Allison Amos

Benton, Sherry. "The Difference Between Mental Health and Mental Illness." Psychology

Today, 12 Apr. 2018, www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/reaching-across-the-

divide/201804/the-difference-between-mental-health-and-mental-illness. Accessed

23 June 2019.

In the article “The Difference Between Mental Health and Mental Illness”, author

Sherry Benton discusses how mental health and mental illness are different from each

other. Benton starts by describing how many people view mental health and mental illness

on one spectrum, with mental health and mental illness being opposites. This view is

incorrect, however, because many people’s experience does not fit in this model. Mental

health and mental illness are should be thought of on separate dimensions: related, but not

defined by the other. For example, someone who lives with a mental illness, but is receiving

adequate care, still has a mental illness, but their mental health would be considered high,

since their treatment is effective. On the other hand, someone who, for example, is largely

unhappy with their life due to a job may have low mental health, but not necessarily a

mental illness. Benton claims that we must consider both dimensions, mental health and

mental illness, to live a more satisfying life.

Benton’s purpose in writing this article was to educate the public on the differences

between mental health and mental illness, and to show that they are not the same. By

drawing a distinction between mental health and mental illness, Benton is trying to show

her readers that treating mental health and mental illness as opposite ends of one

spectrum can be harmful, as many peoples experience does not fit in the one dimensional

model of mental health and mental illness. I know that the author of this piece, Sherry
Benton, is reliable because her credentials are published with the piece, and a short

professional biography is written at the end of the piece. This information will be useful in

my paper because it gives a detailed explanation of why mental health and mental illness

are not the same. Because my topic is about how treating them the same is harmful, it is

important that I first provide research that shows that mental health and mental illness are

not the same.

Frances, Allen J. "Psychiatric Fads and Overdiagnosis." Psychology Today, 2 June 2010,

www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/dsm5-in-distress/201006/psychiatric-fads-

and-overdiagnosis.Accessed 23 June 2019.

In Psychiatric Fads and Overdiagnosis”, Allen Frances discusses the growing

“epidemic” of mental illness, specifically in children. Francis blames psychiatric fads for the

upsurge in diagnosis. Starting with DSM3, the public had access to the diagnostic criteria

for every mental disorder. Frances does not think that we are actually getting sicker, rather

he feels that the criteria needed to receive a diagnosis is to broad, and too many people fall

into the category. People are also relying too much on self-diagnosis, feeling that they fit

the criteria for a disorder, and therefore must have said disorder. Frances also blames the

pharmaceutical industry for their part in the popularization of mental illness through

direct to consumer advertising. Frances feels that overall the diagnostic criteria set forward

in the DSM 4 is far too inclusive, but thinks more evidence is needed to determine if it

would do more good than harm to tighten the criteria for any given disorder.

The purpose in writing this piece is to convince the public that they need to be more

critical of their own experiences, and that they need to stop self-diagnosing. I know that
this author is reliable because his credentials and contact information are available with

the piece. While this piece comes from a reputable source, it is an opinion piece, so I have to

be aware of that. This piece will be useful for my paper because it talks about how the

popularization of mental health and mental illness has led to an upsurge in diagnosis, and

how many people are self-diagnosing, which is not the same as seeing a mental health

professional and being diagnosed by them. This piece will help me outline the harm that

mental health popularization has caused.

Jackson, Catherine. “Who Needs a Diagnosis? Are Counsellors and Psychotherapists

Becoming over-Reliant on Psychiatric Diagnoses?” Therapy Today, vol. 30, no. 1,

Feb. 2019, pp. 8–11. EBSCOhost,

sinclair.ohionet.org:80/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=

true&db=pbh&AN=134316109&site=ehost-live.

In “Who Needs a Diagnosis? Are Counsellors and Psychotherapists Becoming over

Reliant on Psychiatric Diagnoses?”, Catherine Jackson discusses the issues with associating

a collection of symptoms with a psychiatric diagnosis. Jackson claims that the language of

diagnosis in psychiatric situations is largely unhelpful because it provides neither a cause

of the distress or a solution to the distress. While diagnostic terms can be useful when it

comes to medication or type of treatment, using diagnostic terms with a patient can make

the doctor lose the bigger picture. Its not about treating someone’s OCD, for example, its

about getting that person to a place of relative health. A diagnosis can sometimes get in the

way of that. Jackson also says that while diagnostic terms should be limited, they cannot be

removed from the conversation fully or the patient will feel like they aren’t being heard.
The alternative Jackson is suggesting is called PTMF, which is a series of questions intended

to replace a diagnostic questions.

The purpose of this article is to call into question the current system for identifying

mental illness. The indented audience for this piece is professionals working tin the fields

of psychology and psychiatry. I know that this source is credible because the author’s

credentials are provided, and the source that the piece was published in, Therapy Today, is

a scholarly source for psychology related topics. I intend to use this source in my paper to

discuss the dangers of a diagnosis, especially when the diagnosis is not needed or is

inaccurate. This article also talks about how self-diagnosis plays into the issues with using

diagnostic terms. This piece will help me form my argument on why overdiagnosis is

harmful, and how it has been impacted by the mental health awareness movement.

Jorg, Frederike, et. al “Mental Health Care Use in Adolescents with and without Mental

Disorders.” European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, vol. 25, no. 5, May 2016, pp.

501- 508. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s00787-015-0754-9.

In “Mental Health Care Use in Adolescents with and without Mental Disorders”,

Frederike Jorg discusses a study conducted to estimate the number of adolescents using

lifelong mental heath care for a specific psychiatric diagnosis, estimate the number of

adolescents without a psychiatric diagnosis using specialized mental health care, to learn

more about the level of emotional and behavioral problems from undiagnosed adolescents

using specialized mental health care, and to investigate the use of non-specialized mental

health care by adolescents with a psychiatric diagnosis. This study found that on average

35.3% of adolescents with a psychiatric diagnosis receive specialized mental health

treatment. That percentage starts at 253.6% for individuals with only one psychiatric

disorder, and goes up to 54.5% for individuals with three or more psychiatric disorders.

