Customer center

We are a boutique essay service, not a mass production custom writing factory. Let us create a perfect paper for you today!

Example research essay topic: Mentally Ill Mental Illness - 2,465 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

Insanity the Idea and its Consequences by SzaszWell, I highly recommend Szaszs book Insanity: the Idea and its Consequences. I cant say for sure on this, but apparently there an overwhelming tendency among real doctors to define disease terms of objectively verifiable cell damage (perhaps parallel to TV-repairmen's definition of broken in terms of not turning on? ). Ive had the chance to ask one or two doctors about this, and they said that that is true, for whatever its worth. Apparently, pathologists have no interesting controversies about what is a disease, and they have clear criterion for establishing them as such. But perhaps the real problem is that people are taking philosophical stances under the pretense of science. For our intuition (mine least) is that there are two very different kinds of things: inabilities and unwillingness.

A person has a disease if they are unable to do something they otherwise could; a personal a pseudo-disease, dubbed a mental illness, if they are unwilling to do something that psychiatrists think they ought to do. The philosophical difficulty underlying is probably that most doctors are determinists who believe that free will is illusory; hence apparent unwillingness is merely another form of inability. Of course, the problem is then that all undesirable (undesired by shrinks? ) behavior is a fortiori a disease. Not a plausible conclusion, though of course many embrace it.

Now perhaps it will be argued that I am setting up a straw man. For could we not take an intermediate position, according to which most apparently unwillingness is voluntary, but the extreme tails are actually inabilities? I dont claim that this view is incoherent. But here are my reasons for taking the extreme view that all behavior not traceable to brain damage and the like is fully voluntary. I begin with a wonderful line from the Roman poet Terence: Homo sum, human a me nihil alien put.

I am a man, and nothing human is alien to me. What am I getting at here? Simply, that there is no insane behavior that is so foreign to me that I cannot see it as one the countless manifestations of the depths of the human soul. Adolf Hitler orders the death of millions of Jews. I cannot empathize with his decision; but I understand it; for I understand that hatred and cruelty are one facet of the human personality. As I child, I was a little bundle of passions; and I remember feeling hatred that could have led me to take life were I not a powerless child.

Jeffrey Dahmer raped and tortured boys, then murdered them and ate them. Again, we may view his action as unthinkable, but is it? Isnt sexual obsession yet another factor the human personality? One neednt feel the same impulses to understand that a different person may have different impulses, and that they may choose to act on them. Think of any great character from literature. Wouldnt the whole lot of them be labelled mentally ill?

Literature, with its depictions of the depth of the human personality, with its depictions of the reaction of ordinary people to extreme circumstances. But isnt it the essential characteristic of great literature that images us see the world through the eyes of another person, makes their behavior and choices seem natural to us, makes us see ourselves in another? When we read the Brothers Karamazov, for example, we experience Dmitri's desire to kill his father as natural; and we experience his choice as a choice. Similarly, Smerdyakovs choice to murder his father solely in order to prove himself that moral law does not bind him: we experience his choices a choice, because we recognize his action as a manifestation ofa desire to rebel that all of us understand.

And finally, whenSmerdyakov hangs himself from guilt is that any less understandable to us? Is action followed by intense remorse so hard to understand part of the human experience? Surely anyone who has deliberately hurt one he loves has felt the urge to suicide; or at least we can understand such an urge. These examples are merely meant to jolt your intuitions. Before us we have two hypotheses: the determinist one that at least extreme behavior is really a kind of inability, even though it appears to be merely an unwillingness.

And the hypothesis of radical freewill, which claims that there is no human behavior so bizarre and wicked that we cannot readily understand it as a free choice once we try. But what about studies showing that schizophrenics have 50 %more of some chemical in their brains? When I see claims like these, I can only intone reverse causation again and again. Perhaps making unusual choices causes the presence of unusual chemicals, rather than the other way around. Certainly if we accept introspection as a form of observation and why shouldnt we? we have lots support for this idea.

I suppose a reductio ad absurdum of movies here would be that you could even claim reverse causation forebrain tumors. True enough; I would distinguish this case in virtue of the fact that no one has been shown to be able to produce a brain tumor into existence on demand, whereas surely they could do south some brain chemicals. I have something related to say about the ability of drugs to change behavior, which is usually supposed to show that somehow the original condition was a treatable disease. I just think that this ideas (if you pardon the expression) crazy.

