Depression_random_thoughts

Amy Winehouse

2011-07-26T04:00:00.000-07:00

So another celebrity (by social standards) dies, and everybody has an opinion. People who didn't even know this woman are saying things like "she was an addict and was asking for it", "she was sick and died of her disease", "celebrity got the best of her"....

Who are we to decide this?

There probably is truth to all of those, but the real question is this, WHERE WERE YOU?

A lot of the same people who criticize and even those who sympathize with Winehouse's plight are the same people who openly take enjoyment in the shenanigans of Charlie Sheen, Paris Hilton, and Lindsay Lohan.

It's all fun and games until some dies isn't it.

Where are you when someone close to you has those same issues?

When someone close to you succumbs to substance abuse or mental illness, do you have the absolute reason why it happened, or is it "different"?

Do you ask yourself "Where was I?", or do you victimize yourself by thinking "why did this happen to me?", and justifying yourself with "I just didn't know".

"IT" did not happen to you but to them, and you "should have known".

As a society we all know that Amy Winehouse dug her own grave, but as individuals we excuse ourselves as "not knowing".

Why do we "not know" when it hits close to home?

Humble recognition

2011-04-11T05:36:00.000-07:00

Sometimes recognizing a person's depression can suffice to help them, even if temporarily.

Some of the reading I'm currently doing makes me feel better as it acknowledges depression as a disease we know very little about, in fact we know A LOT LESS THAN WE LIKE TO THINK WE DO.

That last part is the most important part; the recognition must be done with the modesty that we do not know.

The all too common patronizing "recognition" which goes something like "I haven't had it so I don't know" (IE. "We're not interested, just get back to functionality and we can all forget about it.") is hollow at best, disingenuous at worse.

To recognize that someone else is suffering something we do not know and that our concern is two-fold:
A) That the person is suffering.
B) That we are ignorant about that suffering, and that that ignorance is a faultof ours.

Pretending we know what depression entails and how to "treat" it in order to make the sufferer feel better can often have the opposite effect, because the simple "go see your doctor - take some meds - do some CBT - get more active - socialize more" is just that, overly simplistic. The simplicity of it can make the depressed person feel even more depressed.

Taking meds, doing therapy, getting active, and socializing doesn't take away that a person may genuinely feel depressed about things like the dysfunctional world we live in, about how their life (as active and social as it may be) does not make them content.

So yes, depression is a disease with biological components, but it is much more than that, and that much more is what we don't know.

Manufacturing Depression - By Gary Greenberg

2011-04-06T00:10:00.000-07:00

Is a fascinating book which looks at the history of the disease we know as depression.

Greenberg details how the "scientific" community (in)directly with pharmaceutical companies purposely strayed away from Freudian-style analysis in diagnosing depression because of it's "unreliability". (IE. One man's self-criticism is another man's self-awareness.)

In order to give psychiatry it's proper place in "scientific" medicine (and pharmas to make profit), they came up with "Reliable criteria" which defines (and diagnoses) a person who is truly depressed.

One of my biggest beefs has long been the simplicity with which depression is diagnosed and treated. It is commonly held by medical professionals (who consider this "scientific") that the best treatment for Major Depressive Disorder is for the patient to regularly take their prescribed medication and goes through Cognitive Therapy.

My beef with this is the over-simplification. Taking anti-depressants and "changing my way of thinking" does not address philosophical questions like what consists contentment and "happiness".

A person may not feel "happy" despite having a "normal life". Many a lay person does not (or chooses not to) comprehend this (IE. "There are lots of people "worse off" than you, therefore you SHOULD be happy).

As for modern "scientific" psychiatry and psychology, the person is clinically depressed if they have 2 or more of these symptoms for 2 or more consecutive weeks:
- depressed mood (such as feelings of sadness or emptiness).
- reduced interest in activities that used to be enjoyed, sleep disturbances (either not being able to sleep well or sleeping to much).
- loss of energy or a significant reduction in energy level.
- difficulty concentrating, holding a conversation, paying attention, or making decisions that used to be made fairly easily.
- suicidal thoughts or intentions.

Listening to a list of symptoms and diagnosing is relatively easy, listening to what TRULY MAKES A PERSON UN-HAPPY is a little more difficult, so by calling it "un-reliable", the "scientists" wiggle their way out of the tough part.

In the book, Greenberg elaborates on the rise of psychiatric medicine in the past 100 or so years as well as an entire chapter on Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) which he doesn't dismiss, but makes it clear that the "scientifically proven" tag it attaches to itself is not quite accurate.

Acceptance

2011-04-04T20:55:00.000-07:00

Acceptance is often presented as an easy catch-phrase answer when we don't know what to do.
"You lost your job?, just accept it and move on."
"Someone lied / stole / hurt you, just accept."

Of course dwelling on past events is not healthy, but neither is just "accepting" without dissecting said event and resolving it (as much as possible) in our hearts and minds.

For the depressive person, "accepting" negative outcomes often turns out to be unwarranted self-criticism.

Sometimes losing a job, getting lied to, getting robbed, or hurt is NOT the victim's fault, and "simple acceptance" that "nothing can be done about it" becomes "it must be my fault / I must have done something wrong..."

As much as the situation can not be modified, how we see it and judge those involved can make all the difference between truly moving on and simply "accepting".

Using the Internet (and social media) in a healthy manner

2011-03-28T22:42:00.000-07:00

Below is a link to a recent interesting article on how social media may exasperate depressive symptoms in those who are already prone to depression.

The gist of the article is that social media's (mostly Facebook) "skewed view of reality" may make an already depressed person even more depressed.

Seeing others have more "friends", posting positive (whether true or not) status updates, posting pictures of having fun (as if it's a constant) (can) make a depressive's symptoms worse.

Have you experienced "Social Media Depression"?

Felt the need to have your life be better due to others' Facebook profiles / statuses / pics?

How would you suggest a person deal positively with depression while at the same time using Social Media in a healthy matter?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/facebook-depression-among-harms-linked-social-media-sites-20110327-211050-004.html

Who knows best?

2011-03-26T01:26:00.000-07:00

If you want advice on bringing up children, ask someone who's never had any they'll tell you everything you're doing wrong.

The same applies to depression, if you suffer just ask those who haven't had it, they have all the answers. The best one is still "I haven't had it so I don't know" (IE. "I don't believe you".)

Of course I'm being facetious. People always want to appear knowledgeable, but when we don't know (or believe) something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't true.

Having an opinion is absolutely acceptable, but with it comes responsibility (a word very popular with "know it alls"). True responsibility includes respect; respect for others opinions, feelings, and realities (which are different than ours).

This entails (on a deeper level) that responsibility requires humility which is (unfortunately) not a very common trait.

The person who has never experienced depression has the responsibility (although rarely the behaviour) to accept their ignorance without dismissing the reality of depression.

Am I whining? In the eyes of many, absolutely.
Do I care? No, because their ignorance is bound to show elsewhere.
Am I better than anyone? Definitely not because I don't know half of what I think I do.
Am I worse than others? Of course not, we all have our failures.

When I'm tired

2011-03-20T00:48:00.000-07:00

Depression brings people down and when you’re down, you’re tired.

One of the most common (yet misunderstood) symptoms of depression is fatigue. In my depressive episodes I was often extremely tired and people around me did not seem to understand that.

Although most non-depressives say the right things about depression (IE. “We know it is real”, “you are suffering”), the acknowledgement, and proper understanding of symptoms is extremely rare.

When I was (it still does occur) tired, I knew it was not “normal” to be that tired, but also that this fatigue was not just a simple case of short night’s sleep, change in schedule, or any other common reason. Depression was (coming) back, and getting (extra) rest would make me stronger to face it (depression) the next day.

I have tried “toughing it out” and ended up unable to leave the house for three days.

Unfortunately our society’s over-preoccupation with getting things done “yesterday”, the person who takes a day off from work, school, or any other activities is seen as weak or low-functioning. Of course when said person does make the effort to get up and go to work / school, the effort is not recognized, but if they indeed over-exert themselves and end up with another serious sickness, they are practically made out to be guilty of “not taking care of themselves”.

I have read articles about how taking time off work can be beneficial for both a person’s mental and physical health. Unfortunately, most employers (that I have known) treat absenteeism like it was the plague. Openly criticising an employee’s absenteeism rate by comparing them to others, and holding it against them in performance reviews even when they (the employer) have been made aware of the employee’s condition.

Luckily (or not), this is not (usually) the case for employees with organic illnesses, but when it comes to depression and other mental illnesses, the prejudice is still very prevalent.

What have you done for me lately?

2011-02-28T21:27:00.001-08:00

People are often “proud” of those who suffer from Depression when they (the sufferers) are doing something for these others or at least not being a nuisance.

The number of people (employers, family members, friends, and others) who say they “understand depression” and “do what they can for people who suffer from it”, yet where are they when the person is suffering?

It’s easy to “understand” and “help” someone when they are doing what we consider “normal”.

What about when the person is sick? Only helping people “when they help themselves” is weak. True “help” occurs when it is needed.

