a closer look at DID

Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is a very complex mental illness that was formerly known as Multiple Personality Disorder.

According to the DSM IV, individuals with DID exhibit different personalities which were created as a coping mechanism; usually in response to childhood physical or sexual trauma.  In instances such as this, the child’s psyche actually “creates” a whole new persona as a way to dissociate themselves from the trauma as it is occurring.  This can create large gaps of memory loss and confusion as the individual grows older.  Even though the persona is created to protect oneself, the emergence of multiple personas can lead to tumultuous interpersonal relationships and a feeling of “lost identity” in those diagnosed or undiagnosed, as it typically takes one seven to nine years after onset to seek professional help. (1)

DID is currently very controversial in the idea that many even question the existence of the disorder.  Some believe that the individuals are merely playing different characters as a way to relieve responsibility for their actions.  The idea of suggestibility accounts for this way of thinking, as various studies point to the idea of “alters” being created by leading questions asked by therapists.  This can lead to society viewing those with the disorder as basically faking it for attention.  Others view it as a very real psychological disorder and point to better understanding of it as a way to explain an upsurge in those diagnosed. (2) (3)

This disorder has a socially constructed aspect to it in regards to gender.  For example, the ratio of females to males being diagnosed is 9:1.  Also,  DID can actually bring into question the whole thought process of gender identity as cross-gendered alters are common, such as the existence of a protective male alter to guard the traumatized female host. (2)

Historically, information on DID has been very skewed and one-sided.  So much so that it can be commonly confused with schizophrenia.  However, these two disorders differ in the fact that in schizophrenics audio and visual hallucinations are present.  In DID, the host personality is often “absent” when an alter has taken over and often cannot recall events that have taken place under the alter.  The idea of this can lead to hysteria amongst society that views being in control at all times very essential towards a productive and functional life.  The thought of not being in control instantly brings up dark comparisons to serial killers thanks to reinforcement through the media and its twisted take on DID.  This idea does have a root in truth, however, as different alters are typically presented as existing for certain purposes.  For example, an alter can be a protector, an idealized version of oneself, or even a dramatic overplaying of certain characteristics that are lacking in the host.

The main players that stand to profit off a diagnosis such as this are quite easy to identify: pharmaceutical companies.  Treatment of DID relies heavily on the taking of anti-psychotic medications.  These medications are usually sedative in nature and act this way in an attempt to “prevent” alters from access to the host’s body.  Although its prevalence is quite rare, around 1% of the general population (1), there is still a great deal of money to be made by large pharmaceutical companies in that the individual is usually treated with a host of medications not only to control the disorder, but to relieve side effects brought on by the original medications the individual takes.  Companies cannot “cure” illnesses, for it is a source of income for them.  Yet, they cannot allow them to die either.  As it was stated in The Society Pages: “sick people though, they’re a gold mine.” (4)

Consequences of a diagnosis such as DID can have a very troubling effect on the individuals and their families.  Children who don’t have a full understanding of what is occurring can be frightened or even angry with those diagnosed.  Personal relationships are often torn apart as the partner of an individual may not be able to handle the excess strain put upon the relationship.  This can lead to a breakdown in the family unit and the social exclusion of the individual with DID.  To further complicate things, the stigmatization can be a very troubling ordeal.  Most people in society are unaware of DID, its causes, roots, treatment options and other various aspects of the disorder.  For one who is caught up in a loved one being diagnosed it can be a very unsettling situation.  It can be hard for a person to come to grips with the fact that the person they love and care for has no real control over situations which arise.  Jealousy and anger can present itself in relationships where one side feels the other is attempting to escape responsibility for their actions.  In a society that places so much emphasis on being responsible and making sound decisions, the alleviation of that for a loved one while the other is forced to uphold societal standards can create a rift and lead to the destruction of said relationship. (5)

For one to fully understand the societal influences surrounding a diagnosis of DID, one must understand basic human emotions and interactions based on real and perceived expectations of others in society.  One must question whether it is merely a fantasy world in which the diagnosed prefer to live in or whether there are serious psychological issues within the individual which prevent them from properly assessing and coping with trauma  experienced.

