Thread: A mentally healthier congregation Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030183
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I'd value ideas about how churches and similar communities can become more mentally healthy, collectively and for their members and those who come into contact. Here are some of mine.

1. Talk about mental health and illness. Mention it in prayers, in sermons, conversations and church literature.

2. Learn to talk about the experience of mental ill health as we do physical ill health. 'My wrist hurts today.' 'I feel useless today.' 'I am really angry today and I don't know why.' 'I'm very anxious about x.' 'My depression is back.'

3. Show an interest. When someone reveals something about a mental illness, ask about it. What is it like having your condition? Does your treatment help? What are the practical consequences? Learn from them.

4. Have backwaters in worship and other activities. We can be very organised, but sometimes people need the chance to sit. It's not difficult to include silence and restful moments in most activities; bits of worship that belong to the worshippers.

5. Learn about mental illness. What is meant by schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder? What is Autistic Spectrum Disorder, and is it a mental illness? If you want to go deeper, is there such a thing as mental illness?

6. Acknowledge that not everyone is happy all day long, and that fear, sadness and anger should be expressed.

7. Give people the opportunity to ask for help. There seems to be less stigma and shame around mental illness now, and more people who will explain what they find difficult and what would help - so long as they expect to get a useful response.

8. Be gentle. Human society has always been crushing to its weaker members at times, and I miss the middle-class politeness of church in the past, often derided as 'niceness'. I think we could do with more awareness of each other's feelings and of the power of aggressive language.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
I think there's a lot that congregations can do to become more relationally healthy-- focusing on good communication, how to handle conflict in a healthy way, etc. But you seem to be talking more specifically about mental health per se.

I don't think there's anything a church can do to prevent mental illness-- and much harm they can do by pretending they can. It's simply not the purpose of the church-- just as the purpose of the church is not to improve cardiac health or lower your cholesterol.

The best thing the church can do is to be affirming of congregants getting whatever help they do need-- eliminate any suggestion that mental illness is something shameful that shouldn't be spoken of, or a sign of lack of faith. Provide good, biblical teaching about the nature of suffering, including mental illness, that makes clear it's not a punishment for something wrong that's been done, but just something that is part of the fragility of life.

Beyond that, maintain a good list of well-regarded mental health professionals for referrals, and provide prayer and support to those in your congregation who are struggling with mental health or caring for those who are.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
I remember a number of years ago Emory University in Georgia did a comparison study on the effectiveness of a mental health professional's practice to the effectiveness of a pastor in his congregation. They concluded the congregational ministry was more effective.

I have been a member of both a healthy congregation and an unhealthy congregation. The unhealthy congregation was very angry largely because they were made up of failed manufacturing retirees. They did not get to the upper levels of their careers before they retired and they likely took out their frustration on me, their pastor. I was the IP in systems theory, but I would have thought someone who was more skilled in systems theory would have also had a bad time trying to get them to look at their underlying anger.

On the other hand the congregation I am now in as a layperson is much different. It is made up of people who are at the pinnacles of their careers. Tenured faculty members of a major University. A couple of deans of several department as well. However their are several middle management staff members and technical assistants. What I have appreciated with this congregation is their deep respect of each other for their skills. They truly care for each other when people become ill or are having mental problems. When there are differences of opinion I find the members of the congregation will actually take a go slow approach to disagreements. They really want to reach consensus. If it cannot happen they still show respect with each other.

We have had a systems trained pastor deal with the congregation after a previous pastor resigned because of a sexual scandal. I really appreciated how he has kept us focused on mission.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Autistic Spectrum Disorder, ... is it a mental illness?
The simple answer to that one is "no".
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
Agreed, Midge. Neither is it a disorder, but rather a difference.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), widely regarded as authoritative in such matters, includes diagnostic criteria for ASD.
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), widely regarded as authoritative in such matters, includes diagnostic criteria for ASD.
That may be the case but earlier versions of the same book also included criteria for diagnosing the disorder of Homosexuality and we all know how that ended up. Furthermore I have significant issues with the ever expanding list of diagnoses within the DSM which conveniently give license to drug companies wishing to medicate the human condition.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
DSM 5 includes a range of neuro-development disorders, which also covers specific learning difficulties (dyslexia).
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
earlier versions of the same book also included criteria for diagnosing the disorder of Homosexuality and we all know how that ended up.
I'm not sure we do.

Without straying into DH territory, the fact that later editions have dropped this diagnosis is widely held up as evidence that homosexuality is not a disorder - my non-DH point being that the current edition of the DSM is indeed viewed as authoritative.

Like it or not, in Western societies the DSM translates into policies, funding, specialisations, organisations, and prevailing worldviews.

The OP asks about how churches engage with the issue of mental illness.

In my experience this involves engaging with the institutions in a country and as a minimum, acknowledging what they recongise as mental disorders - even if we'd like to use other terms or seek alternative and/or complementary explanations.

If you don't agree, consider your view of churches who rigidly adhere to a belief in demonic possession to the exclusion of any diagnosis of mental illness, and how that often ends up.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Furthermore I have significant issues with the ever expanding list of diagnoses within the DSM which conveniently give license to drug companies wishing to medicate the human condition.
As someone who has a mental disorder that didn't officially exist when I was born, I would like to affirm my gratitude towards the drug companies who wished to medicate my condition. It's amazing how much better I feel now that my brain chemistry isn't as messed up.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
I suspect that autism is shoved in there because nobody really knows where to put it, but the person you really need to make a diagnosis of autism isn't a psychiatrist. It's a specialist in autism.
 
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Furthermore I have significant issues with the ever expanding list of diagnoses within the DSM which conveniently give license to drug companies wishing to medicate the human condition.
As someone who has a mental disorder that didn't officially exist when I was born, I would like to affirm my gratitude towards the drug companies who wished to medicate my condition. It's amazing how much better I feel now that my brain chemistry isn't as messed up.
Point taken and neck now wound in. I'm not trying to dismiss legitimate distress or suffering. I in no way believe that people with, for example, a chemical imbalance that can lead to things like Bipolar Affective disorder, psychosis and depression should be encouraged to stop taking medication to correct this.

I have just observed that within an overly medicalised model of mental illness there is a tendency to throw pills at situations such as grief at the loss of a loved one or other significant life stressors that would more greatly benefit from time, kindness and material support. Drug companies make money from selling drugs, they will naturally seek to to sell drugs to treat as many conditions as possible because it is in their own self interest to make money.

Mental illness isn't something that can or should be entirely medicalised nor should it entirely de-medicalised. It sits on a boundary of disciplines that can be difficult to balance and negotiate. I think psychiatry in the past has got this balance wrong.
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
Hatless, thanks. Going to be watching to see how this thread turns out.
My pennysworth is that 2) and 3) made me reflect on how i handle these discussions.

So agree with your suggestion to consider gentleness.

I'd add Ordinary Friendliness in there as well. There's nothing quite like having another place to drop into, people to have a brew with/ wash the dishes alongside/ help fold the ironing/ pull the weeds ( or watch others do it!) or just sit and chat for half an hour before returning to our own home. It doesn't have to be For A Meal either. Or needing to be Ideal Home Exhibition level before anyone can come round.
"Fancy a brew?" is easy to say and who knows, could be just what someone is hoping we'd say....