It is common knowledge (and if it’s not, educate yourselves) that depression sufferers know themselves better than anyone else. If that is true (or at least believed), how come people are so quick to criticize when a depressive passes up on an invitation, or takes a day off work?

Would we be as critical of the cancer patient or AIDS sufferer who had the same behaviour?

Medication

2011-02-26T03:44:00.000-08:00

In Canada, antidepressant medication is the most prescribed medication, and for good reason....People are depressed.

The question I'd like to raise is whether antidepressant medications (SSRI's being the most common) truly help people live happier lives or if they help people be happy "enough".
My experience with SSRI's has been so-so, and not because of the medication itself (IE. It never made me exuberant, but I've also never had significant negative side effects).

The first time I was prescribed an antidepressant, I had no clue I was depressed, went to a walk in clinic and the doctor (seeing me for the first time and I was in the office maybe 10 minutes) prescribed "Fluoxetine". It sounded good that a medication good be prescribed, but when I got home (and yes, I should have done this at the doctor's office which I now diligently do) I looked up "Fluoxetine". It's Prozac.

The fact a doctor (who knew nothing about me or my previous history (medical or otherwise)) prescribed Prozac truly through me off. How dare he medicate me for depression when he knows nothing about me. Would he have sent me to chemo if I'd said I'd smoked for 10 years?

After a couple more prescriptions (Paxil and Effexor) which I took A) Reluctantly and B) With false hopes, I didn't get much better.

Back on Effexor I am much better, but I also had some talk therapy, group therapy, a better understanding of depression, and solid relationships in which I'm comfortable discussion my issues.

I believe I will be depressive my whole life, but not necessarily depressed.

Medication helps stabilize my mood and my functioning, but it's talking about it with therapists, family and friends, blogging, looking inwardly, and understanding myself that makes me happy.

Internal life

2011-02-18T05:38:00.000-08:00

A person's internal life is essential, when we ask others how they are feeling do we truly (want to) listen to the expressed emotion, or do we have a (or series thereof) ready answer(s) such as "This too will pass"?

Unfortunately, a person's functionality takes precedent over their internal life.

Being functional (which infers outside influences) is necessary for social survival.

Being self aware is necessary for personal survival.

Combining both is living.

Where were you?

2011-02-14T03:42:00.000-08:00

Have you ever felt the urge to tell people they were not "there" for you? Did you feel they were actively present when you really needed them?

Worse, did they become present when you were better and somehow take credit or make you feel inadequate?

In our society which calls itself open and accepting are people genuinely available when needed?

Do people just "not know" or do they choose to "not know"?

What makes you depressed?

2011-02-13T04:11:00.000-08:00

Do you get bored, angry, and eventually depressed by repetition? I know I am.

I recall going to the doctor's (same doctor!!), and I would be asked the same questions I had the last 10 visits ("Do you want to harm yourself or others?", "Do you find enjoyment in things you used to?", "On a scale from 1-10 where would you put your happiness?")

If this is the criteria for "treating" depression, why aren't sufferers simply given a set of questions they can review every four weeks?

How can anyone claim medically "treating" someone if all they do is ask the same questions and interpret the answers?

Freud has been dismissed because he was not "scientific", how is today's psychiatric medicine "scientific"?

Is it all about the money?

2010-07-19T02:44:00.000-07:00

A recent study trying to establish which countries are "happiest" found a correlation between wealth and happiness (IE. Countries which rated higher levels of "happiness" were generally countries with higher income earning populations.).

I looked up some statistics myself trying to see if income discrepency played a role in LESS happiness, and although very limited sampling, (first world) countries with higher income discrepancy DID rank lower than countries with more equal distribution of wealth.

Surprisingly (to me), Norway has the highest proportion of millionaires (per capita), yet ranks 3rd in "happiness".

The Gini coefficient is a measure of the inequality of a distribution which has been used to measure inequalities in different disciplines including economics.

Using the Gini coefficient, Norway ranks higher (IE. Less inequality) than countries such as Japan, USA, and Canada. Not surprisingly, these countries rank lower in happiness.

So as much as money is a major contributor to happiness, (a sense) of (more) equality may be even more influential.

Doing V. Being

2010-04-09T01:33:00.000-07:00

To simply say one doesn't like their job is selfish. Even I (of all people!!!) would say "If you don't like it do something else".

Now if someone says "I feel I have more to offer (myself and the world)than my current occupation does", that's different.

Our culture of "immediacy" doesn't promote self-fulfillment or even social fulfillment. It is more important to "do" than to "be".

Go to any dinner party, what's the first question? "What do you do?" We judge others worth by their socio-economic status. It's even part of the English language (IE. I AM a lawyer, accountant, doctor...)

When we are what we do, no wonder thousands of us are depressed. We know we have much more to offer, but social conventions insist that simply "doing" something is all that matters regardless of how fun / boring, useful / useless, real or fake it may be.

Wanting to want more is portrayed as selfish.

Pedestrian clichés like "Be grateful of what you do have", and "Just work hard and the rest will follow" are just that, pedestrian.

We are socialized to believe that happiness occurs after (hard) work, on evenings and weekends. That happiness is somehow earned, as if happiness is a commodity.

If "working hard" means slaving away at a job which doesn't maximize my skill set (how's that for a buzzword?!), is what I'm expected to do to "earn" my happiness, I'm not interested.

I know I'm not alone.

What are we doing to our boys?

2010-03-30T22:23:00.000-07:00

I've been reading where my (original) hometown of Montréal has the highest rate of high school drop out (almost 45%), and close to 80% of those are boys.

Firstly, I'd like to say that calling them "dropouts" is hypocritical. When an adult leaves a job of their own volition, they "resign". We no longer say they "quit" because that hurts our sensitive ears. But calling 16, 15, 14, and even younger children "drop outs" is fine.

Calling them "drop outs" puts the emphasis on them, and removes responsibility from teachers, school directors, school boards, and parents.

I specify boys in the title because of the disproportionate number they represent, and that discrepancy makes it easier to diminish the problem. By that I mean that if there were a more even number of girls "dropping out", more would be getting done to address the problem.

Now before you call me a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal, let me explain. If the discrepancy were more along the line or 55-45 or even 50-50, it would be affecting the same number of people, but more equally spread out in the population, hence more opportunity for people to get involved.

As well, since it is mostly boys, this can (more than likely does) lead to ghettoizing these "drop out" boys, while at the same time isolating the girls who "drop out" since they are the "exception".

When the "drop out" rate as high as it is in Montréal, it is time they looked at the education system. Not necessarily "what" they are teaching because after all math remains math, French is French, and so on. But how are we teaching it, and more importantly what are we teaching our children about themselves and life. Instead of shoving down their throats that "High education is the best way to have a better life", maybe we should explain that a better way to a potential good life is for them to think critically and logically about what they want, weigh the pros and the cons, explain how "life" or "society" works, and that a "successful" life includes balancing social expectations with personal needs and wants.

P.S. The French term for "drop out" is "décrocheur" which is just as derogatory.

Just don't be a nuisance

2010-03-28T20:35:00.000-07:00

This morning at a neighbourhood coffee shop I overheard an interesting conversation between 2 scruffy looking men. One asked the other "are you still clean?", the second answered "yup, going on 7 months", the first congratulated him. They went on to talk about work, the first man saying he was working construction 7 days a week, when the second man said he was looking for work, the first said he would see with his employer if they need extra help and hopefully they would have work for his friend.

As ordinary and common as this conversation probably, it lead me to think about social expectations.

What first hit me is the hypocrisy of our society which would appreciate how these 2 men have straightened out their lives, yet where were we (society) when they needed help?

At a deeper level, I recognized that socially, we don't care that these 2 men might still be going through difficulties financially, work wise. That they don't really have choice about what they do for a living, they have to take the first thing which comes along. When they do, they will be expected to be grateful. As if "doing something", regardless of what it is, how (un)important, or boring it may be, is all that's important.

What matters to us a society is not that people have happy, fulfilling, and complete lives; we only don't want others to be a nuisance.

So in order to function in our society, one must simply "not be a nuisance". Not very mtivating is it?

Adapting is a sign of mental health

2010-03-27T19:27:00.000-07:00

The society I am part of does / accepts things that I find atrocious such as (despite being one of the most prosperous societies in the world) letting it's own citizens live on the streets (often even blaming them!!)

My society is also hypocritical in that it condones (even encourages) unhealthy habits such as cigarette smoking, gamblind, and (to a lesser extent) consuming alcohol. While at the same time there's grandstanding about how marijuana and prostitution are horrible sins.

These socially accepted behaviours and hypocrisy bother me. It bothers me because if "adapting" to a society which chooses to remain flawed rather than making an effort to better itself is being mentally healthy it's time we re-consider what constitutes mental health.

How to think is not What you think

2010-03-25T09:46:00.000-07:00

I touched on this on a previous thread, but How one thinks is different than What they think.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is extremely beneficial in how it teaches a person to change their "way" of thinking, but it doesn't changes their thoughts themselves.

For example, when I began therapy I was extremely angry and told the counsellor "I'm angry because people don't do enough to genuinely help people with depression".

