WHAT IS MENTAL HEALTH - Essay Example

WHAT IS MENTAL HEALTH The concept of mental health is a simple and difficult issue based on traditional understanding of health and psychology combined with cultural and personal differences of every individual. Mental health includes manifestations of psychopathology ranging from minor transitory mood disturbances to organic disorders. Accordingly, intervention settings could range from informal social networks in the community to large state hospitals. In order to explain the concept of the mental health, the paper will cover the differences between illness and health, and will analyze factors which influence mental health. Mental hygiene is defined as "the science of promoting mental health and preventing mental illness through the application of psychiatry and psychology. A more commonly used term today is mental health" (Mental Hygiene 2007, p. 31524). A therapist is most likely to conceive of psychiatric disorders as having a biological basis and utilize a somatic treatment. Psychotherapists emphasize psychological, or intrapsychic, models of etiology, and prefer psychotherapy as the treatment of choice. These practitioners believe that specific models of etiology are identifiable, as are precise treatment modalities. On the other hand, the sociotherapist is more likely to favor socio-environmental explanations of psychiatric disorders that put aside specific disease models of mental illness in favor of schemes that take into account social processes. In the end, the so-called sociotherapist was supposed to prevail (Bell, 2004). Many researchers admit that and cultural factors have a great impact on understanding of mental health and wellbeing. In more sociological terms, social indicators do not necessarily supply any insight into the causes of behavior. A does not strictly lead to B, because these or any other social factors are complex processes that do not exist in a vacuum. Variables such as these are mediated by the human presence, because human action cannot be separated neatly from knowledge. However, when the attempt is made to conceptualize social life dualistically, roles, norms, and laws gain a sense of autonomy. These structural factors are not only thought to cause behavior, but serve as a referent for judging normativeness. All cultures, in short, are thought to be underpinned by similar social or psychological laws (Bell, 2004). Consequently, inanimate objects are the focus of attention during intervention activities. Suggested in the previous paragraph, however, is that this modus operandi is insufficient, particularly in terms of a philosophy that stresses community involvement. Data, behavior, and norms, for example, are not neutral indicators. Instead, these and other components of social life have a human texture, which is inscribed by a host of interpretive elements. By this they mean behavior is not something that can be assessed accurately by consulting merely its objective properties. Because the meaning of behavior is interpretive, identifying a social problem is much more difficult than is revealed by the medical model. In short, failure to penetrate the interpretive fabric of data can result in the mindless collection of empirical facts that have little relevance to making a socially appropriate diagnosis (Aitken and Curtis 2004). Clearly this epistemology elevates in importance cultural factors in distinguishing illness behavior. People, accordingly, can only benefit from this shift in thinking. Cultural norms concerning issues such as tolerance of symptoms, responsibility for care, use of medication, or personal beliefs about illness no longer have to be viewed as anathema to prescribing a sound treatment regimen. The cultural context of a problem should not be an impediment to making an accurate diagnosis, subsequent to accepting the philosophy of community-based intervention. Surely mental illness is embedded within a social context. Almost by definition empirically derived information is insufficient to classify deviant acts. These data are simply empirical, while deviance implies the presence of value judgments. As a result, claiming that objective facts are indicative of behavior can be very misleading. So long as norms, health, and deviance, for example, are imagined to be unquestioningly uniform and objective, the need to consult human action to link these factors to social processes will not be seen as urgent (Haralambos 2004). Overlooked, however, are the social meaning of human action, the cultural basis of behavior, the pathways followed to treatment, and the expectations clients have about their problems and therapy. Clearly intervention is not simply a logistical but a social undertaking. This is particularly the case subsequent to the onset of community-based intervention. In this case, behaviorism offered a new opportunity for the introduction of efficient interventions, due to some success related to the treatment of phobias. Nonetheless, the problem is that those who adopted variants of behaviorism were almost obsessed by clarity (Brake et al 2005). This should be no surprise, since interpretation is believed to confound the search for valid knowledge. Anything associated with the black box is supposed to be avoided. With regard to treatment planning, for example, so-called "weasel" terms should be purged from any description of a client's treatment regimen. The reason for this is quite simple: the human presence is always presupposed in the discovery and utilization of knowledge. Even when the claim is made that particular procedures or taxonomies are value-free, assumptions are advanced about the nature of reality. Furthermore, taking seriously the charge of value freedom may result in bias. Because a set of assumptions is ignored, due to its alleged scientific status, the cultural relevance of those beliefs may not be rigorously scrutinized. Consequently, data are likely to be filtered through assumptions that are socially irrelevant (Bell, 2004). For nurse professionals, it is crucial to understand the deference and boundaries between mental health and illness. The perplexing nature of behavioral and mood disorders, combined with the culture-specific context required for interpreting mental illness, make imposing the same standards found in general medicine for establishing etiology and classifying disorders very difficult in psychiatry. The cross-cultural literature on depression, for example, documents the diverse ways that depression can be revealed. Depression can be purely somatic, while at other times anger is the primary feature of this problem. However, these approaches assume that mental illness has a universal biological basis, and fail to heed the obvious evidence that psychiatry must deal with values, norms, beliefs, imagery, ideation, and social history. There are likely to be serious repercussions in the formal training of mental health and allied practitioners. As noted, physicians receive minimal exposure to mental health information, cross-cultural training, or prevention in medical school, and thus are not rewarded for acquiring this type of information. Hence, the health beliefs and personal practices of minorities are especially neglected. In their clinical work, M.D.s simply avoid dealing with the psychological or emotional aspects of cases, because they are exposed mostly to genetic and biochemical models of mental illness. Also, future clinical psychologists will likely be trained in biomedical models of mental illness. Despite abundant developments in the subfields of behavioral medicine and health psychology, social issues related to mental health have rarely been incorporated into intervention models. Moreover, psychologists are seldom trained in transcultural research or intervention. And many social workers simply avoid addressing public mental health issues and plan to fill institutional positions or operate private practices (Gross, 2001). In sum, the understanding of mental health depends upon definition of mental illness and deviance. An individual is influenced by social and cultural traditions and values, so nurse practitioners should understand the differences and possible variations in mental health. There is a big difference, and potentially a misleading one, between the way people really see their personal distress and how a disorder is simulated by DSM-III protocol. Indeed, these writers conclude that the benefits, either scientific or therapeutic, associated with the current diagnostic paradigm are not obvious. Bibliography Aitken, B. J., Curtis, R. 2004, Integrated Health Care: Improving Client Care While Providing Opportunities for Mental Health Counselors. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 26 (1), 321. Bell, R. 2004, Mental Health Nursing; An Introductory Guide, Nelson Thornes, London Brake, R. E., Merrens, M., Lynde, D. 2005, Evidence-Based Mental Health Practice: A Textbook. W. W. Norton & Company; 1. Gross, R. 2001, Psychology, The Science of Mind and Behavior, 4th Ed, Hodder Stougton, London Haralambos, M. 2004, Sociology: Themes and Perspectives, 6th Ed, Pearson, London. Mental Hygiene. 2007, The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition, p. 31524. Read More