Suppose we give a happy person a drug that makes him miserable: does this show that happiness is a disease? Similarly, why should a drug that makes a sad person happy show that sadness is a disease? Or suppose we give aso-called hyperactive kid Ritalin, and he calms down. How does that show that hyperactivity is a disease? Would calmness bestow to be a disease if a drug could turn calm kids hyperactive? But what should we make of these claims that what is a disease is culturally determined?

Well, there are two interpretations of this statement. The first one is anthropological: people acquire their views of disease from other people in their culture. The second is epistemological: the justification of a statement like X has a disease is cultural. Now the first view might be coherent; button second surely is not. For how could the mere agreement ofa bunch of people that X has a disease make the proposition true? Only, to be sure, if diseased is just a disguised way of saying to be pitied or lacking valued abilities.

But if this were these, why not get rid of of the word and say what we really mean? But I submit that this option is rather counter-intuitive. For suppose I proposed the following bare-bones definition of disease: a person has a disease if his body contains bacteria or viruses which will kill him within 24 hours. Of course this definition doesnt exhaust our common-sense concept; but surely it is not culturally determined whether a person has a disease in this sense. Now I suggest further that the above is sufficient forgiving a disease in the common-sense meaning of the term; hence there are at least some cases where the presence of disease is not culturally determined. Or to reverse the perspective: surely a witch doctor or Sovietpsychiatrists view that Bill has a disease is just plain wrong.

They may have the backing of their culture, but nevertheless they err. Dont they? You make an interesting use of Rawls concept of the original position justify involuntary commitment, drugging, etc. I assume you genghis out of section 39, where he tells us that: The problem of paternalism deserves some discussion here, since it has been mentioned in the argument for equal liberty, and concerns a lesser freedom.

In the original position the parties assume that in society they are rational and able to manage their own affairs But once the ideal conception is chosen, they will want to insure themselves against the possibility that their powers are undeveloped and they cannot rationally advanced their interests[Mention of children and the mentally disturbed as prime examples, but continues as follows] It is also rational for them to protect themselves against their own irrational inclinations by consenting to a scheme of penalties that may give them a sufficient motive to avoid foolish actions and by accepting certain impositions designed to undo the unfortunate consequences of their imprudent behavior. (section 39, pp. 248 - 249) Now the case of the mentally ill should be particularly problematic for Rawls, because he explicitly states that the choice of principles of justice must be neutral between different conceptions of the good. But why shouldnt the values and choices of the putatively mentally ill be interpreted as a different conception of the good? Thisis especially clear when the so-called mentally ill are perfectly lucid but behave strangely. For example, supposedly mentally ill people who are voluntarily homeless; why should their conception the good be weighted differently than the similar desire ofthe Franciscan monk to take a vow of poverty? You do touch on the interesting issue of childrens rights.

Sufficeto say that there is a big difference between practicing paternalism on people whose intelligence and knowledge are drastically limited, and practicing it on another adult who has normal abilities but behaves strangely. I think that hypothetical consent may make sense a standard for young children and the retarded, but extending it further seems laden with grave difficulties. I conclude this rather long comment with my normative views. To begin with, I believe that medical care should be based upon the consent of the patient; and moreover, so should pseudo-medical care. Just because I dont consider mental illnesses to be real diseases doesnt mean that people shouldnt be able buy drugs to try to change their behavior.

But as least as important: just because someone doesnt like your behavior, and possesses a drug that can change you, doesnt mean they have a rights involuntarily drug you. Now of course mental illness does exist in one sense: there ivory strange behavior, some of it harmful to oneself, some harmful to others. If harmful to others, then I favor appropriate criminal penalties, much as I support the rights of devil-worshippers until they start sacrificing children, at which point I favor standard punishments. If harmful to themselves, then of course I favor no penalty at all. The sorrow that self-destructive people bring to others simply has to be accepted and dealt with by voluntary persuasion and the like. (As Seas says: The truth is, the mentally ill agent disturbed; they are disturbing.