I learned through therapy that my way of thinking was flawed in that I let my anger prevent me from moving forward. That doesn't mean that WHAT I thought was wrong;people do not do enough.

What is important is that what we think is not wrong, it may only need to be re-framed.

How adapting and functioning are not enough

2010-03-24T13:32:00.000-07:00

I recently completed reading a book which I purposely am not posting the title of since it can be interpreted as controversial and that in itself may influence people's opinion (positively or negatively). On practically every page I would go "that's exactly what I've always believed". I never sought a public platform per se, but even getting people to just listen (never mind understand or agree!!) has been excruciatingly difficult (IE. Impossible).

This reluctancy of others to listen has partially lead to a long-standing bout of chronic depression. I refer to this as my "existential depression".

Perhaps people don't want to hear me because it's not very "positive", maybe it's "too deep" for them, or maybe the truth of their own fallibility makes them uncomfortable.

Regardless, my pre-existing depressive condition has been magnified with this (perceived by me) lack of understanding / caring by others.

I control my condition through various ways such as medication, counselling, and educating myself about it, but there still seemed to be something missing.

Reading this book has helped me understand that I'm not "wrong" in my beliefs, just that they are not commonplace, and that most people are uncomfortable hearing such truths.

Reading is therapeutic. I have done hours of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), which basically helps a person change their throught process. CBT has been extremely beneficial, but it strictly targets "How you think", not "What you think (and truly believe)".

It's very easy for me to think "I live in an industrialized country where corporations and money influence / decide how people (ought to) behave; therefore I simply need to adapt to that and I'll be "happy"".

My "problem", has been that I go further and say "but that is wrong, and if I "adapt" to (what I believe is) a wrong, that doesn't make me happy, it actually makes me feel worse".

The therapeutic part of reading (this particualr book) is that it confirms that I'm not "wrong" (nor alone) in my beliefs; that other people belief very similarly, in fact (some) get published and have public forums (IE. They fucntion).

Don't ask what others can do....

2010-03-23T06:26:00.000-07:00

Most of us have heard part of the JFK inauguration speech in which he said "Don't ask what your country can do for you, ask what you cn do for your country".

I would modify it somewhat and say "Don't ask what others can do for THEMSELVES, ask what you can do for them".

I say that in reference to the lame excuse which states that people "need to help themselves". What if someone can not help themselves? What if they have not been taught proper life skills? Is it their fault, the fault of their underwhelming education, or is it the fault of the society which tolerates this without doing anything about it?

If the person suffering depression doesn't have the energy to "help themselves", is it appropriate to expect them to "find it" (the energy)?

Is it the right thing to "tolerate" someone who's not helping themselves (to our liking of course!!), or are WE keeping everyone at a lower level of functioning?

So what do we talk about?

2010-03-21T23:41:00.000-07:00

The previous post may have left some of you wondering what I suggest can be done in order to make mental illness a less touchy subject of conversation.

Let me begin by saying that it will always be a very delicate topic, and needs to be addressed as such. Just like talking about cancer and other serious illnesses is not pleasant, it is still important to discuss these matters without feeling like we're an alien.

So if we don't talk about mental illness as being "stigmatized", what do we call it or how do we approach the topic?

Very simply by talking about it for what it IS, not what it isn't!!!

I will use the example of depression since it is so close to me.

Depression will affect 1 out of 5 Canadians in 2010 with varying degrees of severity. Some won't be able to leave their house for days on end, while others will be able to function normally despite it. The vast majority are somewhere in the middle.

Depression can not be diagnosed the same way as organic diseases (IE. You can't take a blood test or urine sample for diagnosis), but several physical and emotional symptoms occur in most depression sufferers, and through these we can establish diagnosis.

Since diagnosis is based on "experienced" symptoms, and patient recognition of these symptoms, diagnosis can often be off the mark. This explains in part why some patients may have medication and dosage changes. For other mental illnesses, correct diagnosis is even more difficult.

Many people suffering depression will often concurrently suffer one or more other mental illnesses, most commonly anxiety (under it's various forms), and/or substance abuse.

Which came first, the depression, anxiety, or substance abuse is not important, what is important is proper diagnosis of what ails the person and follow treatment accordingly.

Some form of depression is also very common in most other mental illnesses (IE. The average bipolar person will be depressed 70% of the time as opposed to 30% of the time in manic phase). Schizophrenics also have periods of severe depression, but theirs is part of schizophrenia.

Now most people suffering from unipolar depression do manage to function normally in society, some with the help of medication, counselling, some not. Each case is different.

Depression is a very common ailment, it affects people of both genders, all races, and all age groups. Some symptoms will be more prevalent in certain groups of people, but again these need to be taken as one (potential) piece of a very large puzzle.

That, in an extremely brief summary is what depression is.

Was that so difficult?

Stop talking about it

2010-03-15T22:56:00.000-07:00

We've all heard about "Self-Fulfilling prophecies", the idea that the more you talk about something the likelier it is to happen.

In fact, a lot of our vocabulary has changed in the past 20 or so years in order to perceive things more positively. We talk about mental "health" instead of mental "illness", "health centres" as opposed to "hospitals", and "challenges" have replaced "problems".

When used in the context of making things seem less difficult, I find this to be fine.

Where I have a harder time though is those situations for which we choose to keep negative vocabulary because we simply do not want to put a positive spin on something.

The main one is the word "stigma" when reference to mental (interestingly enough here we say) "illness".

The biggest irony is that practically everyone would agree that the stigma of mental illness is negative, and something we need to eliminate. If that's the case, why do we keep referring to it?

My "theory" is that we (as a society, perhaps even as a species) are so fearful of mental illness (especially in men because the idea of the "hunter / gatherer / provider" not being able to function is absolutely inconceivable), that we continue to refer to a "stigma"; that way we don't have to address it.

By continuing to call mentall illness "stigmatized", we re-inforce the stigma!!!

Are we willing to talk about mental illness the same way we do diabetes, cancer, and heart disease?

Do we have the courage to face mental illness, admit that it can cripple (or is it "challenge") any one of us, and that just like many other diseases, it does not discriminate on age, gender, race, or anything else?

where were you?

2010-03-15T20:59:00.000-07:00

We often hear praise for people who overcome difficult circumstances such as losing a spouse or child, fighting disease or surviving warfare and giving their life a positive turn.

An example of this is Mr. Frank O'Dea, a Canadian businessman who was homeless until 1975, when he managed to slowly get his life back in order and he evntually co-founder the Second Cup chain of coffee shops, and is President and Co-Founder of charitable organizations.

What Mr. O'Dea did is absolutely incredible and fascinating, he deserves every single ounce of praise he receives, we can all learn from him.

My point though is not about Mr. O'Dea directly, it's about people CURRENTLY in the situation he found himself in in the early 1970's.

There are more homeless than ever before (in Canada) despite the fact there are more resources than ever before.

We, as a society like using people like Mr. O'Dea as examples when it's convenient to us. (IE. "Look at him, he did, why can't you?")

The excuse that people need to "help themselves" is crass at best.

Next time you see a homeless person, and you think of Frank O'Dea, ask your this. If this person becomes another Frank O'Dea, do I want to have simply walked buy, or do I want to be part of the beginning of something big?

Humility anyone?

2010-03-12T20:17:00.000-08:00

I have been reading and thinking a lot recently about how altruism and generosity are not only not common in the social sense of the word, but not something humans are born with. We are not inherently altruistic or generous, those traits and behaviours are learned (or not!!)

Aren't people generous when they give money or donate food, clothing, and toys to charities? I would say that for most it's not genuine generosity, but rather something we are conditioned to do at specific times (IE. X-mas), or when dramatic events (IE. Haiti earthquake) happen.

So what does it take for a person to be genuinely altruistic or generous?

I believe a person needs to be humble before they can be genuinely altruistic and generous.

By the way, I am aware of the irony of calling out people on their lack of humility.

By humility, I don't mean the occasional (usually on specific occasions like birthdays, anniversaries or awards presentations)outward expressions of gratitude.

Rather, I refer to the ability to accept reality; the reality that *I* am not better than others.

In an odd twist, accepting this reality leads to behaving differently than most. I say odd because my perception of "humble" people as often been that of shy and reserved people who do not "rock the boat".

Now while humble people do not "rock the boat", they also behave in much more altruisitic ways. They are the ones who will help charities throughout the year (not just in the 2nd and 3rd week of December), they will contribute to the Red Cross and other such organizations regularly not just AFTER A DISASTER.

They're not the ones you call in order to "put out a fire", they're the ones you learn from in order to avoid having a "fire" in the first place.

Regarding depression, they're the few who educate themselves, and unlike most are not afraid of mental illness.

A little humility can go a long way.

Victimizing

2010-03-11T21:46:00.000-08:00

People don't generally appreciate another (person) claiming to be a victim. It comes off a whiny and weak.

Of course it's different when we (or someone close to us) is victimized.

When a Jewish person mentions how they come from a heritage which suffered one of the worst attrocities in history are they "playing the victim", or pointing out historical fact?

When a woman talks about being raped, is she "victimizing" herself, or telling us about a heinous crime?

When an adult mle mentions his depression making his life a living hell, is he "playing victim", or sharing his feelings?