[ 03. August 2016, 11:19: Message edited by: Ethne Alba ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
Ordinary friendliness works, but is not alwayeasy to instigate.

I run coffee mornings for guide dogs at my house. They are fundraisers, that's their purpose. I put leaflets around the local area when one is coming up.

They have turned out to be great social, neighbourly occasions. Many old folk who are almost housebound turn up and we are getting to know each other like never before. They come, with heads held high to do the charity a good turn. Meanwhile they are helped too.
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

I run coffee mornings for guide dogs at my house.
Do guide dogs drink much coffee?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

I run coffee mornings for guide dogs at my house.
Do guide dogs drink much coffee?
Haha - none at all.

I should have said Guide Dogs
 
Posted by St. Gwladys (# 14504) on :
 
We are fortunate to have a. Church Hall which runs various groups acting as a bridge into the community. It's horrified me how many younger people have depression - I have got to know several through them volunteering on different projects. Some have found volunteering to be helpful, as it gives structure to their week and also provides social interaction. There are people who will sit and listen and who they can rant to - this type of thing has to be a ministry for the whole Church to take on board.
In our congregation, we have a few people with depression or other mental health issues, including one person with bipolar. Again, these need people to rant to, and we have a strong leadership team who are prepared to spend time with individuals.
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I suspect that autism is shoved in there because nobody really knows where to put it, but the person you really need to make a diagnosis of autism isn't a psychiatrist. It's a specialist in autism.
And some of the best specialists in autism are themselves autistic.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
The trouble with mental health issues is that people will tend to put their oar in when they should STFU. Churches are some of the worst culprits IME, especially when the advice is caged in the terms of "thus saith the LORD" or on the theological assumption of bad things should never happen to Christians. It is appropriate as singing someoneAlways Look On The Bright Side Of Life when they are nailed to a cross.

The reality is "Even though I walk through the shadow of the valley of death" rather than floating along a few centimetres above the earth. Note how well Job's friends did until Chapter 4!

A note to add (for the sake of those who must live with Autism) It is really unhelpful to equate it with mental illness although those who have it are prone to mental ill-health (because life with autism is extremely tough and you tend not to have the social networks to support you). It is also unhelpful to equate it to learning difficulties. They are all separate issues even if concurrent.
 
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
The trouble with mental health issues is that people will tend to put their oar in when they should STFU. Churches are some of the worst culprits IME, especially when the advice is caged in the terms of "thus saith the LORD" or on the theological assumption of bad things should never happen to Christians. It is appropriate as singing someoneAlways Look On The Bright Side Of Life when they are nailed to a cross.

But not as funny.

I remember a deacon in our church saying that he "didn't understand how a Christian could have depression, because if you just pray about it, then it goes away".

I was tempted to ask why he was still suffering from chronic back pain after so many years...
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
It is really unhelpful to equate it with mental illness
I'm confused. You're going to have to spell out why this should be true of autism and not, say, bipolar disorder.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Midge - I compared autism to other neurological differences, such as dyslexia (Specific Learning Difficulties), which also comes under DCM 5. Similarly to those on the autistic spectrum, dyslexics have a different brain wiring and varying levels of disability. Lots of engineers are ASD or dyslexic. The ability to see diagrams in 3D and visualise them moving is a challenge beyond many who find reading and writing easy. I don't think that these two conditions are an unreasonable comparison.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
It is really unhelpful to equate it with mental illness
I'm confused. You're going to have to spell out why this should be true of autism and not, say, bipolar disorder.
As above: Autism is a difference in the brains wiring. The autistic brain functions fine within its own capabilities. It just functions differently from the neuro-typical. An Autie could be said to be "face blind"- unable to read social signals and non verbal communication. It is also prone to sensory overload. On the other hand it can be extremely good or even genius at particular functions.

Someone who is colour blind isn't considered to be mentally ill are they? They simply see the world differently.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
The autistic brain functions fine within its own capabilities. It just functions differently from the neuro-typical.
As far as I can see, both these statements are tautological. The first says "if we take the state of a given brain as normal, that given brain is functioning normally". The second says "autistic brains function differently from non-autistic brains".

I can't see why this could not be reworded to apply to bipolar disorder or schizophrenia.

In my experience, the same applies to this statement:
quote:
On the other hand it can be extremely good or even genius at particular functions.
Schizophrenics can be extremely charismatic and compelling, and psychotics incredibly insightful*. Like the colour-blind, they certainly see the world differently and inasmuch as they do, enhance our own view.
quote:
An Autie could be said to be "face blind"- unable to read social signals and non verbal communication. It is also prone to sensory overload.
And here's the nub of it, I think. There is a social (dare I say it...) handicap which makes nominal social interaction difficult. More so than, say, colour-blindness.

Of course, "illness" and "disorder" are both loaded terms, and at the end of the day, even "health" has a subjective component, and I take your point about that.

However, while referring to a particular condition as just a "difference" and not a "disorder" might be less stigmatising, in and of itself it does not overcome the challenge posed in the OP, which I understand as being that of how a congregation can welcome and accommodate all those with "differences", and particularly ones which have a signifcant social impact.

==

*I have a theory that some psychotics are a whole lot better than average at reading social signals and non-verbal communication.

[ 04. August 2016, 09:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I have a neurological difference, I don't call it a disorder. (ADHD). Mainly, I think, because it's 'me' and I would be someone else entirely without it.

It makes social interaction difficult - mainly for me, but for others too.

This is because, if I don't say it I forget it. So dealing with this takes a lifetime to learn. I either join in the conversation in a quick fire way - many call t 'butting in' or I keep quiet because I can't remember what I was going to say. Or I keep notes, which looks mighty odd. If I'm with other ADDers ( most of my family) it's easy!

[ 04. August 2016, 09:53: Message edited by: Boogie ]
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Of course, "illness" and "disorder" are both loaded terms, and at the end of the day, even "health" has a subjective component, and I take your point about that.

However, while referring to a particular condition as just a "difference" and not a "disorder" might be less stigmatising, in and of itself it does not overcome the challenge posed in the OP, which I understand as being that of how a congregation can welcome and accommodate all those with "differences", and particularly ones which have a significant social impact.

[/QB]
Being welcoming, accommodating and, dare I say, loving, requires ditching the stigmatising behaviour. Part of that is not lumping a 'disorder' with something else. This a church this requires the realisation that God has made a person in a certain way.

Once you get to know the autistic community you will find that many object to the idea that autism needs a cure. A cure is not something they would take. Partly this is because of all the snake oil remedies out there. Otherwise their autism is part of who they are. Why should they change? They wouldn't want to change the colour of their skin either. Some of the autistic community even campaign for neurodiversity.

Autism needn't be disabling. There are simple ways to work round it. But perhaps autism should be considered along with disabilities is a better approach than with mental health. Church needs to be accessible to autistic people as pointed out by the rather excellent Church of England Welcoming People with Autism guidance. As the guidance notes, changes that benefit autistic people helps other groups too.

When an autistic person becomes depressed or suffers from anxiety then there is a mental health issue. Fine. Be aware that relieving these may require dealing with autism issues by making changes to the environment, developing coping strategies or through awareness making changes to the behaviour of others.

