Justin Baugh

Justice Identity
final exam/take-home exam

General Mental Hospital

Intro

For our final exam we are asked to analyze one newspaper article. Not only to
analyze the article, but to analyze the article specifically turns of how it shaped the
identity of a group of people. The article I eventually decided upon I found in the Nation
section of the Arizona Republic. The article, “Mental illness linked to short life in adults"
was a perfect choice for this particular assignment. This article, which was printed on
Thursday, May 3, 2007 was a short excerpt printed on section A14. I found this article
particularly interesting because it had seemingly, no purpose. As I read the article, not
much changed. Another reason for interest, was the element of fear that the title portray
and the statistical basis on which the article rested on.

The entire article took up roughly 1/6 of the newspapers page and was not linked
to any other page in the paper. The article starts out in with general facts regarding the
connection between mental illness in poor health and lifestyle. Then it goes on to give
other statistics regarding the percentages of people with mental illnesses that get care in
public versus private facilities. It is also mentioned here that three out of five patients
mostly die of preventable diseases; this “fact” is also highlighted as the subtitle of this
article. Most of this information comes from Joseph Parks, who is the director of
psychiatric services for the Missouri Department of mental health. The article gives a
few examples of some related mental illnesses along with a few more statistical tidbits.
Then the article highlights a few of the reasons why the statistics are so. Such examples
include, difficulty in getting and appointments and improper diagnosis. Both parks and
the article ended their point on a weak suggestion for help.

Questions

Generally, when I last do an analysis of the sort, I've pick out an article which
evokes emotion either extremely negative or positive. So many points in this article
strike me as…curious. First there are several things which strike me as obvious, such as
the use of names in the construction of a “mentally ill” identity. Many other questions are
left unanswered which are not as obvious. The first of which, would be “why.” Why is
this article here? Who decided that this article would take precedence over another, say a
high-speed car chase? It also strikes me as odd that the author of this article marginalizes
the very people whom she proposes to advocate for. The article's title, “Mental illness
linked to short life in adults” is clearly meant as a warning. While the subtitle, “3 out of 5
patients mostly die of preventable diseases” hints a bit more at the real problem. Upon
further review of the article it seems that the real issue here was not the connection
between mental illness and short life span, but more importantly why that connection
existed. The article claims that the mentally ill are more likely to abuse alcohol and drugs,
that they are less inclined to lead healthy lifestyles.

Problems

It would seem that the very problem which is affecting the mentally ill
community in real-life is mirrored in a similar fashion through this particular article. The
article, which deals with very serious and complex issues, reads very much like a space-
filler in a Time magazine article. There are also several points in the article which cross
the line from negligent and head into a territory which resembles blatant social
construction.

“adults with serious mental illness treated public systems died about 25 years
earlier than Americans overall, the gap is widening since the early 90s when major
mental disorders cut life spans by 10 to 15 years, according to a report due Monday.”

The above is the opening passage of this article. Two major things stand out in
this one passage; adults with serious mental illness are somehow separate from
Americans overall, and it cites a curiously speculative report. What clued does the reader
have as to the credibility of this report? So it would seem that the article, which on its
face was promoting the advancement of the “mentally ill” with also serves to marginalize
them. In just the beginning sentence of the article it is suggested that there is a difference
between adults with serious mental illness and Americans, a clear representation of the
“other” here. There is a brief mention of several illnesses which are definitive of
“mentally ill,” that obesity was a serious problem, and yet the duration of the article
continued to refer to this group as, “mentally ill”. For the mentally ill, this does nothing
but disservice. It seems quite obvious that a person suffering from morbid obesity needs
different treatment from a person who suffers from schizophrenia. Our assumed expert in
this article, Joseph Parks, says “they have illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar
disorder and major depression and.” The phrase, such as, is not what you would call
scientific, which leads me to question how many other illnesses are also considered
mentally ill? Each one of these conditions are unique and as such requires unique
treatment, just as they affect people's lives differently. To assume that a person who has
schizophrenia has gone through a similar experience as a person who has major
depression is morally, ethically, logically and generally wrong.

It's pretty clear at this point that the mentally ill have been over generalized. The
confusion doesn't stop there. Quotes from this article, such as; “mentally ill adults are
more likely to have alcohol drug abuse problems, and to smoke." serve only to
stigmatize a group of people. This further generalizes their conditions which conceal
their true problems. We are also too assume that the mentally ill are naturally unhealthy
and more prone high risk behavior.

Conclusion
 So what exactly is mentally ill? According to the article, mentally ill is un-
American, unhealthy, a risk factor and something to be afraid of. What is for sure,
however, is that the term mentally ill is used far too loosely. To generalize all people who
have a condition related to the brain as “mentally ill” assigns roles and labels to these
individuals that may not be in their best interests. There is also a danger here of the
stigmatized to internalize an identity not their own. Many questions are still left
unanswered from this article. If nothing else, we can appreciate the seriousness of both
our choice of words and role of identity in contemporary society.