By the way, if you think these examples are exaggerated, I suggest you go tell that to Walter Koenig and other parents of adult males who have committed suicide.

Some would say that a person is "playing victim" when they expect something from others.

That may be true IN SOME CASES, but I believe the rape victim has every right to expect help in the form of medical attention, legal advice, and extra protection.

Why then is the adult male (often) perceived as "playing the victim" (IE. weak) when discussing the difficulties his depression bring about?

In an ironic twist, the family and friends of an adult male are accepted as "victims" after he commits suicide.

Ask the right question

2010-03-09T21:28:00.000-08:00

I've often been amused by the statement (often used by "Positive Psychologists") "You're just not asking the right questions".

what I find amusing is not the idea of searching for the source of a problem, but rather that there's discrimination in how a person goes about it.

A prime example is a depressed person; in positive psych, the question they would see fit is "what can I (depressed person) do about it?". As well intentioned as that is, it omits to ask "Am I depressed (or is it something else)?", "Why am I depressed?", "Have I felt this way before?"...

To the "positive" crowd, these questions may seem irrelevant, redundant, and a waste of time, but how can one truly access the root of the problem without asking those questions?

Simply asking "What can I do about it?" doesn't get to the root of the problem, it actually promotes avoidance (IE. I'll occupy myself and pretend "it" isn't there).

Asking the tougher questions such as "am I depressed?", or "Why am I depressed?" are precisely that, tougher, but also truer.

I thought of this topic not specifically in regards to depression, but more social issues. One issue which is close to me is homelessness since it is often related with mental illness.

When you see a homeless person what question do you ask yourself? Do you ask "How can a person bring themselves to that?" or the tougher "How does the society that I belong to accept this for it's own citizens?"

I'm sure there's tons of other questions, some tougher than others, but next time you start asking questions, maybe the first one should be "Is this the TOUGH question?"

Selfishness

2010-03-06T23:03:00.000-08:00

A difficulty I have encountered which has contributed to my depression is the mixed message in our society about selfishness and altruism.

As a general rule, selfishness is defined and portrayed as being negative and not something that one wants to be (or be known as), yet when someone is going through difficulties, it is often said that they need to "help themselves" (IE. Be selfish).

In fact, the entire industry of popular "psychology" is based not on generosity and altruism, but rather on selfishness; it's even called "Self-Help".

I've often heard people say "So-&-So, he's just TOO NICE a guy". How can someone be "too nice"? None of us will ever be half as nice as we can!!!

The difficulty I've had is when at times I've be nice, or generous (perhaps naively), I was actually criticized. That just did not make sense to me. In my mind, I was doing it in good faith, and for a good reason. Whether the (hoped for) result was reached or not was not the goal, I just wanted to help.

It would make me depressed to realize that I couldn't even be nice!! I did what I thought was right, and still got shit, how useless am I!!!!

After this happened a few times, I got less enthusiastic about being nice or helpful, and then I was accused of "selfishness". This in turn also made me depressed.

The most depressing part was the contridiction which (in my mind) was "whether I do something nice or whether I don't, the result is the same (criticism)". That left me depressed that I didn't do the right thing either way, and more importantly, that there was no "right thing" I could do.

Is it un-manly to de depressed?

2010-03-04T21:45:00.000-08:00

Reading recent issues of men's magazines "GQ" and "Esquire", I couldn't help but question (once again) society's fear of male depression.

Both editions included a full article on American (male) Iraq war veterans who have returned to the USA and the struggles they are experiencing.

Without detailing the articles, the main thing I got is that these vets were nothing more than a commodity. When they followed orders and killed the enemy they were a great commodity, the minute they no longer could, their "value" diminished and they were drummed out.

As active Servicemen, they symbolized what our culture portrays as "men". Bigger, stronger, and faster than the "enemy", putting in 12-15 hour days (regardless of whether they were doing something constructive or destructive), and whatever else they did (drinking, drugs) was "nobody's business".

Once their "skills" diminished, they suddenly (in our culture's eyes) became weak, useless, and their drinking and grug use turned into a lack of will power.

The fact their "skills" were nothing more than a "service" which justified politicians' bad judgement (to put it mildly), and that these skills are useless anywhere else but in a battlefield is something we (as a society) never look at.

More importantly, the reason their "skills" diminished (and lost their "manliness") is mental illness. Mental illness brought upon directly by their military experience.

When our culture's predominant message to men is "Follow-orders-we'll-like-you. Get-sick-we'll-let-you-rot-in-the-dumpster", no wonder so few men ever disclose being sick (especially psychologically).

What are we waiting for? Continued...

2010-02-28T02:46:00.000-08:00

Below is an article explaining the recent suicide of singer Marie Osmond's 18-year old son who was suffering from depression.

What kind of society are we that we just accept such tragedies, and even comfort (IE. Bury our heads in the sand) ourselves by thinking "it can't happen to us"?

Is it more/less important because it happened to a celebrity, of course not. The celebrity aspect is strictly because that's what we, as a society, want to hear about.

What is important is that depression kills, but it also treatable (as long as it's not made out to be something to be ashamed of!!). We ALL need to educate ourselves on what depression is, and how to cope with it.

Whether a sufferer or not, it is EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US' responsibility to be courageous enough to overcome our misconceptions about depression and mental illness, and finally be cognizant of what it really is,, and what we can do to combat it and prevent future events like this one from occuring.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/100228/entertainment/centertainment_us_osmond

What are we waiting for?

2010-02-25T20:33:00.000-08:00

Below is an article on the recent passing of Andrew Koenig, actor and son of Star Trek actor Walter Koenig.

The story explains how Andrew was suffering depression, and it is what eventually got the best of him.

The Koenig family did what they could, but the limited available services made it impossible for Andrew and his family to make the seriousness of the situation known.

This must not become another "sad story" and be left for not.

Depression is real, it kills people, and does not discriminate; men, women, young, old, rich , poor.....And we are all victims, whether as sufferers or friends / family of sufferers.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/100225/entertainment/koenig_disappearance

How does evolving differ from conforming?

2010-02-25T16:10:00.000-08:00

As mentioned previously, I've struggled with the idea of "Fitting in / Normalcy" while being "unique" at the same time.

When I take about "evolving", I refer to a person "progressing socially" and "keeping up with the times". How is this different from "keeping up with the Jones'"?

To be "up with the times" in 2010, one would be up to date with celebrity culture, technologically literate, have a Facebook account, Tweet, blog (!!). Yet so many people fit that description, how is that not simply conforming?

Our culture emphasizes being "true to oneself", self-expression, and our differences, but these differences are more similarities. My Facebook / Twitter / blog are "different" than others, but are they not all the same?

Functionality and happiness.

2010-02-15T21:35:00.000-08:00

One of the most difficult things in life in balancing how one fits in society without feeling like they are just a number, while embracing their uniqueness without coming off as a kook.

In my deepest darkest days, one thought that kept coming back was "If being functional is all there is, I'm not interested". My definition of "functional" was (and still is!!) "just do enough bot to be a nuisance to others". During my depression, that thought was compounded with the belief (which is not entirely wrong, by the way!!) that the main thing people care about in social contact is to not be burdened.

If someone is not "funcional" they are a burden and therefore unworthy of genuine care.

Functionality, by that definition, has nothing to do with happiness.

Is the functional person automatically happy?
Is the non-functional person automatically sad?

When taking stock of a person (or ourselves), do we put a disproportionate emphasis on functionality, as opposed to happiness?

If functionality is as important as it is made out to be, why are so many people still unhappy?

Stigma (continued)

2010-01-18T17:45:00.000-08:00

Back on December 7th 2009 I wrote about the use of the term "stigma" in relation to mental illness (specifically depression), and how it's a euphemism for "shame", but sounds much better.

Today I would like to further the topic of the use of the term "stigma", and how it relates to other facets of depression.

Numerous articles and publications suggest that depression manifests itself differently in men and women adding that "Male Depression contains an extra stigma" (IE. Cultural gender bias). Once again, the word "stigma" sounds better to the ear. Synonyms of "stigma" in this context can include: "gender bias", "unfair disadvantage", and "inequality". Use of these terms (for male depression) would never be accepted.

Another part of mental illness and depression which is stigmatized is compliance (The word adherence can also be used). Compliance is defined as "The degree to which patients follow the medical recommendations of practitioners."

Compliance of mental illness and depression medications is judged much more severely than any other conditions. The person with lung cancer or emphysema who continues smoking, the person with high blood pressure who continues to drink heavily, not get regular exercise, continue eating a high fat diet, even not take their medication will likely get reprimanded, but they will not be portrayed as "weak-willed", or "just not wanting to help themselves".

Also, the idea that psychiatric medications are "more important" than medications for other conditions is false. The diabetic who misses his insulin is at much higher risk than the depressive who misses his anti-depressive medication or even the schizophrenic who misses his lithium.

Difficulty posting

2010-01-17T21:36:00.000-08:00

I have not posted in too long (to me). It's not due to a lack of things to write about going on in my life (work, relationships, finances, goals...) and how these impact my mood.