28.5% of all specialized mental health care was used by individuals without a psychiatric

disorder. Of the individuals with a psychiatric disorder who were not receiving specialized

mental health care, 25.2% were not receiving any kind of care for their psychiatric

disorder. This study also discovered that the percentage of mental health care usage by

adolescents has remained consistent over the past 45 years. In the United States, only one

third of adolescents with psychiatric disorders receive treatment, and Jorg believes this to

be due to lack of parent recognition of a problem, issues accessing appropriate care, and

social stigma.

The purpose of this paper was to inform the reader of the findings of a population

study focused on the rate of mental illness and mental health care in adolescents. The

audience of this paper was intended to be other scholars in the field of psychology. I know

that the author is credible because the authors contact information is provided and

because the author references and cites many other credible sources. I intend to use the

information about the percentages of who is using specialized mental health care versus

who is not. This information is important to my argument because it shows that almost

25% of specialized mental health care users did not have a diagnosis. These individuals

were seeking care because they were experiencing issues with behaviors or emotions that

were unrelated to a psychiatric diagnosis. The type of care they were receiving was not

intended for their type of issues, and when you consider the two thirds of American

adolescents who are not receiving treatment for their psychiatric diagnosis, this is

concerning.
Luhrmann, T. M. "Redefining Mental Illness." The New York Times, 18 Jan. 2018, p. SR5.

In “Redefining Mental Illness”, T. Luhrmann suggests a new way of thinking about

mental illness. Luhrmann discusses how switching from a diagnosis based way of studying

psychology to a system called “Research Domain Criteria”. This system of studying mental

illness focuses on neuroscientific structures and how they impact our behavior and

thoughts. This was of thinking about mental illness blurs the lines between healthy and sick

individuals, which allows a larger focus on the behaviors of the individual. Another

institution is rejecting the traditional system of diagnosis because it does not help the

individual. They instead focus on the collection of symptoms and any potential risk factors,

such as abuse, deprivation, or inequality.

The authors purpose in this piece is to get people to think of mental illness in a

different way. Luhrmann believes that the diagnostic system we are currently using is

largely ineffective, and should be changed to a different system of diagnosis. The intended

audience of this piece is both the American public and mental health care providers. I know

this author is credible because his credentials are listed at the end of the piece. The piece

was also published in a popular, trusted news source. This article will be useful for my

paper because it exposes the issues with the current diagnostic criteria, as well as offering

two alternative systems of addressing mental illness. A large part of my argument for my

paper is focused on the overuse of diagnostic words, such as depression or anxiety. The

popularization of diagnostic words is a large part of the problem when it comes to defining

what is mental health versus mental illness.

Sapadin, Linda. "Are We Over-Diagnosed and Over-Medicated?" PsychCentral, July 2018,

psychcentral.com/blog/are-we-over-diagnosed-and-over-medicated/. Accessed 23

June 2019.

In “Are We Over-Diagnosed and Over Medicated?”, Linda Sapadin discussed the

dangers of pathologizing individuals who don’t fit in the dominate lifestyle. Sapadin claims

that everyone has rough patches in life, and for the most part that’s nothing to be

concerned about. It also does not mean that you have a mental illness, and treating it as

such does more harm than good. Sapadin believes that the overdiagnosis of mental illness

is largely due to pathologizing behaviors that might be different from the norm, but that are

not themselves problematic. Sapadin recommends psychotherapy above medication, as it

will not cause any harm, and can be useful to both people with mental illness and those

without.

The purpose of this article was to get people to think more critically about their

experiences. One fourth of Americans suffer from a mental illness, but many of these

individuals may have been over-diagnosed and over-medicated. Sapadin wants her readers

to know that there are other methods of dealing with emotional discomfort other than

medication. Psychotherapy can be a good option for people with or without mental illness. I

know that this author is credible because her credentials are published at the bottom of the

paper, and the piece is published on a site that discusses professional psychology. This

piece will be helpful in forming my argument because it addresses why we are over-

diagnosed, and what we can do about it.

Stanton, Robert, et al. “Associations Between Ability to Recognize a Mental Health disorder

and Lived Experience of Mental Illness in an Australian Sample.” Psychiatry

Research, 2019. EBSCOhost, doi:.10.1016/j.psychres.2018.12.098.

In “Associations between Ability to Recognize a Mental Health Disorder and Lived

Experience of Mental Illness in and Australian Sample”, Robert Stanton discussed the

findings of his study. His study was intended to analyze the level of mental health literacy

in individuals who have lived experience with depression or anxiety versus those without

lived experience. The study found that individuals who had lived experience with

diagnosed depression or anxiety had a greater mental health literacy than those without.

Stanton suggests that individuals with lived experience can help others in the community

who are suffering buy aiding in the recognition of depression and anxiety, and also helping

to combat both the self-stigma a person may experience when getting help, as well as the

social stigma surrounding mental illness.

The purpose of this paper was to share the findings of their study with other

scholars within the field of psychology. I know that this source is credible because the

author provides contact information and includes and cited information from other

credible sources. This piece was also published in a psychiatry research journal, which

helps me know it is a credible source. The author also lists his qualification for writing this

paper. I intend to use this information for a counterargument to my thesis. This piece

claims that more mental health awareness is a good thing in helping people get the

treatment they need, which will allow me to discuss this particular counterargument for

my thesis and to form an educated rebuttal.