "oh good! I suppose we get little symbols to wear on our clothes to let the population know to walk on eggshells around us!"

while mental healthcare should be more widely available, it should not be compulsory, nor should the results be made public in any manner

there are enough stigmas attached to mental illness that it would be really shitty to make such results public

Of course this is the worst idea ever. The person who started this thread only posts the worst ideas ever.

 

[Agent Washington]

If I had all the time in the world, I could list the reasons why this won't work and also, is a terrible idea.... But I don't.

...I do like Foucault's Madness and Civilisation, though. Good place to start.

And no, 18th C Enlightenment hasn't romanticised madness - that's historically inaccurate and also, kinda full of shit - 19th C social processes as industrialisation advanced systematically pathologised a lot of things. The systematic pathologisation of mental health is an issue here, which is why there are some that claim the enlightenment project was more brutal than how we perceived what went on before (eg: say, the middle ages) - and anyway, on the topic of some 'pathologies', some experts honestly note is a rational response due to disparity between how society developed and evolutionary advantages that should have benefitted humanity - god there's so many issues at hand here and I just. Ffff fuck it

 

[Jaguar]

Not unless you start at The White House.

 

[EcK]

Psychiatry has a lot of value, so should there be compulsory mental health screenings for every person?

If there was would that mean religious people couldnt get a job anymore?

 

[KitchenFly]

Psychiatry has a lot of value, so should there be compulsory mental health screenings for every person?

There is mandatory screening it's called the education system. One of the things that is monitored is the child's mental health, behaviours and attitudes. If there is an authentic problem the state dose intervene.

At least that's how the duty of care works within Australian schools.

 

[Frosty]

First thing- first answer- no.

I don't think that there should be mandatory mental health screenings because that would most likely mean that some exectutive body is ordering them. I think it would be just to easy for say- things to go wrong if like- the government mandated that. Probably eventually benchmarks would come from it and- people who DID have mental issues who could not meet those benchmarks... well its not fair to penalize them in any way for that. I just think it would be too easy for the government- or whoever to use those results of those screenings to like... arbitrarily fuck over people who didnt pass. Or at least force people to do things they dont want to do.

A persons mental health should be left to their own hands. Sure, if there was a way to 'encourage' people to get help when they need it- if the awareness of the importance of treatment for mental health issues was increased... stigma decreased... thats a good thing. But MAKING people get screened puts a bad taste in my mouth

 

[Mind Maverick]

my first reaction is "oh good! I suppose we get little symbols to wear on our clothes to let the population know to walk on eggshells around us!"

while mental healthcare should be more widely available, it should not be compulsory, nor should the results be made public in any manner

there are enough stigmas attached to mental illness that it would be really shitty to make such results public

Except nobody said it had to be public, so...??? I don't understand this response.


No, but I think it should be mandatorily OFFERED as part of the education system.

I think
A) People should be mandatorily taught about mental health in school (along with financial management, local laws, basic parenting skills, and all other things relevant to our lives as adults) and
B) Testing should be mandatorily offered to anyone who wishes to find out if they meet the diagnostic criteria

I don't think this should be done until people are older, definitely not among kids, as kids will just make fun of anyone for anything and it'll feed stigmas among youths and can't be diagnosed anyway...but yes, I think psychological health, financial management, basic local laws, and all things relevant to our real lives should be implemented into the education system.

I do not think it should be just something you go do in some office somewhere as if you're going to the DMV for a license.

Make no mistake though, I'm not saying I think having mental illness/not having mental illness should be a part of a grading system (how would that happen anyways? How would there be something you can't pass due to mental illness?), I'm just saying that awareness, education, and treatment should be promoted. Hell, there are things that worsen if they go undiagnosed, such as Bipolar...catching them earlier could really do some good...and by doing it through the education system it works on the stigmas and enables people to better recognize symptoms even if they don't have symptoms during that time but develop them later on in their lives. It can also help them to recognize symptoms in their children, and so on.

Those results should be able to be kept private. They should be for the tester only. Testing should be mandatorily offered in school...where you can get tested or inquire from professionals without even parents/guardians knowing. For example, say you go through your required mental health education classes and you wonder if you might have something you guys went over in class, you should be able to go to a professional on campus and get some answers privately.

I think that
A) If students are of age for diagnosis: they should be able to get tested and receive results very discreetly, and whether or not that information is exposed to parents, peers, teachers, or whoever, should be left to the discretion of the individual only. The only exception should be in obtaining firearms imo, I think it should show up there.
B) If they are NOT of age for diagnosis: they should be able to see someone with their concerns, also privately and discreetly, and they should be able to become informed about how to get tested once they're of age for the diagnosis if they are no longer going to be a student by then.

---

Why is physical education / PE required while mental health education is not? This is wrong imo. Wrong.

I think you should only be graded on what you know and understand about mental health though, not how healthy you are, obviously.

 

[Lark]

Screening with a view to what though?

In the UK at least the most serious cases are discovered pretty quickly and receive services via public health.

I would question how adequate a service it is, even taking into account that services in the UK are provided on principles of a residual model of provision and less eligibility, it is a pretty limited provision.

However, I do think that this has some benefits, they are often by default/accident than deliberate design. For instance, a lot of "worried well" illness, or the sorts of trauma which go into spontaneous remission as psychological drives to health and homeostasis assert themselves, do not become pathologically persistent in nature.

Crucial I would say to most mental health are a lot of externalities, some of which its not really in the gift of firms, public or private, to directly provide, they can sure f**k things up though sometimes. That observation is about the cases which are not straight forward psychiatric, organic illness, ie lesions on the brain, cognitive deficits, altered brain and body chemistry from physical injury, drug abuse, other sorts of toxins or pollution.

This chance, luck and chaos character to governance and provision of the mixed economy of health has been thrown into sharp contrast by the pandemic but it was already clear before that in the response of state and civil society to flooding and climate catastrophe.