I often even write down blogging ideas, yet when the time comes to put it on here, I just don't.

Several factors account for this, lower energy level, bad time management, simple laziness.

I recognize a bit of a more insidious reason; I have expectations for this blog.

I say insidious because un-realized expectations have often been a trigger for depressive episodes. I have began jobs why expectations of this one being "The One", gotten new apartments with lofty goals of "this is where I'll establish myself once for good". There's nothing wrong with appropriate goal setting, and having ambition, but all in appropriate terms.

This remains "only" a blog, one among millions out there. A good one (I like to think), but one of many regardless of it's quality.

I also have bigger goals such as emigrating to Australia (which everything that will encompass), and getting settled down with my fiancee. Now I recognize how those are much loftier, yet more important, and definitely achievable.

This blog is just one of those many (seemingly) "less important" goals. The whole "Nothing dramatic will happen if I don't blog today" creeps in. As true as that is, if I choose not to blog based on that reasoning, I'm validating the excuse, and before you know it I won't be blogging at all.

Some things are more important than others, but just because something is less important is no reason to stop entirely.

Stigma

2009-12-07T22:26:00.000-08:00

Dictionary definition of stigma:
1. A mark of disgrace or infamy; as on one reputation.
Medical:
2. A mental or physical mark that is characteristic or a defect or disease.

Disgrace, infamy, is that what we think of when referring to mental illness being "stigmatized"? No, rather it is presented in the form of "ignorance". "Mental illness is stigmatized because people are ignorant of it's forms and symptoms".

The word "stigma" in it's current usage is actually a euphemism for "shame". We (the general feeling) feel SHAME for anyone with mental illness, but don't have the courage to say it as such.
In fact, the current use of the word "stigma" even subtly suggests that the "stigmatized" (IE. Mentally Ill person) is at fault. "Others don't understand you, but you're the one who needs change". What about these "others who don't understand" educating themselves!

I don't understand what diabetics, or cancer patients go through on a daily basis, does that make them "stigmatized", or me ignorant? The same applies to mental illness, when someone does not understand it, the sufferer is not "stigmatized", the first person is simply ignorant. So just as it is up to me to educate myself about diabetes and cancer, it is up to them to educate themselves about mental illness.

Reality is that mental illness is still seen as shameful. Like most everything else in today's world, people have come up with softer terms (in this case "stigma") in order to make unacceptable beliefs acceptable.

Adaptation

2009-12-04T20:54:00.000-08:00

Adapting to one's environment is a sign of mental health. In the 21st century western world, that suggests working 35-40 hours a week in order to earn enough to pay one's housing, food, clothing, and transportation.

When someone of working capacity (by outward looks) doesn't or doesn't manage to pay their way, they're somehow wrong.

The simplistic idea that "That's just the way it is so it's right" is very rarely questioned.

Compared to humanity of 2, 000+ years ago, have we truly progressed as a species?

Working to get lodging, feed one self (and family), wear the clothing, and use the transport of the time. That's what was expected of people. Not very different.

Intellectually we do know more than we did back then. Due in part to history itself (IE. There IS more to know), and communication, which is more accessible.

Technologically we are way more advanced (IE. Just reading this blog proves that).

But as a species are we more advanced? Our so-called intelligence hasn't prevented us from being at war constantly.

We "know" that a healthy life (on all levels) requires much more than simply functioning, yet as long as one is functioning, we are satisfied. "You have a job, pay your bills, what do you have to worry or complain about?"

Funny thing is when oneself is simply functioning it's far from enough. We "know" that functioning is not enough for us, but don't have the presence of mind to inquire about others.

Functioning isn't enough for me, what about you?

Privacy

2009-12-02T21:48:00.000-08:00

Recently in Canada an insurance company stopped making disability payments to a woman who was on long-term disability due to depression. The reason they (ManuLife Financial) stopped the payments; they went to her Facebook page and saw pictures of her at a party and diagnosed her to be no longer depressed.

A few things caught my attention about this case.

Firstly, why are ManuLife Financial looking up people's Facebook profiles?

Secondly, where will this "search" end? What if they had seen party picture of said woman on someone else's Facebook profile? Would that have been enough to cancel her payments?

Thirdly, and most importantly when someone is chronically depressed, going out, meeting people, socializing, and having fun is a main component of their recovery.

I don't know whether this woman had recovered from her depression, but i do know that ManuLife Financial dropped the ball.

Ignorance

2009-12-02T10:43:00.000-08:00

As a depression sufferer I have too often heard "I've never had it so I don't know".

When a situation occurs and a person recognizes they are ignorant about a topic, usually the person will educate themselves about said topic. Except (of course) if it has to do with mental illness.

For some reason, sufferers of mental illness are mandated to educate the rest of the world about their plight.

The worse part of it all is that in today's communication age, there's no reason to justify ignorance about ANYTHING. Anyone claiming ignorance over any other topic (than mental illness) would not be taken seriously, they would be told to inform themselves.

The responsibility of education lies on the ignorant.

Helping oneself or not doing it alone?

2009-11-21T22:06:00.000-08:00

One of the biggest obstacles I've encountered during my years of depression and struggling trying to get better, is the commonly heard (mixed) message which tells the depressed person that on one hand they have to "Help Themselves", while at the same time "Don't Try Doing It On Your Own".

Well which is it?

As is with most things, both have some validity, and both have their limits. Some things the person will achieve on their own, others (accomplishments) with outside help.

The problem with telling someone they have to "Help Themselves" is that it literally leaves them out in the cold to do what (until now) they've not been very successful at(!)

Being specific about what they can do for/by themselves is key or they won't know where to start.

As for "Don't Try Doing It On Your Own", that is too often pseudo-sympathy. I was often told to "Not Try By Myself", but the same people who professed those words never offered help or even suggestions.

Unfortunately for those struggling with depression, our disease has often isolated us from others.

Ideally, you do have people close to you, who are trustworthy, caring, and courageous enough to help you through the struggles of the first steps out of depression.

For those who don't, and yes IT IS THE MAJORITY, there is hope. YOU have the courage and strength to make the first step ON YOUR OWN. Call your local mental health center, call or see a doctor, confide in a friend, read up on depression, write in a journal, go for a walk.

It may seem too simple, even useless at the time, but if you do something SPECIFICALLY TO COMBAT YOUR DEPRESSION, you are helping yourself.

Depression is never totally beaten, it always lurks in our minds and bodies. It takes weeks, months, usually years to get a grasp of how to cope with it, each one of us has unique ways of doing so.

So next time someone tells you you need to "Help Yourself", or to "Not Go At It Alone", take it for what it (probably) is; They sympathize, but are not interested in getting involved. And when someone offers help (even if it's just shooting the shit over a cup of coffee), accept graciously.

Ignorance is not humility

2009-11-19T21:45:00.000-08:00

I saw an interview recently with a retired politician who was being asked about current political issues, specifically the environment and what could be done about it at the government level. He answered (in an un-politician way) "I don't know". One of the panelists congratulated him for his humility, saying that we too rarely hear active politicians admit ignorance.

In this sense,"ignorance" (IE. Ignoring something) and "Humility" (IE. Openly acknowledging one's ignorance) are related.

I'm referring to a more sinister use of language in which people prefer ignoring a situation, and present this ignorance as humility.

It is said over and over again about mental illness that "I haven't had it, so I don't know", when in reality the person is saying "I don't want to know".

Presenting one's ignorance about mental illness as a sign of humility makes it much more acceptable, but truth is they are choosing to remain ignorant, which is anything but humble, it's lazy.

The truly humble person (like the former politician) is one who seeks to educate themselves on what they are ignorant about.

If I ignore what diabetes is all about, how it develops, who's at risk, what it's like to live with and so on. Even admit that ignorance publicly, that doesn't make me humble, it simply makes me ignorant.

The person who educates themselves about the disease is the one showing humility.

Reality? Not mine.

2009-11-09T22:56:00.000-08:00

I've been reading recently different articles and opinions on why "reality television" is as popular as it is.

To my surprise, all writers claim that people watch "reality" shows because they either relate to the participants (think Susan Boyle), see "common people"s troubles magnified (Jon & Kate Plus Eight), or (and this is the most convoluted) enjoy watching celebrities make morons of themselves (Simple Life).

Why this culture is so fascinated with celebrity is still a bit of a mystery to me, but anyone who gets a chuckle out of Paris Hilton ewwwwwwwwwww'ing at the sight of cow manure, or Jose Canseco cage fighting is the being being laughed at.

These celebrity shows and events are targeted at making the audience believe that acting like a jackass equals stardom. They conveniently omit to say that these celebrities became celebrities despite this behaviour, not because of it.

So when I read and hear that viewers feel better about themselves because of these celebrities failures, I can't help but think that's exactly what they (the celebrities) want.

The viewer who watches a "Reality" show where someone makes a total idiot of themselves may be tricked in believing they are "better". But the next day, at the office discussing the show with the colleagues, not knowing if they'll be employed next year, next month, or next week, having to make sure the mortgage is paid, the fridge is full, and the kids are well taken care of, that is REALITY.

