Schizophrenia - India comes out tops

Hamanda

Symptoms relating to Schizophrenia have been evident since the age of antiquity and, as time has evolved, many theories and therapies have surrounded the illness;- some barbaric and others, just deluded.

The understanding of mental illness has, thankfully, improved since the days when the associated behaviours of Schizophrenia were often linked with demonic possession, and regularly treated with leeches, enemas, hot irons, fever therapy, gas therapy and electroconvulsive treatments, to name but a few. The biggest breakthrough came in 1899 when Emil Kraepelin diagnosed Dementia Praecox and, ten years later, Eugen Bleuler coined the phrase Schizophrenia.

The turning point, in the United Kingdom, for the treatment of suffers of mental illness, was the implementation of The Mental Health Act 1983. This act deals with the reception, care and treatment of mentally disordered patients, the management of their property, and other related matters. We also have a greater understanding of Schizophrenic subtypes and a vast array of antipsychotic drugs with which to treat the sufferer.

The problem, in my mind, is that despite all the advancements, research and studies, many sufferers of acute Paranoid Schizophrenia rarely achieve the levels of self-determination and user-empowerment, which are available to the rest of us, and so ultimately fail to gain independence. Many sufferers are not aware of the options which are available to them, and many doctors do not take the time to explain. There is an arrogant air of superiority amongst the medical profession (and yes I am part of the medical profession) which assumes that we know what is best for the patient and that we are an advanced country - at the cutting edge of medical advancement.

I knew that we were going wrong some-where and have been recently working closely with my clients in an attempt to develop a user-led environment. I don't believe that people should have to change to fit in with the routines of care homes, but that the routines should be flexible enough to fit around the needs of the client. I also don't believe that we are anywhere near as advanced (in our understanding of the illness) as we would like to think. If we were, then there would be no need for thousands of people to be in psychiatric homes and hospitals - where they slowly lose what little independence they have left.

I think that everyone involved (in U.K) with Schizophrenia should, as part of their on-going training, take a closer look at what's happening in India........

A three-decade study by the World Health Organisation - one that many Western doctors initially refused to believe (surprise, surprise), has discovered that people with Schizophrenia typically do far better in poorer nations such as India, Nigeria and Columbia, than in Denmark, United Kingdom, and America.

Researchers have concluded that the best explanation is that strong family ties in poorer countries have a profound impact upon recovery. Most people with Schizophrenia in India live with families or other social networks whilst, in sharp contrast, the more 'developed countries' have sufferers in hospitals, group homes, or homeless. I think that we have got a lot to learn about the importance of community inclussion - if it works for India, why shouldn't it work for us?.

__________________
Hamanda

mira4bai4

This is so true, if one looks at any situation of intense trauma, for example holocaust victims, racial or religious cleansing, war zones and the like, these victims suffer and have locked away the memories but as they age and lose the short term memory the old ones become once again the focus. Institutionalised care is extremely difficult as there are so many triggers of memories and fears in the normal daily routines of centres. Like Schizophrenia the care needs to be flexible and adapted to the needs of the individual rather than the institution and an extended family environment where care and familiarity is always present then results are very positive.

crvlvr

Society cannot raise a child, society cannot replace family. Try as they might in developed countries, with social security and other social programs, it will never be a complete replacement to a solid family. Even if we don't consider the down-trodden or the sick and look at general happiness, many third world countries rate higher than developed country. Whoever said, money can't buy happiness, was right on the money

World's happiest countries http://www.aneki.com/happiest_countries.html
Nigeria
Mexico
Venezuela
El Salvador

shanthi

I believe that as a whole we have become not only far too capitalistic, but also very selfish. Far from as in past times when we looked after our own - (this seemed to be the case where I lived until I was 22yrs, South London) we now don't want the responsibility of caring for our aging parents, or members of the family who have become sick - whether physically or mentally. It seems like we're too quick now to have them placed somewhere "where they'll be happier altogether!" decieving ourselves and convincing ourselves that this is "the best things for them!" We may feel slight moments of sadness and guilt, but we seem to get over that little one. I was pleasantly surprised when I found that, despite their terrible poverty, that Indian people DID seem to care for their sick. Not just their own family either. In remote villages in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu where I went to seek out families for a different reason, I found many families looking after either their own or other families relations who were clearly mentally challenged. The patience and understanding, tolerance and even humour they showed was remarkable. Oh how wrong we are. I can't imagine something worse than, if I developed altzheimers and my "family" decided on my behalf to have me institutionalized in one way or another - and how in my lucid times I failed to understand how they could do such a thing. I just can't imagine it.