AS THE NEW YORK TIMES reported recently, psychiatric epidemiologists from the Harvard Medical School have published studies purporting to demonstrate that some 55 percent of Americans suffer from mental illness in their lifetime. These studies--which cost $20 million, most of it out of the taxpayer's pocket--are based on a survey of 9,282 randomly selected English-speaking subjects over the age of 18 who were seen in their homes by technicians trained to ask specific questions about symptoms believed to indicate mental illnesses. The results led Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, the studies' primary sponsor, to note that indeed "mental disorders are highly prevalent and chronic." More than half the people of the United States, in other words, have been or are mentally ill.

The survey technicians were instructed to fill in a questionnaire by asking the subjects about mental symptoms such as depression and anxiety that they might have experienced in their lives. Such technicians, sticking to the prescribed inventory, essentially act as secretaries, recording what people say they recall from their past. The techs gather no sense of the persons they are meeting--no appreciation of their life circumstances, the issues they have dealt with, what strengths they brought to bear, or what vulnerabilities they overcame, in dealing with the good and bad fortune life brought them. The individual's family, social circumstances, temperament, character, opportunities, successes, and disappointments are all outside the attention of these interrogators. Instead, the technicians run down their checklist of symptoms with no thought to causes, simply recording a yes or no answer to each. This is not a psychiatric examination; it is barely a census

That being said...

Questions for Debate:

1. What percentage of Americans are or have been mentally ill? Furthermore, are we over-diagnosing /prescribing medication for mental illness in America?

2. Should tax-payers pay for such studies?

3. What is the actual useful application of such information?

I'd like to see the link to the article.

Judging exclusively from what you have described, aevans176, I would be prone to react to the study in much the same way you have. However, it is hard to ascertain whether the questions themselves are inadequate without more context.

Gathering the context while asking the questions could easily be interpreted by those participating as prying, and I am not sure the information gatherers would get much cooperation at all.

1. What percentage of Americans are or have been mentally ill? Furthermore, are we over-diagnosing /prescribing medication for mental illness in America?

Who knows what percentage? It is altogether possible that those who actually go in to see doctors are over-diagnosed and receiving prescriptions they don't need. Bear in mind that those who are more severely mentally ill might not think they need a doctor or might not be able to afford to see one.

I suspect that if you were referring to how many men trot off to the doctor and get prescriptions for Viagra, Cialis, etc., it might also be determined that many are suffering from performance anxiety or just want to seem more virile.

2. Should tax-payers pay for such studies?

Should tax payers pay for any studies these days? It seems to me that many studies are not needed to know what is wrong with education, health care, etc., and still the problems are not being addressed. We're too busy waging wars.

3. What is the actual useful application of such information?

Mental illness has been looked upon as less legitimate than illnesses that manifest themselves as fevers, spots on the skin, etc. I can't read these peoples' minds, but it is possibly an attempt to de-stigmatize mental disorders and demonstrate that crippling depressions and dissociative states are responsible for broken homes, job losses, and many other consequences in similar ways that physical diseases are.

(Edit: Deleted "among" from the "Who knows..." paragraph)

Here's a link to a write up in the SF chronicle, and it can also be found in the "Archives of General Psychiatry".
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNGB3D4N3K1.DTL
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/62/6/617

My sincere objection to any study of this nature is that it neither proves anything nor presents plausible plans to combat these issues. It neither objectively quantifies anything as an epidemic nor shows the impact on the US as a whole.

The irony of this situation is that we perpetually "out" gov't officials for having "porkbelly" funds and spending excessively, but studies like this would never make network news. ... why?? because 1/2 of America thinks they need anti-depressant drugs!!! **UGH**

Impossible to determine, the term "mentally ill" is such a broad spectrum these days. Mentally ill may be based on one thing entirely for one such person but another for the other. The brain is not uniform. Every individual person has their own unique patterns in which their life is determined, what could be a mental disease for another could be something perfectly different for another.

Heck, if Prozac was discovered in the U.K.'s water supply I'd have to say we are seriously over-medicating people. The truth is that we are a nation of hypochondriacs. People feel they have a slight fever and a doctor gives them a prescription for a drug used to combat A.D.D. because they weren't able to focus during the examination. Mental illness is a true problem, yet we are pumping too many drugs into people like they are waste receptacles.