That same following day, the celebrities get limousine-driven across town, get wined and dined BY OTHERS, and nanny takes care of the kids. THAT is their reality.

The blues

2009-11-07T18:56:00.000-08:00

We all utilize the word "blues" to define a depressed mood, and music known as "the blues" is known for it's melancholic nature and awesome musicianship with is often produced by solo artists.

One of my favorite musicians is Eric Clapton, I always appreciated his guitar playing, melancholic lyrics (who doesn't get choked up by "Tears In Heaven"?), and related to some of the difficulties he has overcome (substance abuse, depression, broken relationships). Too bad I never became a rock star!!!

Clapton has always made his blues influence known in song and when discussing music. Several of his hits are remakes of classic blues tunes from such notables as Robert Johnson, J.J. Cale, Buddy Guy, and B.B. King.

While You Tubing earlier, I listened to "San Francisco Bay Blues", a song Clapton used on his 1992 album "Unplugged". I knew it was a remake of an old blues tune, but never took the time to research it's origin until today.You Tube offered a "Peter, Paul, & Mary" version of "San Francisco Bay Blues", and I decided to put it on to see how different it would be than Clapton's.

Peter, Paul, & Mary offer a brief intro to the song which is a lovely tribute to Jesse Fuller who originally wrote the song.

The reason I explain all this is that the introduction to Jesse Fuller, a blues man, is one of the most accurate definitions of depression I've ever heard, yet it was not intended as such at all.

Jesse Fuller is presented as a "One man show" who wrote excruciating sad lyrics, but didn't want to sadden people so he put them to beautiful catchy melodies.

Depression for me has always felt like a "One man show", it's "MY" depression, it makes me brutally sad on the inside, but not wanting to sadden others, I put my sadness to a "beautiful melody". "Yes I feel like this, but....", "It's sad now, but..."

I don't know if Jesse Fuller was depressed, but a "one man show" (loneliness, isolation), sad lyrics (emotions, feelings), sharing his feelings with the public in an "acceptable" way that won't make others uncomfortable. That sounds familiar.

As mentioned earlier, blues music is known for it's melancholic mood, and people often refer to that music as one they listen to when sad. Maybe there's more to why that is than some commonly accepted belief.

Here's the link to the Peter, Paul, & Mary version of "San Francisco Bay Blues"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i59pvOVcwXw&feature=related

Don't tell me I'm smart, dumb, self-aware, ignorant...

2009-11-03T21:48:00.000-08:00

A common misconception about depression is that people who have it, or at least while they're going through it are just not intelligent (even if for that period).

In some of my deepest moments of depression, I have been told "oh you're smarter than that". Because I had lost a job, broken a relationship, or just acted "strangely", I was simply "being stupid" or "acting out".

In one of my most recent deep depressive episodes, I was in a counselor's office and told her bluntly "don't tell me I'm smart or self-aware, because if I were so f***ing smart and self-aware, I wouldn't be here!!"

One of the beefs I've had with people's take on depression is that they ignore (purposely or not is debatable) the fact that depression is an illness just like diabetes and epilepsy. The conversation often turns to the person's intelligence, self-awareness, or laziness.

The person going through a depressive episode is not any dumber nor smarter than before, their self-awareness hasn't magically disappeared or appeared. They may have less energy, but they are not any lazier than they might have been previously.

Having suffered several depressive episodes of different magnitude, including one very recently, I'm not smarter now for having overcome it, just like I wasn't stupid while it was happening.

My intelligence, self-awareness, work ethic have nothing to do with my depression. My depression is an illness that can affect several aspects of my life which may lead to behaviours which are not smart, lead to actions I do not think out enough before doing, may sap energy from me. But that is the depression.

Do I have responsibility regarding those actions and behaviours, of course I do. The depression didn't act inappropriately, I did. So the responsibility lies on me.

But the responsibility of understanding what lead to those behaviours lies on the shoulders of everyone else.

Either we treat depressed people as sometimes intelligent and sometimes dumb, or we look ourselves in the mirror and recognize that ignorance is never intelligent.

Men and disclosure

2009-11-02T21:40:00.000-08:00

I hit on this a bit yesterday, but I feel I need to clear a few things up.

Traditional gender-role defines men as protectors and providers, so men seeking help for psychological distress is counter intuitive.

Our modern world has made positive strides in un-stereotyping gender-roles, but the idea of the male as being strong, healthy, and self-reliant still remains.

Males disclose less (than women) because it goes against our nature, and society does not truly embrace it. At best it is tolerated.

On a deeper level, as a species can we accept our defenders and protectors being prone to psychological impairment?

In the mind of the depressive

2009-11-01T21:34:00.000-08:00

I am often asked what does it feel to be depressed, how does a depressed person think, what is it like in the mind of the depressive.

Here's a sample of how depression acts in my mind.

Hearing about the "successes" of people who have had depression (or other mental illnesses) such as Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, or (mathematician) John Nash does not help. The depressed person wants to know how to cope with their depression, not what they haven't (and more than likely never will!!!) achieved.

Telling the depressed person not to wait until it's "too late" is (to the depressed person) totally selfish. "Too late" for who exactly? Just because a person hasn't attempted or threatened anything drastic doesn't mean it's not "too late" in their mind.

In my deepest depressive moments, when I'd hear "don't wait until it's too late", I'd reply (in my mind) "why the F*** are YOU waiting until it's too late?"

The depressed mind can be angry, but also very wise and logical.

Specifically regarding men, the man doesn't want to hear the broken record (because that's what it is) of "you never say anything", he wants to hear "I'm listening".

Still in reference to men, they are often criticized for not disclosing ailments, especially psychological. Before criticizing men for lack of disclosure, do we ever question ourselves as to whether we would be comfortable with men openly suffering? Isn't the disclosure of psychological weakness by a male a show of strength precisely because it is the exception? Are we truly proud of those who disclose? Think of the families who have more than one male with mental illness, do we revere them for openness, or rather pity them, and in worse case scenarios mock them?

Several of these thoughts / beliefs are bleak, and uncomfortable to read. Unfortunately they are true in the mind of the depressed person.

Only by understanding and accepting these cognitive differences can we slowly eliminate the stigma.

I'm ashamed

2009-10-25T22:28:00.000-07:00

Canada is advertised as one of the best countries to live in. Health care, stable government, stable and diverse economy, open to immigration, and safe. Those are some undeniable truths about my homeland.

Unfortunately, Canada remains much too passive in regards to mental health, substance abuse, and poverty.

Canadians accept having people with mental illness and substance abuse problems roam the streets while getting themselves and others in all sorts of trouble even though these same people are so disabled they do not have the capacity to get necessary treatment on their own.

Recently, a friend of mine passed away. Alone, drinking being the last and only thing which kept her going is ironically what killed her.

In Canada, a life such as that is seen as fine. Not healthy, and not what most what want for themselves, but since she was quiet, paid her rent, and wasn't a nuisance to others, that was plenty.

In Vancouver alone, thousands live on the street. What do they get? Ignored, either by soulless individuals who consider the homeless lazy, or by the truly ignorant who (choose to not know) by convincing themselves and others that they "don't know what to do".

Thousands more live empty lives, lonely, doing what is expected regardless of how they feel about it. When they express their disenchantment, they get rewarded with criticism of how they are "ungrateful".

Canada is a country of abundance. A country rich in fresh water, beautiful forests, mountains, bordering three oceans. Yet when it comes to people, Canadians settle for their fellow neighbours to basically survive. If they are happy or not, healthy or not is irrelevant. As long as one pays the bills and isn't a nuisance they're a good citizen.

This attitude of simply settling and having no genuine interest in the improvement in the lives of society's people is shameful.

Theoren Fleury

2009-10-10T21:38:00.000-07:00

Theoren Fleury was an NHL star in the late 80's and through the 90's. He was known as one of the feistiest and hardest working players. Being only 5'5", he was the smallest player in a league known for it's physicality and violence.

On the ice he was regularly seen antagonizing opponents with his relentless play, but also with his mouth, "yapping" at others.

Off the ice, he had a reputation as a bad boy who drank a lot and rumours of drugs followed him.

In 1997, Graham James, Fleury's former coach at the junior level was convicted of more than 350 incidents of sexual abuse involving at least two former Swift Current players and served three years in prison.

Fleury never came forward as being a player James molested until now.

Fleury's autobiography "Playing with fire" is coming out next week. In it he talks openly and graphically about the abuse James inflicted on him and how it has affected him to this day.

Why am I talking about this? Am I pimping Fleury's book? No, Theo's story is just all too common.

Not necessarily the the sexual abuse (although that is rampant is all spheres of society), but rather how he was left to himself, and no one was interested in his reality.

I'm just as guilty as anyone else, as a hockey fan, I loved his enthusiasm on the ice, and learning of his off ice indiscretions was always funny.

There's nothing funny about Theo Fleury's life, and having gone through depression, I share the pain, emptiness, and loneliness he lives. Circumstances are very different, but the feelings of uselessness are wearily similar.

People loved Theo for his on-ice prowess, for his "manliness" of partying, but when he crossed the line (by the same others definition), they bailed on him. We fans, his team, the league gave up on the trouble-making Theo.

