Many non-traditional (whatever that means) societies lack schizoprenics and
others with mental illness simply because they euthanize them, not because
they're more enlightened and user-friendly. Also, we do classify a broader
spectrum of behavior as 'mentally ill,' which perhaps we shouldn't. I
agree with much of what Dr Thomas Szasz says on that particular issue,
though I realize he's something of a dark horse. For example, we classify
both illicit drug users and anyone who is suicidal as 'mentally ill' people
who need our help, and to hell with what *they* want; and that's a
philosophical problem that seriously needs to be looked at, IMHO.
But notice that I didn't attribute schizophrenia to a personal problem, but
a chemical imbalance. It is the over-sensitive people, the thin-skinned
basketcases that I think have the problem that lies with their own
personalities. We see these people all the time, and while they don't
qualify as mentally ill (depending on my mood, LOL) neither do I think they
adjust to reality all that well. I wasn't referring here to the drooling
catatonic who can't even feed themselves. Serious schizophrnia and
similarly debilitating mental illnesses have for the most part been traced
to chemical imbalances. Perhaps in time the same will apply to the more
innocuous cases I'm referring to, but that's somewhat more subtle, isn't it?
I guess that's where the Prozac question comes into play - you have a large
number of people who weren't really ill to begin with, who just needed a
little, I don't know, adjustment. Strange how we prosecute and persecute
those who use marijuana or whatever for much the same reason, but people
take Prozac or Xanax in droves and it's okay. But I'm drifting to another
subject...
--Mark