As for DSM5, I'm far from being a Psychologist. There does seem to be a mix of disabilities, conditions, disorders and mental health issue in it. I thought that it was a diagnostic tool for a whole range of things rather than a classification system.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Being welcoming, accommodating and, dare I say, loving, requires ditching the stigmatising behaviour. Part of that is not lumping a 'disorder' with something else. This a church this requires the realisation that God has made a person in a certain way.
If this means welcoming every individual with their own idiosyncrasies, be they disorders, disabilities, diseases, illnesses, or simply particular expressions of what it means to be human, fine.

If it is special pleading for members of the autistic community to be treated preferentially to, say, schizophrenics, not so much.
quote:
Once you get to know the autistic community you will find that many object to the idea that autism needs a cure. A cure is not something they would take.
But this is also true, say, of schizophrenia. Schizophrenics object that taking medication means they are "not really themselves".

Taking it is a compromise with their self-identity that allows them to function socially.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
There is an enormous difference between not functioning socially and being a danger to fellow human beings.

A difference/disorder which compromises the safety of others needs treatment. Those which simply cause social awkwardness only require treatment if the person with the difference/disorder wishes it.

I take Ritalin from time to time. It gives me focus which I don't have without it. But I dislike the side effects (very dry mouth) so I only take it occasionally when really needed.

Schizophrenics really should not pick and choose when to take medication, they would be a danger to themselves and others - whether or not it causes side effects or not feeling the same person.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There is an enormous difference between not functioning socially and being a danger to fellow human beings.

A difference/disorder which compromises the safety of others needs treatment. Those which simply cause social awkwardness only require treatment if the person with the difference/disorder wishes it.
Sorry, but this is exactly the kind of comment which creates stigma, I’m afraid. Most schizophrenics are not a danger to anyone except themselves.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There is an enormous difference between not functioning socially and being a danger to fellow human beings.

A difference/disorder which compromises the safety of others needs treatment. Those which simply cause social awkwardness only require treatment if the person with the difference/disorder wishes it.
Sorry, but this is exactly the kind of comment which creates stigma, I’m afraid. Most schizophrenics are not a danger to anyone except themselves.
I know, but it doesn't mean they should be able to refuse treatment when it's medically necessary.

You could deem my treatment medically necessary but not taking it doesn't make me a danger to myself or others.
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
I work with university students with disabilities. Re. the discussion about autism. All I can say is that if you have met one person with autism, you have met one person with autism. The DSM 5 uses the phrase "mental disorders" not "mental illnesses."
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
There is an enormous difference between not functioning socially and being a danger to fellow human beings.

A difference/disorder which compromises the safety of others needs treatment. Those which simply cause social awkwardness only require treatment if the person with the difference/disorder wishes it.
Sorry, but this is exactly the kind of comment which creates stigma, I’m afraid. Most schizophrenics are not a danger to anyone except themselves.
I know, but it doesn't mean they should be able to refuse treatment when it's medically necessary.

You could deem my treatment medically necessary but not taking it doesn't make me a danger to myself or others.
I think the problem is that you first said "schizophrenics" shoudn't have the option to refuse treatment, then "(people who are) a danger to others". It rather implies you conflate the two, which might be the objection.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
The trouble with mental health issues is that people will tend to put their oar in when they should STFU. Churches are some of the worst culprits IME, especially when the advice is caged in the terms of "thus saith the LORD" or on the theological assumption of bad things should never happen to Christians. It is appropriate as singing someoneAlways Look On The Bright Side Of Life when they are nailed to a cross.

But not as funny.

I remember a deacon in our church saying that he "didn't understand how a Christian could have depression, because if you just pray about it, then it goes away".

Take them round the back and shoot them. It's the only way.
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
But not as funny.

I remember a deacon in our church saying that he "didn't understand how a Christian could have depression, because if you just pray about it, then it goes away".

I was tempted to ask why he was still suffering from chronic back pain after so many years...
I he had said that to me, he would have been suffering pain for a whole lot longer. Probably until I stopped kicking him.

I think the church needs to do two things that would make a big difference:

1. Not assume that Jesus is a quick-fix answer to any problem. This means learning to take time with people suffering chronic issues and work with them, not just expect them to be healed.

2. Stop abusing people, because spiritual abuse is really damaging to peoples mental health.

Sadly, I don't see evidence that many churches have identified that these are issues, never mind seeking to do something about them.
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
Person with schizophrenia is quite often the preferred usage not schizophrenic. The latter has the medical condition defining the person.
 
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :
 
Shroedinger's Cat has said exactly the 2 things I would pick out, after years of experience of church and wobbly mental health (both my own, and others').

Don't assume that prayer will be curative. Or indeed result in any answer.

And don't pressure people who are already teetering on the brink of depression / anxiety into further volunteering. This includes allowing massive silences whilst everyone else takes a step back, and that hole in the rota still needs filling....
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
An Autie could be said to be "face blind"- unable to read social signals and non verbal communication.
It would be wiser not to use this term (faceblind) for autism or other communication issues. I am largely faceblind in the proper sense, where I simply do not register or remember faces (let alone being able to use them to identify people!) and I'm the opposite of autistic, if such a thing exists. I'm overly sensitive to social cues and nonverbals.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
My husband had severe, life threatening depression for three years. For one of those years he didn't leave the house, or his bed.

Our Church people were wonderful with him. They never insisted in visiting, or speaking to him, always asked after him, supported me (without which support I couldn't have coped as I became breadwinner and had two school age children).

When he began to recover they were gentle and kind, never pushy. They then trusted him with a voluntary job, one which led to him becoming international director of a charity. He had been a headteacher before his breakdown. The job was driving aid to Romania in the days just after the revolution. He loved it, it was the saving of him.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
An Autie could be said to be "face blind"- unable to read social signals and non verbal communication.
It would be wiser not to use this term (faceblind) for autism or other communication issues. I am largely faceblind in the proper sense, where I simply do not register or remember faces (let alone being able to use them to identify people!) and I'm the opposite of autistic, if such a thing exists. I'm overly sensitive to social cues and nonverbals.
Actually I use the term advisedly because I know people who's place on the spectrum was diagnosed exactly because of this. Some of the test for autism require the identification of emotions from pictures of eyes and can be impossible. Faces contain so much information they can overwhelm the autistic system so it shuts down. Hence the avoidance of eye contact. And identifying people, particularly out of a usual context, can be difficult.
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I work with university students with disabilities. Re. the discussion about autism. All I can say is that if you have met one person with autism, you have met one person with autism. The DSM 5 uses the phrase "mental disorders" not "mental illnesses."
I am not keen on the term "mental disorder" when applied to autism. As I understand it, autism is a neurological variant, and as Caissa implies, each autistic person is an individual, with a range of neurological characteristics/sensitivities which may be greater or lesser, depending. One size doesn't fit all.

@ Lamb Chopped - face blindness may not be a defining feature of autism, but it can be one of the difficulties faced, though not necessarily by every autistic person. Each one has a specific group of characteristics at levels which are peculiar to the individual.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
I am not keen on the term "mental disorder" when applied to autism. As I understand it, autism is a neurological variant, and as Caissa implies, each autistic person is an individual, with a range of neurological characteristics/sensitivities which may be greater or lesser, depending. One size doesn't fit all.
Again, your implication is that this individuality, with its accompanying individual variants, is true only of autistic people and is not true of those suffering from mental disorders.