Now he's clean, sober, and freeing himself (very publicly) of horrors he's carried for over 20 years, and we love him (personally, I find that rather hypocritical since we weren't there when he truly needed help).

Theo, you're an absolute hero, not for trying a come back this year (he tried out unsuccessfully with his old team the Calgary Flames), not for writing a book, not even for "coming out".

Theo, you're a hero for being clean, sober and healthy again.

Excerpt from Fleury's book:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/postedsports/archive/2009/10/10/book-excerpt-fleury-s-playing-with-fire.aspx

Maybe I am normal after all

2009-09-21T22:02:00.001-07:00

a big part of my recovery has been to established what I wanted out of life. Professionally, relationship-wise, socially, economically.

At first glance, those things seemed boring to me. Just "get a job", "settle down", "raise a family", and.....well, die.

After months of fighting it, I have come to understand that work (as in contributing to societ) is an important part of a person's life. Not to mention that we spend 40+ hours a week at it. At the same time, a profession or vocation need not be a burden, and in fact can be fulfilling.

As for relationships, humans are a social animal for whom human interaction is not only important, but necessary. Relationships comport several different types; romantic, friendships, family (of origin as well as extended), colleagues...

When it comes to socio-economic status, that is one I still somewhat struggle with (albeit a lot less) because of the outdated class structure which still prevails.

I have though come to terms with what I want to do professionally (work in mental health), even though it will require years of schooling, the fact i have a specific goal that *I* set makes it all worthwhile.

Relationship wise, I've been blessed with a small, but incredible group of lovely friends, and the person who has had the most positive impact on my life ever, Jessica.

Socially and economically I'm doing much better than previously, but still not as good as others my age (for those who want to compare), but I don't worry about that any more. I'm not into comparisons, I'm happy and content with my life and where it's going.

Although my life seems somewhat "normal", is it so bad? I don't think so.

I've become the man I've always been

2009-09-17T21:50:00.000-07:00

The past 12-18 months have been the most fulfilling in my entire adult life so far. As poetic as this sounds, it has not been a joyride.

After losing a job for the humpteenth time, breaking up friendships, lacking any direction and meaning in my life, I "decided" (brackets because the options were rather slim) to get help. Getting help for mental health issues in British Columbia in 2008-2009 is excruciatingly difficult. Considering the person is already crippled by mental illness, the hoops one has to jump through in order to get help (medical, therapeutic, counseling, financial...) are unacceptable. I'm digressing as I will elaborate on this at a later date.

As I (very slowly) got help for different aspects of my life (medical, counseling, career counseling...), one main theme kept coming back. Most of what I've always beliefs and values, as well as what I wanted were not only true and possible, but part of who I am.

I believed in wanting to make the world a better and fairer place, I believed that just because things "are" the way they are doesn't necessarily make it right. I valued helping those in need WHEN THEY ARE IN NEED (IE. Not congratulating them (indirectly ourselves retroactively). The less agreeable part of me believed people to be hypocritical by sharing/taking credit for successes, but never accepting any responsibility for failures. For purposely avoiding sensitive situations (IE. (Potential) Mental illness) on account of "lack of knowledge" yet having strong opinions on the same topics when not directly involved.

The greatest thing I have gotten in the past 18 months is my health, 2nd is Jessica, and thirdly I would have to say is myself!!

I've come not only to accept that my beliefs, values, goals, ambitions are part of who I am. Granted, I don't always do things the conventional way, I may be "a dreamer", that doesn't make it wrong (or right for that matter!!), it just is who I am, and I can now say that I LOVE that.

I've become the man I've always been.

I knew myself more than I thought

2009-08-29T21:07:00.000-07:00

I written about this previously, but I still get reminders of how I really knew my beliefs and values, as well as what i truly wanted from life, but let other people influence may away from that.

I have been described as "idealistic", and in the past I would silently get angry at that label, thinking that if we want to achieve an ideal, we have to believe in it first. I also saw hypocrisy in that label as I'd think "how come people are so complimentary of people like Mother Teresa, Jean Vanier, Emmett Johns, yet when I "dream" of something, it's "unrealistic"".

I was also bothered by "secrets" (especially family secrets which were elephants in the room). For the longest time I believed things were not talked about on purpose, we practically just talked about the weather.

Venturing into a topic like "I have not been feeling well recently" was subtly discouraged; "you feel ok right now", "look at what you do have".... To me that sounded empty, avoidance.

I see now how that WAS avoidance, no malice intended, just that our society does not view talking about difficulties as a good thing. We are taught very young to "just talk about positive things", to "not bother others with your troubles, they have their own". Somehow ALL "troubles" are to be solved alone.

Coming back to the beginning of this post, I knew (subconsciously) that there was something wrong with the entire premise of "Just say positive things and keep your problems to yourself". At the time I wasn't versed enough to call it DENIAL.

In the same way, we are "proud" of a person AFTER they've achieved something, or recovered.

Why weren't we proud when they were trying to achieve, or sick and on they way to recovery?

Perhaps I'm unconventional, but I truly believe that education about mental illness involves talking about it, and getting involved (whether with a family member, friend, colleague...)

Avoidance of (talking about) the issue only confirms the long standing fallacy that mental illness is "bad" and unworthy of attention.

Education and early detection

2009-08-28T22:27:00.000-07:00

Article on CBC.ca http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/08/28/preschooler-depression.html

At first glance I felt sadness at children going through the most misunderstood and ridiculed disease in our (so-called advanced) society, but re-reading the article gives me hope that some people are looking for early signs of depression.

It is common knowledge that early detection of any disease is the best remedy. That the more educated one is about a disease, the better they will be prepared to fight it, and that same education is what will eradicate any stigmas.

There obviously remains a lot of work to be done, medically and socially (look at some of the ignorant posts on that story for example).

But seeing studies like this being published and reported is a step in the right direction. The results might be somewhat disconcerting, but it's reporting a problem we can learn more about, and tackle from a position of knowledge.

Am I better?

2009-08-23T15:40:00.000-07:00

Having gone through the most painful recovery process of my life in the past 2.5 years has not (in my mind) made me a better person, but rather a more aware, honest, and humble person.

Obviously awareness, honesty, and humility are good qualities, but did I go from not having them to suddenly having them? I think not.

Being told I'm a "better" person is (in my view) telling me I wasn't a very good person in the past. Now, I have done things I'm not proud of, that were hurtful to others, but the whole "you're a better person now" idea comes off as patronizing to me.

It comes back to my main point about mental illness, depression, and how those who do not have it have a responsibility to educate themselves about it, and get involved.

While the (depressed / sick) person is ill is precisely when they need help and support.

Patting the back of those who have fought their way out of depression is lame, as it is too easy.

Lame excuses like "I don't know what to do", or "he'll just say no" (without trying), and then turning around and congratulating him when he's "better" is hypocritical at best, a blatant lie at worse.

Acceptance of these mediocre excuses reinforces the stigma of mental illness.

Go help your brother, cousin, or colleague who's been down in the dumps lately. The one who's been isolating. Give him a phone call, offer to go to coffee, a movie, golf, dinner, anything. He might say no (highly likely actually), but you know what, when he does get better HE WILL REMEMBER THAT YOU TRIED.

Maybe it is the destination after all

2009-08-18T21:29:00.000-07:00

We often hear how life's "a journey, not a destination" (even Aerosmith used those lyrics!!), but if we see happiness as a destination, then the journey IS secondary.

People, groups, and organizations such as religions, political parties, even businesses do not promote their beliefs in order for people to be happier, or even better off. All they want is more membership, more promotion of their beliefs / ideas, and more goods or services being consumed.

They blind the public with the idea that by feeling better temporarily (during prayer, when in office, when consuming such a product...), it will lead to longer term happiness, but that never occurs (which, by the way, they knew all along!!)

They will also create a false impression of community, by pushing the idea of "Do like us, we're smart, popular, you want to be like us".

That last part is one of the biggest problems, most people DO NOT want to be LIKE others, we want our own uniqueness to shine. We all want and NEED to be with others, but remain unique within the group.

In order to achieve happiness, people take numerous different paths. Everything from social groups, religion, politics, activism...

The paths are infinite, the destination is unique.

How much of your life is chosen?

2009-08-17T21:54:00.000-07:00

We live in a society which emphasizes autonomy, independence, fending for one self. When a person finds themselves in a predicament, we often hear that they "made a wrong choice".

But how much choice do we truly have? Nobody chose to be born when and where they were. To the parents they had. We definitely do not chose our physiology, or how it operates. Our breathing, the blood flowing through our veins, the thousands of synapses in our brain every minute are not of our choosing.

Even large parts of our social lives are not chosen. We are a social species, we didn't chose that. We only have minimal choice in our friends. We live in such a neighbourhood through where and how our parents brought us up. We go to school because (although it is a positive thing) we pretty much have to (it could be argued that we "chose" education as a society). So we choose our friends within a limited sample.

Work wise, most people "choose" a job that happens to be available, one which offers benefits we like (choosing the benefits over the job!!), or one within our chosen profession, but we are still confined to the location, rules, and operating procedures of said job.

