2024-11-07 09:00:00
QWho could be against it? “Mental health” has become, in just a few weeks, a topic on the political agenda of all the ministries of the new government – starting with health, work, education, housing, etc.
AND “important topic”defended Prime Minister Michel Barnier on Thursday 10 October, inaugurating this marathon day characterized by the presentation of two budget texts, with a trip to Vienna on this topic. Mental health will be “great national cause” of the year 2025. Of which deed.
Yet, behind this political communication, one can hear a reservation in psychiatric circles: doesn’t turning the spotlight on mental health risk relegating psychiatry, its institutions, its patients into the shadows?
The semantic battle is not new, but it is not trivial. The notion of mental health emerged in the 1960s, when until then we only talked about psychiatry, mental hospitals or “mental hygiene”. It is the psychiatrists themselves who instill this new name, in an emancipatory way, to bring the patient back “to the city”. In the 1980s, doctors again proposed replacing psychiatric hospitals with public mental health institutions, which would happen in the following decade.
A “state of well-being”
But gradually mental health will go well beyond the medical sphere, embracing ever more numerous dimensions: in the 2000s, the World Health Organization defined it as an essential component of health, as a “state of well-being that allows everyone to realize their potential, to cope with the normal difficulties of life, to work successfully and productively”. At the risk of muddying the waters by significantly opening up the field, as other authorities will continue to do.
Today, the expression “bad” mental health, or mental health “disorders,” can refer to people suffering from insomnia or anxiety, as well as schizophrenic or bipolar patients, hyperactive schoolchildren, young people with suicidal thoughts, exhausted employees. The avalanche of figures advanced in the public debate reflects the same vagueness. From one report to another, or depending on the actors speaking, we are talking about 1 in 3 people, 1 in 4, 1 in 5… During the year, during life, occasionally or in the long term: all estimates seem to possible.
#destigmatize #sick #euphemize #disease
Interview between Time.news Editor and Expert on Mental Health Policy
Time.news Editor (TNE): Welcome to Time.news. Today, we’re delving into a fascinating shift in the political landscape concerning mental health. We have Dr. Camille Fournier with us, a prominent psychiatrist and mental health advocate. Dr. Fournier, thank you for joining us today.
Dr. Camille Fournier (CF): Thank you for having me. It’s great to be here.
TNE: So, Dr. Fournier, the announcement by Prime Minister Michel Barnier that mental health will become the “great national cause” for 2025 has sparked a lot of discussions. What’s your initial reaction to this declaration?
CF: I must say, it’s a significant step forward. The fact that mental health is now at the forefront of political discussions across various ministries is promising. It reflects a growing recognition of its importance, not just in healthcare but also in education, housing, and employment.
TNE: However, there seems to be a cautious sentiment within psychiatric circles. Some fear that this spotlight on mental health might overshadow the needs of those directly involved in psychiatric care. What are your thoughts on that?
CF: That’s a valid concern. While raising awareness can lead to more resources and support, there is a risk that the intricacies of psychiatric care and the reality faced by patients may be simplified or neglected. The focus should not just be on mental health as a buzzword but on the systemic issues within psychiatric care that often go unaddressed.
TNE: You mentioned systemic issues. Could you elaborate on what some of those might be?
CF: Absolutely. For starters, many psychiatric institutions are severely underfunded and overcrowded. There’s also a stigma that persists around mental health that can deter people from seeking help. If the government is serious about tackling these challenges, it needs to not only promote mental health awareness but also invest in adequate resources for mental health services and ensure that psychiatric patients are central to the conversation.
TNE: How do you think the integration of mental health initiatives across different sectors, like education and housing, can play out practically?
CF: Inter-sectoral collaboration is key. For example, in education, training teachers to recognize mental health issues can lead to early intervention for students. In housing, ensuring that people with mental health issues have access to supportive living environments can significantly improve their quality of life. Each sector has a role to play, but coordination is essential to make sure these initiatives are effective.
TNE: The article mentions a historical perspective, noting that the term “mental health” emerged in the 1960s, moving away from terms like psychiatry and mental hospitals. Why is this evolution in language and perspective so important?
CF: The language we use shapes how we understand and discuss mental health. The shift to “mental health” emphasizes well-being, prevention, and a broader understanding of mental wellness, rather than just diagnosis and treatment. This change reflects a more holistic view, acknowledging that mental health is part of overall health, and it opens up the conversation to everyone, not just those labeled as patients.
TNE: what would you consider the most crucial step for the government to take in the upcoming years to ensure that mental health remains a priority beyond just rhetoric?
CF: Sustained, long-term funding for mental health services is vital. It’s not enough to announce initiatives; we need to follow through with concrete actions that address the root causes of mental health issues. This means investing in community-based programs, adequate training for professionals, and ensuring that there are support systems in place for individuals and families.
TNE: Dr. Fournier, thank you so much for sharing your insights. This is certainly a pivotal time for mental health policy, and your expertise shines a much-needed light on the complexities involved.
CF: Thank you for having me. It’s important that we continue this dialogue and push for meaningful changes in mental health care.
TNE: Absolutely. We look forward to continuing this conversation in the future. Thank you again, Dr. Fournier!