As la vie en rouge has said, this sounds stigmatising in the extreme.

Of course each autistic person deserves to be treated as an individual, but so does every person suffering from, say, schizophrenia. There is no one size fits all for them, either, or anyone else.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
I am not keen on the term "mental disorder" when applied to autism. As I understand it, autism is a neurological variant, and as Caissa implies, each autistic person is an individual, with a range of neurological characteristics/sensitivities which may be greater or lesser, depending. One size doesn't fit all.
Again, your implication is that this individuality, with its accompanying individual variants, is true only of autistic people and is not true of those suffering from mental disorders.

As la vie en rouge has said, this sounds stigmatising in the extreme.

Of course each autistic person deserves to be treated as an individual, but so does every person suffering from, say, schizophrenia. There is no one size fits all for them, either, or anyone else.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
I am not keen on the term "mental disorder" when applied to autism. As I understand it, autism is a neurological variant, and as Caissa implies, each autistic person is an individual, with a range of neurological characteristics/sensitivities which may be greater or lesser, depending. One size doesn't fit all.
Again, your implication is that this individuality, with its accompanying individual variants, is true only of autistic people and is not true of those suffering from mental disorders.

As la vie en rouge has said, this sounds stigmatising in the extreme.

Of course each autistic person deserves to be treated as an individual, but so does every person suffering from, say, schizophrenia. There is no one size fits all for them, either, or anyone else.
Autism is partly different because it is a spectrum of a wide range of affects and severity. It does not have a common set of symptoms so it is not possible to treat autistic people as the same. To do so does inflict suffering on the autistic person. Autism is so individual it has its own Act of Parliament in the UK. Legislation at least recognises it as a special case. It is also covered by the equalities act and other legislation as a disability.

From the autistic POV there is nothing wrong with themselves. The social world is the strange place full of half truths and contradictory signals such as it is. If people spoke plainly, saying what they mean and meaning what they said the world would be a lot easier to understand.

Of course everyone needs individual attentions and approach since we are all individuals. If only the church could deliver that. Alas many congregations/ churches are conformist and have a one sized fits all approach to what they do. Most church input for autism, if there is any, stops after Sunday school IME.

The first thing a church needs to do is to listen. Then perhaps it can provide more individual care and most importantly really be the body of Christ to everyone. They might also discover the real barriers that stop people from being part of the church. I hope that the church would not just go through the motions to satisfy legal minimums. WHat Autistic people need more than anything else is genuine fellowship. The church should be good at that shouldn't it?

God help us, the current hell thread on mental health provision has it nailed. There isn't the resources for proper care of many conditions.

The same applies to autism. Adult provision for autism is virtually zero for those who are "high functioning". Adult diagnosis is only just picking up so there are many going through life who don't even realise they are on the spectrum.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Autism is so individual it has its own Act of Parliament in the UK. Legislation at least recognises it as a special case.
In what way "special"?

The Act sets out to improve
quote:
the provision of relevant services to such adults by local authorities, NHS bodies and NHS foundation trusts.
In other words, it is seeking to extend services, notably health services, to cover autism and have it more widely recognised as a disability, not to create anything "individual" because autism is "special". The spectrum is wide because the diagnostic tool is relatively recent.

quote:
From the autistic POV there is nothing wrong with themselves.
I have yet to see any acknowledgement that this could be true for the sufferers of other conditions. Which once again, is stigmatising of everyone else by implication.
quote:
WHat Autistic people need more than anything else is genuine fellowship. The church should be good at that shouldn't it?
You talk as if autistic people don't form part of the church themselves, and cannot themselves contribute to providing genuine fellowship. Why is that?

[ 05. August 2016, 07:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
That link to the Oxford Diocese booklet is helpful about people with autism being part of the church.

There is a difference between conditions like bi-polar, depression, ADHD, and schizophrenia on the one hand and autism on the other. The first group are to do with the chemistry of the brain, and can be modified chemically, either ameliorated by drugs or worsened as in the relationship between schizophrenia and cannabis. The chemistry is to do with the way messages are passed between nerve cells, across the synapses. They are generally felt by the people who have them as things which benefit from chemical intervention, though at times (as with Boogie's Ritalin) they may decide not to use it. In some cases, the state of choosing not to use it is not a good state to be in, and may be a symptom of the underlying condition.

I was very glad to be offered treatment for depression, as I was clearly in a place where there was obviously something wrong. This had not been acknowledged when I was at college. Not identified as something capable of modification, but something wrong with me, as opposed to something wrong with the way I was functioning. Not at all helpful with that condition.

Autism is not to do with the chemistry, and cannot be modified by intervention. It is as if there are two kinds of houses, one with its electricity connected through ring circuits, and one through radial connections. Each has advantages, each has problems, but both work well when operating within their limits. The autistic brain circuitry is much more prone to overloading than the neurotypical type, which is where autist's difficulties in coping with the rest of the community lie. They cannot be rewired, as a house could be. All that can be done is to modify the input so as not to overload them.

And that is very difficult. As a teacher, I had to try to make my style fit children with Asperger's (three, very different boys, in successive years) when it was more suited to bouncing around in front of children who needed stimulation - which is what the rest of the class was.

Do not rely on facial expression. Do not move while speaking.

Explaining everything clearly and making sure the boys knew what the pattern of the day was, and if there were to be any changes was easier.

[ 05. August 2016, 09:52: Message edited by: Penny S ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Autism is not to do with the chemistry
Not everyone agrees.
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jacobsen:
I am not keen on the term "mental disorder" when applied to autism. As I understand it, autism is a neurological variant, and as Caissa implies, each autistic person is an individual, with a range of neurological characteristics/sensitivities which may be greater or lesser, depending. One size doesn't fit all.
Again, your implication is that this individuality, with its accompanying individual variants, is true only of autistic people and is not true of those suffering from mental disorders.

As la vie en rouge has said, this sounds stigmatising in the extreme.

Of course each autistic person deserves to be treated as an individual, but so does every person suffering from, say, schizophrenia. There is no one size fits all for them, either, or anyone else. [/QUOTE

E a,d LA VenR-I was talking specifically about autism, and not about any other condition. You are rather free, imo, with your accusations of "implications." It would really help if you considered the goodwill inherent in a post, rather than nitpicking aspects which were neither mentioned nor inteneded.

[ 05. August 2016, 10:51: Message edited by: jacobsen ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
I was talking specifically about autism
Indeed, that's part of the problem as I see it.

This thread was supposed to be about how congregations deal with mental health in general.

Since you first weighed in on this thread, you've been trying to put autism in a category apart, and not displayed any goodwill to any other category at all.

You are not keen on autism being classified as a "disorder", and in support of your view argue that (presumably unlike these "disorders") autism is a "neurological variant", which in turn, you argue, means that each autistic person is an individual case.

The clear implication is that individuality does not apply, or matter, when it comes to sufferers of these "disorders".

For my part, I have readily acknowledged the need for all autistic people to be considered as individuals, and of course congregations should be sensitive to the wide range of difficulties faced by people at different points on the autistic spectrum.

