Mental illness growing in Japan
Posted by Matt Dioguardi on May 23rd, 2007
There are several things I’ve wanted to blog on, but have not had the opportunity.Here is something that caught my eye this morning.Mental illnesses growing in Japan:
More Japanese claimed and received compensation for work-related suicides and mental-health problems last year than ever before, officials said on Thursday. A government report, citing the number of cases leading to compensation, found workers who committed suicide due to work-related stress hit a record 65 cases in 2006, compared to 42 the previous year, said Health Ministry official Junichiro Kurashige. The number of workers who received compensation for work-induced mental illness hit 205, up 61 per cent from a year earlier, he said also a record high. The number of applications for compensation for mental illness or suicide also rose sharply, to 819 cases, a 24 per cent jump. The numbers reflect a push by the government to get more workers or their families to seek compensation if they are legitimately entitled to it, and Kurashige warned that the compensated cases till probably reflect only a tiny fraction of the overall problem, which remains largely unknown and ungauged. Japan’s suicide rate is among the highest in the industrialised world. More than 32,000 Japanese took their own lives in 2004, the bulk of them older Japanese suffering financial woes as the country struggled through a decade of economic stagnation.
Clearly the people who are committing suicide need help. However, should help come in the form of saying they are sick and need medical aid? I don’t agree with that paradigm, and the only positive thing I can say about it, is at least it avoids using culturism to explain why people commit suicide in Japan. Although it may not be apparent off the bat, this is a move towards the left. Both the right and the left, if you go far enough depend on collectivism as opposed to individualism. However, the left prefers pseudo-science collectivism while the right prefers religious or nationalistic collectivism.Saying that undesirable behavior is sick is to put experts in charge of our behavior.
In response, the Japanese government has earmarked substantial funds for programmes to help those with depression and other mental illnesses and is more actively involved in trying to get those affected to come forward through awareness programmes. The figures are also seen as reflecting a change in social attitudes toward mental illness. Though once seen as shameful, more Japanese are willing to acknowledge they suffer from depression or stress-related illnesses now than in the past, and the government has begun easing its compensation restrictions to allow more people to qualify for help.
Being willing to talk to people and get help will benefit anyone. Talking to someone who talks to many others with similar problems could be especially helpful. Taking drugs that make a person feel well (for example: Prozac) might also benefit a person, but there will also likely be costly side-effects.Despite all this, I still don’t believe that it’s correct to call people who could benefit from any of the above sick.
“Before, people tried to hide that they were suffering from depression,” said Mikio Mizuno, a lawyer specialising in death from overwork. “Now, it has become more widely known that people suffer and commit suicide from work-related depression, leading to more applications for workers’ compensation. The psychological burden from work is also increasing.”
Why not directly argue workers have a right not to be overworked? Instead, we’re getting the argument that workers have a right to health and that their jobs make them sick.In other words, to get access to our rights we must first be diagnosed by a practicing psychiatrist.Putting all this aside, if Japan’s health care system doesn’t already have enough problems, adding mental health to the agenda will not improve things. Drug companies will of course gain, as will their lobbies. It takes big businesses to support big government.Just remember, the more behavior becomes a public health issue, the less control we’ll have over it.Links:
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:41 am
Sorry, but this post is just too “all over the place” for me to coherently follow. The end result is that it just seems an attempt to find *something* wrong in what should be viewed more positively.
If we were talking about work-related accidents and deaths resulting from that, would you be so quick to criticize the government for trying to get those workers (or their families) compensation? You could argue that the government should also be looking at why those accidents occurred in the first place, but just because there is one article about the government trying to get adequate compensation for victims’ families doesn’t automatically mean that the government is not trying to also address the fundamental issue of safety.
Clearly there is a problem of suicides, and of suicides from “overwork.” Obviously there is a fundamental problem of how work is still viewed in Japan and how many companies take advantage of that with “coerced” overtime (often not financially compensated, which is illegal). Certainly there is a ton of work the government needs to do in this area.
But in the meantime, is it “pseudo-science collectivism” (huh?) to want to help those suffering from depression (work-related or otherwise). As was pointed out in the article, there is a stigma attached to mental illness in this country and that is something many health professionals would like to change. However, given your first link about the “myth” of mental illness, it would seem I’m whistling in the wind to say that clearly, many people like myself do view depression and suicidal tendencies as an illness and that these people are “sick” in some way.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Hi Matt,
I liked this post and I do very much sympathize with your position that “[s]aying that undesirable behavior is sick is to put experts in charge of our behavior.” (I have problems with your left/right reference, but that’s a whole other topic.)
Kurt, you write that “many people like myself do view depression and suicidal tendencies as an illness and that these people are “sick” in some way.”
I agree with Matt that the word “sick” is unhelpful and extremely damaging: the implicit message is that so-called “mental illnesses” have some sort of biological/physical roots, in the same way as “normal” illnesses do. This is, firstly, extremely naive. The “science” of mental illness, corporate claims aside, does not have the necessary evidence to say anything even remotely close to this.