Call me cold, but no. I can see the benefits of government-funding, but it would not be fair. There is very little government funding on stem cell research, if the government fails to provide monies to all research that would be beneficial to all there should be no money provided.

If we did pay for these studies what is next? Another $300,000.00 study on the potential use of a frisbee as a tool of war (its true!)? Medical Research should be fueled by the individual, it should not be required for all people to hand over money. If scientists and doctors wish to further study mental illness private funding should be acquired, such as from large corporations or benefactors willing to part with money on a voluntary basis.




The number of mental hospitals we need to build.

1. What percentage of Americans are or have been mentally ill? Furthermore, are we over-diagnosing /prescribing medication for mental illness in America?

I don't know the statistics neccessary to answer that question, and as a result, I don't know. One very important thing to remember in this debate, is exactly what is defined as a mental illness? I think the term is used to lightly, as it often includes people who are depressed for real life reasons, rather then some sort of chemical imbalance.

2. Should tax-payers pay for such studies?

The government funds a lot of studies, and I think perhaps it should enforce objectivability a bit more.

3. What is the actual useful application of such information?

Well we can add one more misleading statistic to our compodium of knowledge .

1. What percentage of Americans are or have been mentally ill? Furthermore, are we over-diagnosing /prescribing medication for mental illness in America?

We can't really know that seeing as how we don't have the stats, sample size, etc etc. The article mentioned 1 in 4 people have some sort of mental illness at one point in their life and that seems to echo other numbers I've heard before. As far as over-diagnosing/prescribing, if you take prescribing for ADHD out, I'd say no. In fact, the article suggests that most people don't seek treatment.




2. Should tax-payers pay for such studies?
Well, seeing as how this study is conducted once every 10 years, I think we can swing that IF you look at it long term, and try and "nip things in the bud" as these doctors are trying to do, it may actually end up saving us.

3. What is the actual useful application of such information?

From the article:






and probably the most important part:


Sounds to me like they're trying to find which of these mild disorders may lead to a greater chance of a debilitating disorder, alcoholism, stress induced heart problems, drug use etc etc. I don't think they're looking at the "cause" here, they're trying to narrow things down and find out which disorders have the most potential to effect Americans and or which disorders have the most potential to lead to greater problems later in life.

1. What percentage of Americans are or have been mentally ill? Furthermore, are we over-diagnosing /prescribing medication for mental illness in America?

Mental illness is relative. If a person who functioned normally, or even at a high level, took ADD drugs they would feel more alert. But at the same time there is another group of people who without medication would be in mental institutions. If you listen to pharmaceutical companies, somewhere between 75% and 95% of people should be on some form of psychiatric medication . I think it might be more like 5% or 15% at most. But hey this is America, the land of the free and the home of the medicated, it's our right to take drugs we don't need, as long as they're made by a multinational corporation, and cost more than we can afford. That's the American Way .

2. Should tax-payers pay for such studies?
This one seems pretty useless but actual studies of mental illness could actually be worth the cost.

3. What is the actual useful application of such information?
It might help sell drugs. I sort of a skeptic on medicating huge amounts of people but it might have some good points. Imagine, every American on some kind of amphetamine pill. It might allow us to increase our national productivity.

Maybe what I'm about to bring up is irrelevant, but I don't think so.

How many of us watch the local news and hear details of murders and kidnappings every night? Now, there are a couple of approaches to take regarding this: Turn off the television if you find this kind of news upsetting (I do that), and/or find out why these violent acts are taking place. Most assuredly, this kind of news does not speak well of the mental health of America.

We talk about boondoggles and pork. I see that the Air Force base in Battle Creek might be on the chopping block along with many, many others throughout the country. The consequences of closing the base in Battle Creek will be dire in a state that already has seen the outsourcing of jobs and closing down of too many businesses. The cost it exacts on families in this community, both economically and emotionally, is tremendous. I do not want to see the base closed for the sake of this community.

I would rather see more jobs for the people, more opportunities for them to make a living wage and keep the bills paid, than more mental health professionals. I would rather see the stressors reduced on your average family than have to pay for drugs and psychiatric help, if improving the family's conditions can improve their mental health, which I believe it would.