However, I can't find anywhere here where you acknowledge that the "individuality" you wish to claim for autistic people should apply to any other condition, and that's where I perceive the lack of goodwill to be.

It wouldn't take much for you to clear up that misunderstanding.

[corrected link]

[ 05. August 2016, 11:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
I find it interesting that "suffers" and "suffering" have been used in relation to people with diagnoses.

As for autism spectrum disorders, there is still much debate over cause, correlatives and treatment. Our 19 year old was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome ( removed from the DSM 5)when he was 5. I have much lived experience with the autism spectrum including working with university students on the spectrum. I have never had one of them describe themselves as "suffering" from their diagnosis.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I suppose it depends, to some extent, on the severity of any condition whether the person with it would say they are suffering.

I don't suffer with mine (ADHD) but I have, over the years, used many many coping strategies due to my executive functions and memory being so poor.

I know many VI and blind people. A lot of them will tell you they don't suffer at all, except from the lack of understanding shown by service providers and the general public. For example, many taxi drivers refuse them access when they see a guide dog. This is against the law, but still happens all the time. I know a 24 year old woman who was left at the kerb by a taxi driver at 10pm at night, awful.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
Conversely I have known people try to kill themselves because they find their ASD unbearable.

One person's experience is not everybody's.
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
My concern in this thread is more that in discussing medical diagnoses in the abstract, people are using the phraseology "suffering."

I was diagnosed with the forerunner of ADHD under the DSM- II, Boogie. I, too, have had to develop coping strategies over the years.

To put this back in the original context, I think most congregations and religious leaders are not well positioned to provide positive mental health care support.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
An Autie could be said to be "face blind"- unable to read social signals and non verbal communication.
It would be wiser not to use this term (faceblind) for autism or other communication issues. I am largely faceblind in the proper sense, where I simply do not register or remember faces (let alone being able to use them to identify people!) and I'm the opposite of autistic, if such a thing exists. I'm overly sensitive to social cues and nonverbals.
Actually I use the term advisedly because I know people who's place on the spectrum was diagnosed exactly because of this. Some of the test for autism require the identification of emotions from pictures of eyes and can be impossible. Faces contain so much information they can overwhelm the autistic system so it shuts down. Hence the avoidance of eye contact. And identifying people, particularly out of a usual context, can be difficult.
[brick wall] Look, if you mean "inability to identify emotion" or "trouble coping with information overload," say so. Find a new term that is more accurate. Leave face blindness for what it says on the tin--blindness to faces. Not a stand-in for a different primary issue.

I identify emotions with no problem at all. I do not have information overload problems either. What I DO have is a visual processing disorder which makes it damn near impossible for me to see and retain a face in memory, working or long term, even for a second or two. They basically aren't there for me in the way that hands, hair, backs, eyeglasses are. In my memory every single face is blurred out, as if someone had photoshopped a blur over it. Including my own. The area of the brain that is dedicated to faces (yes, there is such an area) is kaput. If I want to identify someone, I do it by voice, movement, hair, back, butt... Or I store a description in verbal memory and hope I describe the person (internally) well enough that I don't make embarrassing mistakes the next time I meet him/her.

And I don't mind calling this a disorder, or a disability, or whatever the hell it is. It certainly complicates my life, and I'd give a great deal to be free of it. (You realize even my mental image of Christ is faceless? I "see" him basically from the chest down.)

Look, if you co-opt the term "face blindness" to mean "I can actually see the face just fine, but it overwhelms me, or I can't read its emotions correctly"--then what the hell am I to call my visual problems? Seriously, it's a problem for me. Because I already spend way too much time explaining to well-meaning people that yes, I have a disability, and please, don't blame me when I totally ignore you in the elevator because I don't recognize you, and NO, face-blindness does NOT mean I'm bad with names, it means I really freaking can't see your face and visually retain it for any length of time whatsoever.

Sorry for the rant. This is screwing up large segments of my life (like work, church, social life) and I really don't want one more misunderstanding barrier to clamber over.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
I find it interesting that "suffers" and "suffering" have been used in relation to people with diagnoses (...)

I have much lived experience with the autism spectrum including working with university students on the spectrum. I have never had one of them describe themselves as "suffering" from their diagnosis.
For my part, the only place where I have used the term here is to describe those with "disorders" who are claimed by some to be a distinct category apart from those on the autism spectrum, so I'm not sure just how you find my use of the term "interesting" in view of your experience with autism.
quote:
To put this back in the original context, I think most congregations and religious leaders are not well positioned to provide positive mental health care support.

To be sure, terminology is loaded and may be used hamfistedly or approximately. I don't think that capability of providing positive mental health care support is entirely dependent on having a good grasp of "approved" terminology, though, not least because there is no consensus on what is "approved".

This whole tangent began because I invoked the DSM in support of describing ASD as a disorder (surely "approved" terminology in some meaningful sense?), and was promptly challenged.

[ 05. August 2016, 15:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
IMHO the DSM exists for the purpose of identifying "thingamajigs" and not for the purpose of stigmatizing, devaluing, or causing grief to anyone. It's simply necessary in many settings to have a short way of referring to a doohickey without having to describe it at length every freaking time. The DSM allows shrinks and others to identify and communicate about the whatchamacallits they come into contact with on a regular basis, given the line of work they're in. The fact that something occurs in the DSM simply means that the compilers consider it likely that the users thereof will see and have a need to identify certain whatsits on a regular basis.

If you need the analogy, pregnancy is not a disorder or disease either, but one would certainly hope that physicians' manuals would have a section devoted to it.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Indeed LC. The DSM disorder list comes with 5 digit codes in the form xxx.xx. A code has to be entered into a form or computer for the fee-for-service to be paid for the treatment of the disorder. This also allows gov't or insurance companies to see that drug X (identified by a DIN or drug identification number) has been given for whatever DSM code.

For therapy or counselling, there's usually procedure code which specify what sort of treatment (if not drug) was given. This is supposed to allow statistical records and Wise Decisions to be made about what to fund. Which is usually drugs it seems. Public mental health services waits are currently 7 months in my locale. Plus usually travel is required unless you live close to one of the 5 locations where services are provided.

Where we live, we see that clergy who have done CPE units (clinical pastoral education) and interned in hospital or health chaplaincy) may well be the only service availably in many rural areas (we're 2½ times larger than the UK with 1/60th of the population). And if not the only, better than what else there is. There may be a nurse practitioner showing up weekly for a day or 2 and doctor every 2 or 3 weeks. The clergy have much more experience and training than many "counsellors" who are totally unregulated. Anyone can claim to be one. They have also downgraded educational requirements to be called a psychologist to 2 years of a Master's degree, the vast majority who are school/educational trained, and practice counselling beyond their competence in our experience. So I prefer the clergy.

[ 05. August 2016, 16:55: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Autism is so individual it has its own Act of Parliament in the UK. Legislation at least recognises it as a special case.
In what way "special"?

