Prince Harry And FLOTUS Brilliantly Shut Down Mental Health Stereotypes [HuffintonPost.com]

Sandy Goodwick posted:

No.

They perpetuated some myths.

(1) That 'treatment' (read: standard medical care  - drugs, psychotherapy) 'does it'. The 'medical model' unhinged the ACEs/ trauma that vets and those in civilian populations go through.  Pills only numb the pain. Psychotherapy doesn't get into the intuitive knowledge and support that comes from people who not only deeply understand emotional distress, they've hammered out both dialogues (intentional peer support, Open Dialogue) and methodology (Wellness Recovery Action Plan) that are far more intuitive. Yes, a certain percentage of people will need meds and do benefit from trauma-informed therapy. But when those who cheer Prince Harry and the FLOTUS on fail to hear the 'recovery' story, a crutch is used when a bandage is needed.

(2) Once treatment is started, everything gets better - inferring all who find standard treatment ineffective, but have no knowledge of or access to peer support (and experience chronic depression, PTSD, etc.) ... these people must be 'slackers' because they've not gotten better. Again, this "ties everything up" into the assumed paradigm of 'standard treatment'.

(3) Neither Prince Harry nor the FLOTUS spoke in 'first person narrative'.  If they are so concerned about mental health, why didn't they speak of their personal, lived experiences? Could it be STIGMA?

(4) Excuse me, but I don't need somebody else without credible lived experiences speaking for me, when credibility comes from having personally experienced the stigma of seeking support while experiencing emotional distress. There are gobs of people way up the food chain of knowledge who could have spoken deeper/faster/farther on mental illness stigma than two well known people who failed to speak of their own experiences. 

Awesome answer! Thank you for being vulnerable, and I agree. Excellent points on #3 and #4. 

No.

They perpetuated some myths.

(1) That 'treatment' (read: standard medical care  - drugs, psychotherapy) 'does it'. The 'medical model' unhinged the ACEs/ trauma that vets and those in civilian populations go through.  Pills only numb the pain. Psychotherapy doesn't get into the intuitive knowledge and support that comes from people who not only deeply understand emotional distress, they've hammered out both dialogues (intentional peer support, Open Dialogue) and methodology (Wellness Recovery Action Plan) that are far more intuitive. Yes, a certain percentage of people will need meds and do benefit from trauma-informed therapy. But when those who cheer Prince Harry and the FLOTUS on fail to hear the 'recovery' story, a crutch is used when a bandage is needed.

(2) Once treatment is started, everything gets better - inferring all who find standard treatment ineffective, but have no knowledge of or access to peer support (and experience chronic depression, PTSD, etc.) ... these people must be 'slackers' because they've not gotten better. Again, this "ties everything up" into the assumed paradigm of 'standard treatment'.

(3) Neither Prince Harry nor the FLOTUS spoke in 'first person narrative'.  If they are so concerned about mental health, why didn't they speak of their personal, lived experiences? Could it be STIGMA?

(4) Excuse me, but I don't need somebody else without credible lived experiences speaking for me, when credibility comes from having personally experienced the stigma of seeking support while experiencing emotional distress. There are gobs of people way up the food chain of knowledge who could have spoken deeper/faster/farther on mental illness stigma than two well known people who failed to speak of their own experiences. 

There are two issues at least I see in this. One is that people might have jobs, but wages for most folk have stagnated for a long, long time, and in the prioritizing of things, rent and then deciding between food and utilities means that any sort of mental health, often in insured cases and definitely if not insured, becomes a luxury only if money is available for deductibles and co-payments. Which is part of the second issue. The specter of long drawn out therapy relationships that might involve medication and they look around at friends who went down that road unsuccessfully. It's easy then to write it off. Because the tool itself leaves something to be desired.

My experience has been somewhat that. I found it rather easy to lie to therapists. In the times that I visited therapists, not one of them ever considered C-PTSD as a problem. Or trauma.

I have since been able to treat myself using a body based tool. Particularly in cases of PTSD, the problem isn't between the ears. It's in the body. If people had an option to deal with their issues that wouldn't involve having to talk about their issues, was something they could practice at home, and therefore be cost effective, I think you'd see a lot more people prioritizing it.