They are not sick, they are sickening) Probably the two obvious policy implications that drop out here are (1) I oppose involuntary commitment and (2) I oppose the insanity defense. Now of course the difficult case arises with children. To begin with, I believe that we should stop trying to make ourselves feel better by labelling the drugging of problem children as treatment. Once we face that harsh fact, we will have to judge whether itis a good idea to change bad behavior using drugs, taking into account that the childs lack of recourse raises the burden of scrutiny which we must impose upon ourselves. To conclude, I believe that one of the greatest errors of modern thought is the medical metaphor. The medical metaphor adds nothing to our knowledge of human choice and behavior; indeed, it takes away the deep and penetrating knowledge that we once haden we looked at every human being as another free-willed being.

Calling wild mood swings multiple personality disorder doesnt teach us anything; but it is not without purpose. Its purposes to de-humanize the person, to strip him of his dignity, and to justify coercion. -I would think that mathematical potential is determined bayou brain. There is a little to how good I could get at math, no matter how hard I tried. Being a genius is rather different; you have to take advantage of some of your mathematical ability by applying some effort before you could be considered a genius. Maybe I should map out my argumentative flow chart a little better. 1. Mental illness by definition cannot be a condition chosen at the moment at which it is occurring. (A physical illness could be chosen at some time in the past, such as when I inject smallpox into veins.

But it isnt closable at the moment at which I am suffering from it. I think imposing the same restriction on our concept of mental illness makes sense. ) 2. Some conditions considered to be mental illness are straightforwardly brain diseases. E. g. Alzheimers disease, and some effects ofsyphillis.

I accept these without a problem. 3. So the interesting class are mental illnesses which dont appear be brain diseases. 4. Now to begin with, it isnt clear that this idea is even coherent. Is the idea of free-floating mental damage, independent of brain damage but not chosen by the mind, a coherent idea? 5.

Lets suppose that it is coherent. Nevertheless, should we even consider it? E. g. , the idea that some people appear to have minds but dont is perfectly coherent; but nevertheless I think it to be absurd, just based on my own study of my own mind.

Similarly, might rule out as absurd the existence of a subset of the populace without free will? 6. Lets suppose we dont. Now we are at my final argument, which I perhaps find most persuasive. Terence summed it up: I am a man, and nothing human is alien to me.

Put a little more formally, when we observe a person, we can apply one of two hypotheses. Thefirst is that they are compelled to act as they do; they dontexperiencetheir actions as choices; they are mentally ill. The second istat they do experience their actions as choices; and however unusual their choices, we can nevertheless understand their choices. Thisis where I draw upon the power of literature: for it depicts the extremes of human action is a manner that makes the actors understandable.

And my argument here is that I have never found a case where I thought that the second hypothesis wasnt better than the first. I might add a final point: could many of the things called mental illnesses be so adjusted without making implicit value judgments about what kind of life you ought to live? A pathologists can tell you you have a tumor without judging whether it is good to have armor (if you are Hitler, it is probably good, right? ). Buta psychologist couldnt tell you that you are hyperactive unless made a value judgment that you should be less energetic and flighty.


Free research essays on topics related to: human personality, brain damage, common sense, mental illness, mentally ill

Research essay sample on Mentally Ill Mental Illness

Writing service prices per page

  • $18.85 - in 14 days
  • $19.95 - in 3 days
  • $23.95 - within 48 hours
  • $26.95 - within 24 hours
  • $29.95 - within 12 hours
  • $34.95 - within 6 hours
  • $39.95 - within 3 hours
  • Calculate total price

Our guarantee

  • 100% money back guarantee
  • plagiarism-free authentic works
  • completely confidential service
  • timely revisions until completely satisfied
  • 24/7 customer support
  • payments protected by PayPal

Secure payment

With EssayChief you get

  • Strict plagiarism detection regulations
  • 300+ words per page
  • Times New Roman font 12 pts, double-spaced
  • FREE abstract, outline, bibliography
  • Money back guarantee for missed deadline
  • Round-the-clock customer support
  • Complete anonymity of all our clients
  • Custom essays
  • Writing service

EssayChief can handle your

  • essays, term papers
  • book and movie reports
  • Power Point presentations
  • annotated bibliographies
  • theses, dissertations
  • exam preparations
  • editing and proofreading of your texts
  • academic ghostwriting of any kind

Free essay samples

Browse essays by topic:

Stay with EssayChief! We offer 10% discount to all our return customers. Once you place your order you will receive an email with the password. You can use this password for unlimited period and you can share it with your friends!

Academic ghostwriting

About us

© 2002-2024 EssayChief.com