The Act sets out to improve
quote:
the provision of relevant services to such adults by local authorities, NHS bodies and NHS foundation trusts.
In other words, it is seeking to extend services, notably health services, to cover autism and have it more widely recognised as a disability, not to create anything "individual" because autism is "special". The spectrum is wide because the diagnostic tool is relatively recent.
Thanks. Disability but not a mental illness. That is the only point I've been trying to make. And it is not different in that respect. Just keep the two apart.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You talk as if autistic people don't form part of the church themselves, and cannot themselves contribute to providing genuine fellowship. Why is that?
We have more than our fair share of autism in our family. I get to see it first hand. The kids who don't get invited to parties, ever. Unintentional exclusion because fellowship time is so damned inaccessible. The lack of opportunity to use their gifts.

Of course 'they' can contribute to fellowship. If only there was a bit more awareness.
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
What is it that you think is so qualitatively different from a mental illness, why is making this distinction so crucially important to you ?
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Autism is not to do with the chemistry
Not everyone agrees.
Oh God no. Autism speaks. [Roll Eyes]

Autism Speaks has a turbulent relationship with the autism community. In short it is because don't even have people with autism in the organisation and this leads to the belief they don't really speak for autism or work forthe autism community. It sometimes seems like AS are looking for the magic potion that will remove Autism from the world.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What is it that you think is so qualitatively different from a mental illness, why is making this distinction so crucially important to you ?
People who are autistic are not sick. (Unless they have a mental illness like depression for instance).
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
It sometimes seems like AS are looking for the magic potion that will remove Autism from the world.
I see. That in and of itself doesn't invalidate the findings of the study that suggest that contrary to what was asserted above, there might be a link between autism and brain chemistry, though, does it?
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
@ Lambchopped

Nothing should invalidate your experience or condition in anyway. It's horrible and must make life hell at times.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
We have more than our fair share of autism in our family. I get to see it first hand. The kids who don't get invited to parties, ever. Unintentional exclusion because fellowship time is so damned inaccessible.
How could fellowship time be made more accessible to people with autism?
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What is it that you think is so qualitatively different from a mental illness, why is making this distinction so crucially important to you ?
People who are autistic are not sick. (Unless they have a mental illness like depression for instance).
People with schizophrenia usually first experience symptoms in late teens / early twenties - they will then usually live with that condition their whole lives, likewise bipolar disorder. They are not acutely ill most of the time. You do not catch either of these conditions, like measles or flu - and there is a genetic component to vulnerability.

Objectively, the difference between them being defined as a mental illness rather than a developmental disorder, like asd, is that the onset of the condition is more likely to be 18 than 3 and the fact that medication can mitigate some of the symptoms (though that is also true for some people with asd).

The diagnostic distinction may be relevant to treatment and prognosis, but I do feel the degree of offence people take to whether the descriptive term condition, illness, problem, or disorder is used after the word "mental" is largely related to relative levels of stigma. To which people with conventionally described mental illness might reasonably respond - why are you so desperate to distance yourselves from us, what does that say about what you think about us ?

[ 06. August 2016, 18:13: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
 
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
It sometimes seems like AS are looking for the magic potion that will remove Autism from the world.
I see. That in and of itself doesn't invalidate the findings of the study that suggest that contrary to what was asserted above, there might be a link between autism and brain chemistry, though, does it?
Unless you believe mind is some free floating entity separate from the brain, there surely must be differences in the brains of people with autism and people without ?
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
I was talking specifically about autism
Indeed, that's part of the problem as I see it.

This thread was supposed to be about how congregations deal with mental health in general.

Since you first weighed in on this thread, you've been trying to put autism in a category apart, and not displayed any goodwill to any other category at all.

You are not keen on autism being classified as a "disorder", and in support of your view argue that (presumably unlike these "disorders") autism is a "neurological variant", which in turn, you argue, means that each autistic person is an individual case.

The clear implication is that individuality does not apply, or matter, when it comes to sufferers of these "disorders".

For my part, I have readily acknowledged the need for all autistic people to be considered as individuals, and of course congregations should be sensitive to the wide range of difficulties faced by people at different points on the autistic spectrum.

However, I can't find anywhere here where you acknowledge that the "individuality" you wish to claim for autistic people should apply to any other condition, and that's where I perceive the lack of goodwill to be.

It wouldn't take much for you to clear up that misunderstanding.

[corrected link]
E - please read for understanding. Since I was not talking about anything other than autism, nothing was implied about other conditions. You appear to be reacting to what I did not say rather than what I did. The misunderstanding, if any, is entirely yours.

Your use of "weighed in", by the way, seems an odd way to describe a contribution to the thread. Isn't that what every poster, including yourself, does?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Doublethink, the brain has chemistry, and it has structure. The nerves form connections in various directions, dealing with various inputs. The messages are passed between them through the media of various substances. What I have read suggests that what varies in autism is the structure, not the messenger substances, which are known to be agents in some other conditions such as depression.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
It sometimes seems like AS are looking for the magic potion that will remove Autism from the world.
I see. That in and of itself doesn't invalidate the findings of the study that suggest that contrary to what was asserted above, there might be a link between autism and brain chemistry, though, does it?
Unless you believe mind is some free floating entity separate from the brain, there surely must be differences in the brains of people with autism and people without ?
There is far stronger evidence that there is a physical connectivity/ under-connectivity. Of course there is always brain chemistry since we have material bodies.
Article
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
You appear to be reacting to what I did not say rather than what I did.
I was reacting, originally, to this from you:
quote:
I am not keen on the term "mental disorder" when applied to autism. As I understand it, autism is a neurological variant, and as Caissa implies, each autistic person is an individual, with a range of neurological characteristics/sensitivities which may be greater or lesser, depending. One size doesn't fit all.
I translate for a living, freelance, and one of the ways I keep my order book full is to spend time looking carefully at what is written.

In the above paragraph you are explaining why you are not keen for the term "mental disorder" to apply to autism. Your argument is twofold: i) autism is a neurological variant ii) each autistic person is an individual, one size doesn't fit all.

Your argument has no force at all if either of its propositions - and notably, the second one - can be fairly applied (from your perspective) to anyone with a mental disorder in addition to anyone with autism.

From this it is entirely legitimate to challenge you about your attitude to those you categorise as having mental disorders.

If you want me to let this go, all you'd have to do is concede that the "individuality" you wish to claim for autistic people should apply to those with any other condition.

Particularly as this seems to me to be Step 1 for anyone when it comes to better consideration of the mental health of all members of a congregation.

quote:
Your use of "weighed in", by the way, seems an odd way to describe a contribution to the thread. Isn't that what every poster, including yourself, does?
You can replace it with the term "contributed" if you wish. But the fact remains that all your contributions on this thread revolve around claiming autism as a case apart rather than considering any other condition.

Pointing up the distinctive requirements of this condition (as you see them) is fine, but doing so in disregard for the gamut of mental health issues a congregation might face doesn't come across as very empathetic.

[ 07. August 2016, 06:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
What is it that you think is so qualitatively different from a mental illness, why is making this distinction so crucially important to you ?
People who are autistic are not sick. (Unless they have a mental illness like depression for instance).
People with schizophrenia usually first experience symptoms in late teens / early twenties - they will then usually live with that condition their whole lives, likewise bipolar disorder. They are not acutely ill most of the time. You do not catch either of these conditions, like measles or flu - and there is a genetic component to vulnerability.

Objectively, the difference between them being defined as a mental illness rather than a developmental disorder, like asd, is that the onset of the condition is more likely to be 18 than 3 and the fact that medication can mitigate some of the symptoms (though that is also true for some people with asd).