More importantly, however, locating the “illness” in the individual is extremely convenient. It shifts the blame for the problems of the larger society onto the few who “exhibit symptoms”. That these “symptoms” are the problems of the individual, who must be “treated”, sidesteps issues (such as the issue of work conditions) tied directly to political decisions made by much more powerful players, as well as issues of our collective responsibility in these matters.
I also don’t think the accident comparison is relevant. In the case of issues such as depression you are dealing with a condition that has an extreme social stigma attached to it. Placing the focus on “treatment” over locating the roots of the problem in political decisions is just a kind of bait-and-switch.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:50 pm
Kurt,
Thanks for commenting. I appreciate you taking the time to offer some criticism. Sorry if this response also appears to be all over the place.
I’ve been interested in this issue for almost as long as I can remember. So it’s not something I’ve just discovered. I used to argue mental illness was the result of problems resulting from chemical imbalances in the body. I sincerely believed that. However, I now see the very paradigm of mental illness as one that is flawed and has several negative consequences. It is especially problematic when governments take it upon themselves to cure such problems.
I’m particularly interested in Japan in regards to this issue, because I’m wondering how the movement to classify undesirable social behavior as an illness will fare in Japan.
I agree that what I wrote might have lacked clarity. I was just sort of adding my own personal footnotes to the article. I probably need to write an essay about my views on this matter so that they can be put forward for criticism. I’m a fairly strong adherent of Thomas Szasz’s views on this. I’ve contributed a lot to the Thomas Szasz discussion group.
Having said that, not ever so long ago I believed something very differently. So it’s not impossible I might change my mind again. It just depends on the weight of the arguments.
That’s a really interesting question. We can imagine someone whose desperate for work and a company taking advantage of that person by giving them low pay to do dangerous work. There are, in fact, several labor laws to protect victimization of such people. I don’t have any particular criticism of these laws. I probably do have a bit of libertarian bias so if I were to study these laws I might find something I didn’t like about them. I honestly don’t know.
But this is very different from the issue of mental illness and suicide. Could you be more specific in your comparison?
We are no doubt approaching this issue with different problems in mind. I’m concerned about governance and self-autonomy.
I certainly could do this, as might you. If you get to it before me please let me know what you find.
Hm. How would you say work is viewed in Japan? Moreover, how would you say work should be viewed? Phew! Sounds like mine field to me.
What specifically do you suggest the government do? I am not convinced the government needs to do anything at this point.
I don’t understand why it is the government’s responsibility to do anything. I don’t have time right now, but I might be willing to try and build an argument that government actions could be contributing to the problem. I’m not sure if I could do this successfully or not, but it might be something worth exploring.
By collectivism, I mean something along the lines of centralization and planning. When health is handled by the government, especially the national government, that which is deemed an illness is in an ultimate sense determined by a central planning authority. This is especially troubling in the area of mental illness, where what we are really dealing with is behavior we don’t approve of.
I think the term pseudo-science is fairly clear. I don’t regard depression as an illness. Mental illnesses are defined, at least in America, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which is currently on its fourth addition. It’s commonly referred to as the DMV-IV.
You can find what they have to say about depression here. I don’t find this adequate to say the least. Do you?
Actually there are many comparisons between nihonjinron theories and definitions offered by the DSM-IV. Both seek to explain human behavior and resort to theories that cannot be empirically tested.
Both undermine the concept of human autonomy and self-responsibility.
You may want to argue that some mental illnesses, such as depression have in fact been empirically demonstrated. If so please let me know what study you are referring to. In general, I think the premises that go into such studies are seriously flawed. The media plays up these studies complete with cute pictures of the brain. I just don’t buy into any of this any more.
I have mixed feelings about this. I think the impetus to deny an illness as a result of feeling shame of some sort is clearly in error. Only in this case, I don’t think there really is an illness to speak of. Only an important human (moral) problem that needs to be dealt with.
I think by trying to group together what might be several different and separate ethical issues under the rubric of illness will create more problems than it solves.
I think the tendency to classify certain behaviors we don’t approve of as illnesses and then seeking to cure them is basically a bad one. I generally go out of my way to seek criticism of my views, which is at least one motivation for this blog. I’ll try to expand on my thoughts in regards to this at some point so you can more readily criticize them, if you’d like to.
If you want to determine in advance I am a person who under no circumstance will change his mind, then that would be similar to your belief that people have mental illnesses and therefore can’t help their own behavior. I suppose.
I will note that I am open to the idea that something like psycho-therapy helps people. In fact, I believe some of the values of psycho-therapy are quite good. However, as I view belief in psycho-analysis as a kind of religious view, I think it should be kept out of the government to the same extent all such religious views are.
May 23rd, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Chris,
Thank you!