This raises the question of why one would want to live with the diagnosis of DID.  Is it a way for one to continually live outside of accepted cultural norms?  Is it a way to shirk responsibility?  Is it a way pass the blame onto something which cannot be blamed?  All of these questions are asked by those skeptical of DID.  But if there is no monetary gain, why would one choose to live a life in chaos?

As a society, we need to ask these and other tough questions about DID.  It is in our best interest to examine other ways of treating this disorder without relegating those diagnosed to a lifetime of medication and frequent hospital visits.  We must circumvent our natural urges to find ways to make money off of the sick and instead treat them to the best of our ability.  Only through this can we focus on de-stigmatizing the illusions around mental illness, and begin healing those afflicted. (5)

WC: 1081

References:
(1) American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2000.

(2) Dissociative Identity Disorder. (2012). In Abnormal Psychology: An Integrative Approach (Sixth Edition, pp. 196-200). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

(3) Spiegel, Alix. “What's A Mental Disorder? Even Experts Can't Agree.” NPR. 29 Dec. 2010. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.

(4) Rose, Dan. “The Economics of Disease Treatment and Prevention.” The Society Pages. 20 Feb. 2012. Web. 25 Mar. 2012.

(5) Wyckoff, Whitney Blair. “Despite Deeper Understanding Of Mental Illness, Stigma Lingers.” NPR. 17 Sep. 2010. Web. 25 Mar. 2012

film review: generation Rx

Generation Rx is a documentary about the ills of the pharmaceutical companies and how they target and deceive society into thinking that what is “wrong” with them can be solved simply by taking a pill.

In the movie, the producers show various instances of an industry run amok and capitalizing on people’s fears.  By investigating different murders and violent attacks that have been committed by “drugged-up” children, this documentary hits the individual with a wave of emotion and facts.  Increased suicide rates of children on anti-depressants are frightening and vividly portrayed.  Other elements brought into the film are facts surrounding the FDA approving drugs like Zoloft when clinical trials showed problems existed.  Also, the very notion of prescribing kids psycho-stimulants, such as Ritalin, is challenged because of the undeveloped pre-frontal cortex (PFC).

With regards to Ritalin, this drug was never meant to be prescribed for children.  In fact, by giving kids this drug at a very early age, Big Pharm is actually affecting the brain in a variety of ways.  The PFC of the brain is not fully developed until the age of 25.  When one is prescribed a psycho-stimulant, the PFC is affected.  Because the PFC is responsible for higher level functioning and appropriate social interactions, a child’s brain is hindered to an alarming degree.  With all that is currently known about the effects of stimulants on the developing child it is quite shocking to note that 2.5 million children under the age of 18 are prescribed these medications.  The terrible part about it all is that research shows these “ADHD” kids could, in fact, merely be too young for the grade they are enrolled in.

One notion the film could have pursued further is the idea of an “information epidemic.”  Researchers have explored the idea of not the illness being contagious, but the information surrounding it to be.  With the way our society is constantly bombarded with messages from Big Pharm, it is strange how no one seems to link the money-making aspect to it.  There is a lot of money to be made from handing out medications to those who, even if they think they do, may not need it.  Also, it was very interesting to learn who actually the major players in the FDA are.  According to the film, almost every person on the FDA panel that has control over which drugs are approved for use is on the payroll of some pharmaceutical company.  I feel that a film could have been made entirely about this issue alone.

The only “research” I would pursue in this matter is investigatory.  And by that, I mean the thorough investigation of the backgrounds of who controls what drugs hit the market for consumers.  The fact that these people serve on these boards with their obvious conflict of interests is appalling to say the least.  Actually, now that I have stated my discontent with the FDA I now have an idea.  I would propose a nationwide study on how many children are diagnosed with ADHD if the age to begin schooling was pushed back one year.  This could prove to be very interesting especially in the context of the first link posted.

Generation Rx relates to our coursework by examining deviancy of the mind, which may or may not be an actual deviance at all. It could all just be another attack on Americans by corporations trying to make a profit; regardless of the consequences.