The diagnostic distinction may be relevant to treatment and prognosis, but I do feel the degree of offence people take to whether the descriptive term condition, illness, problem, or disorder is used after the word "mental" is largely related to relative levels of stigma. To which people with conventionally described mental illness might reasonably respond - why are you so desperate to distance yourselves from us, what does that say about what you think about us ?
I'm not desperate to separate my self from anyone.

Autism is probably more akin to conditions like dyspraxia, dyslexia, perhaps Downs syndrome. I'm not sure about ADHD. I know people who have had diagnosis that were changed from one to the other. I don't think that any of these are mental illnesses. Disabilities yes. Disorders because they do not work like normal.

One big difference is that autism is a steady state- you don't see changes from time to time. It just is.

As Tony Attwood writing on Asperger's Syndrome said

quote:
The reader will be interested to know that I have discovered a means of removing almost all of the characteristics that define Asperger's syndrome in any child or adult. This simple procedure does not require expensive and prolonged therapy, surgery or medication, and has already been secretly discovered by those who have Aperger's syndrome. The procedure is actually rather simple. If you are a parent, take you child with Asperger's syndrome to his or her bedroom. Leave the child alone and close the door as you leave the room. The signs of Asperger's syndrome in your son or daughter have now disappeared.
Tony Attwood The complete guide to Asper's Syndrome. 2007

 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Autism is probably more akin to conditions like dyspraxia, dyslexia, perhaps Downs syndrome.
This is turning into a whole separate debate, but it really isn't like Downs syndrome in that there isn't a yes/no chromosomal difference.

Even if there is zero difference in brain chemistry, and it's all down to connectivity between brain areas, there is no hard line between "brain wiring type A" and "brain wiring type B". I think everyone agrees autism is a spectrum.

Because of this, I think the diagnosis of autism has a very high social component. Here in France - one of the UK's closest neighbours - it was virtually unknown until a decade or so ago. I'm sure there are countries and cultures where if you explained an autism diagnosis people would just look at you blankly and quite possibly others where people would say "but everyone here's like that". One close relative who is a qualified health practitioner with an autistic child describes autism, in jest, as "extreme maleness".

(Not only do diagnoses evolve, entire conditions come and go. How long is it since you heard of anyone with ME (which never ever made it to France)?)

All of which takes me back to one of my first comments on this thread, i.e. congregations will need to have some acknowlegement of the prevailing social view of "mental health" issues if they are going to get anywhere at all in coping with them.

They may not agree with them, if they are in Soviet Russia they will certainly disagree with Christianity being labelled as a mental illness and its adherents interned in psychiatric hospitals, but they will have to get beyond simply arguing over labels.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally quoted by The Midge:
If you are a parent, take you child with Asperger's syndrome to his or her bedroom. Leave the child alone and close the door as you leave the room. The signs of Asperger's syndrome in your son or daughter have now disappeared.
This offers further evidence that the challenges for people on the ASD spectrum are above all social, doesn't it?

Which is where, labels aside, we come back to the issue raised in the OP.

[ 07. August 2016, 08:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
]This offers further evidence that the challenges for people on the ASD spectrum are above all social, doesn't it?

Which is where, labels aside, we come back to the issue raised in the OP.
By definition Eutychus. National Autism Society (UK)

So answering the questions "Is Autism a mental illness?" No.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
We have more than our fair share of autism in our family. I get to see it first hand. The kids who don't get invited to parties, ever. Unintentional exclusion because fellowship time is so damned inaccessible.
How could fellowship time be made more accessible to people with autism?
From the link to the Welcoming Autistic People in our Churches and Communities above:

Two Minutes to Spare?
Just read this:
Quick Low Cost Things to Make a Difference for Autistic People.

Always ask us what may help. Our brains take in too much detail. Our brain wiring can literally overheat as it tries to handle too much input at once. We try very hard to avoid an overload of sensory or social situations. It’s not us being awkward, it’s a physical brain difficulty.

1. Check the lights in each room, especially fluorescent ones – any flickering ones? Please replace them with new ones or LED ones with a diffuser panel and no dimmer switch.

2. Noise levels. Is there anything unexpected in today’s service/meeting? Can it be changed easily? If not, can you warn us? [My note "back ground music" can be problematic because it adds a whole layer of auditory stimulation. Please turn it off!]

3. The building. Do we know what it looks like, and what the layout is like? Is there information on a simple website, perhaps?

4. The Order of service – really clear instructions for us e.g. where to sit, when to stand and sit, what to say at each point? Either write it down, or get someone to be with us to quietly say what to do, please. (This also helps those new to church).

5. We are very literal, and our minds may see pictures, not words. If you need to use complicated language, can someone be available to explain it afterwards if we need it, maybe by email? (This helps those who find reading more difficult, too, which is one in every five people in the UK)

6. Physical events e.g. shaking hands? Water being splashed about? We may find this physically painful, as many are hypersensitive. Please warn us what will happen, and avoid physical contact unless we offer first.

7. Rest area – somewhere quiet to go if we need to, please. Or don’t worry if we wander outside for a while.

8. Socialising. Be aware we find it difficult and exhausting as we cannot ‘see’ or hear you that well, especially in a crowd. Our body language can be different to yours, and we may not make eye contact. Please don’t think we’re rude. Sitting next to us to chat, somewhere quieter, is easier than facing us.

9. Be Clear and Accurate. If you say you’ll do something, please do it. Those on the autistic spectrum will always find it very distressing if you promise to help and don’t, or promise to phone at a certain time and don’t. Or if you use expressions like, “I’ll be back in five minutes” when you mean, “I’ll be back some time in the next hour”. If you need to change arrangements, please just let us know.

10. Support: Find a quiet caring person to be aware of us, someone ready to lend a little assistance if we need it. Brief them well, and please respect our confidentiality and privacy.
 
Posted by jacobsen (# 14998) on :
 
E - you insist on claiming that I because I referred to one particular condition I was deliberately excluding others from individuality etc. I was making no comment at all about anything other than autism. Please stop setting up straw targets which have nothing to do with what I actually said. It's unnecessary to "concede" that every human on the planet is an individual. That's bleeding obvious, and I'd take it kindly if you would stop attributing ideas to me which I have not expressed.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
*tangent*

quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:

Autism is probably more akin to conditions like dyspraxia, dyslexia, perhaps Downs syndrome. I'm not sure about ADHD. I know people who have had diagnosis that were changed from one to the other. I don't think that any of these are mental illnesses. Disabilities yes. Disorders because they do not work like normal.
This comment reminded me of what is wonderful about the Ship. Several years ago on a thread about transportation, a shippie mentioned that s/he could not ride a bike, being dyspraxic.

This was a term I'd never heard before, despite working in the mental health field for several years. It's not a common diagnosis in the US. But I have a son who was never able to ride a bike despite years of frustrating attempts. Curious, I googled the term and found scant info on American sites but a very detailed and extensive UK site. Reading the diagnostic criteria, I became convinced it fit my son. He had been referred earlier for testing for ADHD as a young child, the conclusion was he did not have ADHD but had what at that time was simply referred to as "immaturity" and a cluster of symptoms. In the years since, the info I found on the UK site have been helpful to me and my now-adult child many times, as he struggled with things like learning to drive a car. Honestly, it has made a huge difference (for one, we stopped trying to teach him how to ride a bike).

