An uncertain revolution: Why the rise of a genetic model of mental illness has not increased tolerance

What does ‘acceptance’ mean? Public reflections on the idea that addiction is a brain disease

“…As Angermeyer et al (2011) have shown, in a number of OECD countries there has been increased public preparedness to accept biogenetic (including neurobiological) explanations of schizophrenia, depression and alcohol dependence. However, trends in the public's acceptance of neurobiological information are not uniform across mental disorders (Schnittker, 2008;Pescosolido et al, 2010;Easter, 2012;Rüsch et al, 2012). Surveys from North America and the United Kingdom show that whereas over three-quarters of the population will label schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and depression as 'mental illnesses', only one-half are prepared to label alcohol dependence or drug abuse in the same way (Pescosolido et al, 2010;Rüsch et al, 2012).…”

“…In contrast, a number of authors have emphasised the limitations of new biological understandings, suggesting that biogenetic and neurobiological discourses may be incorporated into existing understandings of personhood, health and illness in dynamic and nondeterministic ways (Schnittker, 2008;Easter, 2012). O'Connor and Joffe (2013) point out that the impact of neuroscientific knowledge cannot be assessed by focussing solely on the uptake of neuroscientific narratives, but rather by looking at how individuals reconcile these narratives with pre-existing narratives of personhood.…”

DSM-5 and Clinical Social Work: Mental Disorder and Psychological Justice as Goals of Clinical Intervention

“…Some new schemes for conceptualizing mental disorders as brain disorders do take psychosocial factors into account as part of the overall mix of causal factors (Insel et al 2010;White et al 2012), but the shift to a brain-disease approach is at their core. It is often argued that classifying psychological disorders as brain diseases, even if inaccurate, is justified on humanitarian grounds because it reduces stigma, but recent studies demonstrate that when mental problems come to be seen as brain diseases, stigma sometimes increases or remains the same (Angermeyer and Matschinger 2005;Schnittker 2008;Schomerus et al 2012). Even the common assertion that having a brain malfunction relieves the patient of the accusation of having a character defect is actually faulty, given the ''brain disease'' model's own assumptions; character weaknesses must also occur in the brain and are brain processes, so a brain defect may either itself be or cause a character defect.…”

Healthy Young Minds: The Effects of a 1-hour Classroom Workshop on Mental Illness Stigma in High School Students

“…Studies have shown that when people attribute mental illness to environmental or experiential factors, this can increase blame (Angermeyer & Dietrich 2006). Conversely, attributing mental illness to genetics can increase perceptions that patients are dangerous (Harré 2001;Read & Law 1999;Schnittker 2008;Walker & Read 2002). Thus, we presented an evidence-based picture of the etiology of mental illness -that these are conditions that arise as a result of the combined effects of genetics and environment, and are not purely due to genetics nor the fault of the person (Corrigan et (Stuart 2006).…”