Letter, posted in History Today: Comments welcome

I was very interested in your article of February 2013, volume 63 issue 2, A Curse and a Blessing. May I put a slightly different twist on the matter? As someone who has worked in mental health for a number of years, occasionally lectures in the field, and has history degrees, I see the matter from a slightly different perspective.

Since the Second World War, in part the result of the growth of the NHS, there has been a growing medicalization of human nature. Much of that process has been in the area of mental health and this has increased over the past twenty years. Now almost every façade of human behaviour is subject to labelling. For example, if you constantly work you are considered, or likely to be considered, as suffering from some kind of disorder. If you don’t work, your behaviour is labelled as a different, if connected disorder. Grief, part of the natural human experience, is treated with drugs and considered yet another disorder. Each condition is accompanied by an expert sooner or later. All human behaviour is now subject to medical analysis. The treatment invariably involves drugs.

May I suggest that not only is this process colonising the present, it is also now colonising the past. Although neither the writers of the book under review nor your reviewer intended it, it conveys the notion that Churchill’s immense character traits were the product of a bipolar condition. I would firstly strongly contest that he had such a condition but also point out that this is how the medicalization juggernaut works. Now, Churchill’s exceptional qualities are subject to medical scrutiny. Also, although Lincoln’s wife was difficult and neurotic, there is no evidence she suffered from schizophrenia, an illness with clear symptoms. This juggernaut seeks to reconstitute exceptional behaviour and ability into mental health issues, imposing increasing conformity.

What would have been the fate of these exceptional people had they lived in the present day? They would have been classified, prescribed highly addictive drugs which would have altered their behaviour and swamped their judgement and creativity. I’m afraid like everything else stigma against mental illness is there for a reason; to provide credibility and greater influence for the medical profession and more money for the pharmaceutical companies. I have worked in the psychiatric field for over twenty years and I strongly hold that it is 80% charlantanism, based mainly on the acquisition of professional power, prestige, status and money.