Obviously we don't want to get into things like amateur or remote diagnosis, but the sharing of resources/info that happens even unintentionally on a site like this is truly a wonderful thing.

*end tangent*
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jacobsen:
each autistic person is an individual, with a range of neurological characteristics/sensitivities which may be greater or lesser, depending. One size doesn't fit all.
So it's important to you that those with autism are recognised as individuals with a range of characteristics and sensitivities. Great.
quote:
It's unnecessary to "concede" that every human on the planet is an individual. That's bleeding obvious.
But for everyone else, including those with mental disorders, say, people diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, such recognition is "bleeding obvious".

Oh.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
A mentally healthier congregation?

Pastors can remind us, often, that once we have confessed our sins and been forgiven, the sins are over, in the past, erased, done, We can and should quit beating ourselves up about them and move on.

We can be encouraged to see one another -- the one who can't bear to be touched during The Peace, the one who periodically shouts random words, the one who needs reassurance that the dish you brought for pot luck isn't poisoned, the cranky old lady -- as the delightful, interesting, quirky, loveable people we are.

[ 07. August 2016, 20:20: Message edited by: Twilight ]
 
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(Not only do diagnoses evolve, entire conditions come and go. How long is it since you heard of anyone with ME (which never ever made it to France)?)
I hear of it quite regularly, but then I know a few sufferers. I can assure you ME hasn't "gone" as far as they are concerned, but you're not alone in thinking that and the battle for proper recognition continues.

BTW today is Severe ME Awareness Day
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Is it really incumbent on a church to prepare itself for every type of condition, symptom package, disorder or illness?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is it really incumbent on a church to prepare itself for every type of condition, symptom package, disorder or illness?
As an individual congregation, we can't-- it's just not feasible. But we should be able to respond to the needs of the people right in front of us-- the ones who come to our door. That's difficult, especially for smaller churches, but it is essential to our calling, so pretty much non-optional.

This is where being part of a larger connectional church is a Very Good Thing-- because a large denominational body can, in fact, think thru these issues and have resources available their various individual congregations can draw from as these specific needs arise.
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is it really incumbent on a church to prepare itself for every type of condition, symptom package, disorder or illness?
Good question.

For something that affects 1 in 4 I would say yes. Being aware and missionary minded means that a church has to be on the look out for and be prepared to admit people with conditions. At the very least churches will need to willing to listen and adapt when they come them.

As the saying goes "The church is an organisation that doesn't exist for itself". At east that is a theory.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
Good question.

For something that affects 1 in 4 I would say yes. Being aware and missionary minded means that a church has to be on the look out for and be prepared to admit people with conditions. At the very least churches will need to willing to listen and adapt when they come them.

As the saying goes "The church is an organisation that doesn't exist for itself". At east that is a theory.
So we're not talking of Autism then.
quote:
DSM-5, p 55, heading "Prevalence" reads:
In recent years, reported frequencies for autism spectrum disorder across the U.S. and non-U.S. countries have approached 1% of the population, with similar estimates in child and adult samples.
It goes on to say that these rates are an increase from prior, and uncertain if this is increased awareness, subthreshold cases being included, or true increase in the frequency.
 
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Ordinary friendliness works, but is not alwayeasy to instigate.

I run coffee mornings for guide dogs at my house. They are fundraisers, that's their purpose. I put leaflets around the local area when one is coming up.

They have turned out to be great social, neighbourly occasions. Many old folk who are almost housebound turn up and we are getting to know each other like never before. They come, with heads held high to do the charity a good turn. Meanwhile they are helped too.
I love this, so great.
[Overused]
 
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on :
 
Is it really incumbent on a church to prepare itself for every type of condition, symptom package, disorder or illness?


You mean formal prepare like for a major incident or something?
I'm sorry to be flippant, but this people that we are talking about here. Broken, hurting. A little humanity often goes a very long way.

In much the same way as we learn about other people in our daily lives, as churches we also learn, through getting to know each other.

I'm liking Twilight and Lamb Chopped's words.....
 
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
So we're not talking of Autism then.
No. This thread is about mental health [Biased]
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
We should go with 1 in 5 then I think: Prevalance of any mental illness is 18.1% according to this USA info. Now, that stat cited, we can assume/presume that family members will be involved and affected in some way. So we could elevate the total impact statistic.

Further browsing of those stats indicate that 4-5% have a serious mental illness. These folks will have a lot more trouble I think, I take serious as at the level of hospital and ongoing psychiatric care.

Re Autism, I think I'd conceptualize it's as a mental disorder or relatively stable condition, which is different understanding than a progressive illness or even a waxing and waning illness. It's probably in situations of dual diagnosis that things get more troubling, e.g., depression, behavioural disturbances added to the Autism.

The diagnosis of interest to us where I live in terms of neuro-development is FASD, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
We should go with 1 in 5 then I think: Prevalance of any mental illness is 18.1% according to this USA info. Now, that stat cited, we can assume/presume that family members will be involved and affected in some way. So we could elevate the total impact statistic.

Further browsing of those stats indicate that 4-5% have a serious mental illness. These folks will have a lot more trouble I think, I take serious as at the level of hospital and ongoing psychiatric care.

Re Autism, I think I'd conceptualize it's as a mental disorder or relatively stable condition, which is different understanding than a progressive illness or even a waxing and waning illness. It's probably in situations of dual diagnosis that things get more troubling, e.g., depression, behavioural disturbances added to the Autism.

The diagnosis of interest to us where I live in terms of neuro-development is FASD, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
I don't think it works to say "this illness/ condition/ disability/ atypical condition is common, so we need to be prepared for it..." but "your illness /condition /disability /atypical condition is less common, so we can't be expected to deal with it."

We are called to care for the persons right in front of us, whether their situation is common or uncommon. We deal with them not as a group or a class of people or a disability or a disease, we deal with them as people, with all the challenges particular to them in their particular life situation.

Again, having access to resources such as can be found from large denominational bodies is quite helpful when you find yourself in unanticipated situations. But first of all we have to recognize that our calling is to welcome and care for the people in front of us-- as people-- whoever they might be.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul.:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(Not only do diagnoses evolve, entire conditions come and go. How long is it since you heard of anyone with ME (which never ever made it to France)?)
I hear of it quite regularly, but then I know a few sufferers. I can assure you ME hasn't "gone" as far as they are concerned, but you're not alone in thinking that and the battle for proper recognition continues.

BTW today is Severe ME Awareness Day
No, renamed CFS/ME in the UK, CFIDS in the US, it still exists as an umbrella diagnosis for anything debilitating that cannot be diagnosed otherwise, and identified in several different forms, I suspect the different cases will be eventually diagnosed with rare conditions. So far I know sufferers who were later diagnosed with: an unusual form of pernicious anaemia, someone else who had a genetic mitochondrial problem that killed her at 40, leaving a son with the same condition, and a couple of girls suffering the effects of the hypermobility form of Ehlers-Danos Syndrome at puberty - that's another genetic disorder, this one of collagen formation, and very hormone sensitive.

[ 12. August 2016, 20:51: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0