Would we say the person with diabetes, cancer or heart disease "chose" that? Of course not.

So in the same way, when we hear about or see a person with depression or another mental illness which perhaps incapacitates them to the point of living on the street, lets not flatter ourselves by seeing them as having made "poor choices", rather that they didn't have the opportunity to chose.

I didn't wake up one day and feel better

2009-08-10T21:54:00.000-07:00

Too often I have heard and read statements about people who just "woke up one day and decided to feel better" and their depression was gone. I hate to break it to you, but that's not how it works.

I can point to specific dates and times which were determining in my recovery (like October 11th 2007 when I FINALLY called the local Mental Health Authority and began the process).

But I also remember tonnes of times when I'd tell myself "Ok, this is it I'm just going to feel better", it didn't work and I felt WORSE.

Recovery is a process, an on-going process at that. I'm not cured, I have achieved a good level of stability which I want to keep, and involves several things including medication, regular exercise, proper diet.

If you're looking to get better, slowly getting there, or even unsure, remember that it's ongoing.

I have days were I remind myself of where I was, how I felt, how I never want that ever again, and that I've gotten what I have through consistent self-discipline, and constant work. Not some magical idea that I'll "will it away".

Do what you truly enjoy

2009-08-09T21:25:00.000-07:00

I have often felt guilty of wanting to do (work wise) what I like. As if I was asking for some sort of privilege. Until recently, I have thought of a person's profession as nothing more than an obligation. Work - lodge, feed, clothe yourself - pay you bills. After that (whatever time is left), do what you enjoy.

As if wanting a metier which involves one's likes is being finicky.

I also believed that those who (allegedly) enjoy what they do are exceptions such as athletes and entertainers. That only prodigies can achieve this because of their exceptional talent(s).
That "average Joe Schmo" can only hope for potential fun/happiness during "off hours".

No wonder people are depressed. If all we have to look forward to is a potential 45 minutes of our favorite activity tomorrow (assuming all goes well at work, and bills are all paid up).

Fortunately, more people are seeing the correlation between working in a job one enjoys and improved mental health!!

Don't let false "obligations" (IE. Socio-economic status) get in the way of following your passions.

Better to live a more humble lifestyle and be healthy than rich and miserable.

What is normal?

2009-08-05T20:19:00.000-07:00

I have just completed a class entitled "Abnormal Psychology" in which we studied psychological ailments / diseases.

I understand the word "abnormal" in this context, but still feel it contributes to the marginalization of mentally ill people, and the stigma attached to mental illness.

So what exactly is normal? Dictionary.com defines "Normal" as:

1.	conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

2.	serving to establish a standard.

Psychology.

a.	approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment.

b.	free from any mental disorder; sane.

Biology, Medicine/Medical.

a.	free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation.

b.	of natural occurrence

The first definition is rather common, the second applies to psychological disorders, but I am intrigued by the 3rd one "Free from any infection or other form of disease". Linguistically I agree that someone who is dis-eased is not "normal", but would we ever dare call someone with diabetes or cancer "abnormal"?

Coming back to the first definition, "conforming to a standard type....natural, regular", there's an aspect of conformity, that somehow originality would not be normal.

I believe the common understanding of what a normal person is simply "Someone who's not a burden". After all it's not "normal" to not fend for oneself (work and pay one's bills), to not be able to overcome difficulties (we congratulate people 's successes, we don't get involved when they suffer).

The normal person is the one who works, pays their taxes, doesn't break the law, and isn't a nuisance to others.

By that (common) definition, maybe we can see why those who's mental disease incapacitates their functioning at work, interferes with their economic capacity, and makes them NEED THE HELP of others actually don't seek help.....it's not normal.

It's a matter of trust

2009-08-03T21:32:00.000-07:00

It is said that people suffering Depression, addiction and other mental illnesses often have difficulty trusting others while getting better.
There's a very valid reason for this; the very people requiring trust are the very people the person suffering could not trust when they were ill.

To the depressive who is getting better, the people asking (directly or not) to be trusted including family, friends, colleagues, even medical professionals are the same people who "let them down" when they (the depressive) were going through their worse times, those people (often) were not there. Either they literally were not present, they "didn't know what to do", repeated platitudes such as "snap out of it", or (as to often is the case) pretended like everything was ok.

This is a large reason why depressives are (justifiably) angry.

The Catch-22 here is that as untrustworthy as people are when dealing with others' mental illness, the best way to health is by letting people (back) into our lives.

The doctor who prescribes medication "X" can be trusted to the extent that he knows what he's doing. The family member, friend or colleague who invites you out, or accepts your invitation can be trusted for that event (and other similar things), but it does not mean they suddenly "know what to do", or that their previous behaviour was appropriate.

How much we trust people is always tricky, but more so after having gone through depression and feeling like we were left on our own.

Accepting others ignorance has actually helped me in that I see it as an opportunity for me to advocate for people with depression, and educate those without.

Love / Hate / Indifference

2009-05-09T22:51:00.000-07:00

It is said that the opposite of love is not hate, but rather indifference. If you hate someone, you are still acknowledging them, whereas by being indifferent, it's as if they don't even exist.

Now imagine suffering from mental illness and having people indifferent to it. They "don't know what to do", they "don't want to interfere", basically they are just full of excuses to not do anything.
A large part of mental illness is feelings of loneliness, of being "misunderstood", of not "fitting in", and when others are indifferent to it, it amplifies those symptoms.

Ideas I've been writing

2009-05-09T22:24:00.000-07:00

Just because "that's the way it goes" doesn't make it right. I rather question, be skeptical, be accused of being "a dreamer" or "idealistic", even it it means being criticized, even ridiculed. I even prefer question something and be proven wrong than to not have questioned and simply accepted.

Ever notice it's never "one of us". whenever we hear of some mass murder, it was "a nut job". When someone ("only") takes their own life (IE. Kurt Cobain), they were "troubled". How come we recognize their "trouble" only AFTER they're dead? Also, what is so scary about looking at their similarities? Isn't how they "express" those similarities the only difference?

We separate ourselves from social outcasts (IE. homeless, mentally ill...), while attaching convenient tags to ourselves. When someone with the same tag as us commits a condemnable act, a truly humble person feels sympathy for the victim(s), and (some) shame that "someone like them" would do such a thing. The insecure, self-indulgent, and arrogant person simply separates themselves ("Oh, he's one of those"). Guess where the vast majority fit in.

Michael Phelps was photographed smoking dope and admitted to it. He has been "forgiven" in the court of public opinion. Would it be so if instead of being an Olympic champion, and a strong "revenue generator" for several sponsors, he were some "ordinary schmuck", or a homeless person?

I feel sympathy for Phelps as everything he does is scrutinized with a magnifying glass which isn't fair (even for someone of his celebrity). Those I have no sympathy for are those sponsors who were so glad the "sponsor" him when everything was going well, but as soon as things go bad they walk away. They never wanted him to "succeed", all they wanted is for him to make money for them.

Funny how these "sponsors" would be the first ones to whine for help if things don't work out for them (even if they create their own demise through their selfish greed), but when things don't go as planned for the guy they "sponsor", they just walk away.

I'm back

2009-05-03T22:48:00.000-07:00

Haven't posted in way too long. Life got in the way, I also let it. It's just good to be back.

When does "Live and let live / Not interfere" become ignorance? As I've said before, I believe it's better to have tried "something" and fail than nothing and fail. They say we don't regret what we did as much as what we didn't do. But can people genuinely care and choose to do nothing? If so, is their decision regrettable (assuming a negative outcome), or are they simply sad of the result?

People are imperfect. Individuals, groups, organizations must be judged in their entirety, not simply in those areas which confirm our bias. I often hear that politicians are 'hypocritical' when spinning events to their advantage (or disadvantage of their opponent), but don't most of us do the same? It is called 'partisan politics', what is called when it happens in everyday life?

I am fascinated how beliefs, and values I had 20 years ago were 'right', and how I let their 'unorthodoxy' drive me away from myself. I believed in bettering the world, in helping, in co-operation. I knew it was 'idealistic', but what's wrong with that? I let pedestrian banalities like "That's not how it works" influence me into believing I was wrong!!! How fucked up is that!!! Someone wants to improve the world, make people co-operate, but since it's not "common" they're the troubled one.

I also used to loathe the idea and even the word *work*. To me it sounded like legalized and accepted slavery; put in 40 hours a week, get a paycheque with which you have to pay for lodging, food, and other "obligations" (IE. Bills) which were created by our society and that too few even questioned. And the topper for me was 'If you enjoy what you do, that's a bonus'. How ass-fucking-backwards is that.

I still don't particularly enjoy the obligatory aspect of 'Participating in society', but realize that in order to change things (as minute as that change is likely to be), it's better to do what we want to change in order to put ourselves in a better position to challenge it (IE. 'I've been there, I know what's wrong with it'.)

I missed blogging.

It’s never just one thing

2009-01-30T20:39:00.001-08:00

We all know that, but how often do we fall for the exaggerated and misleading promises of individual therapeutic aids.
Here’s a list of what I need to do in order to feel better:
- Stay sober
- Take my medication rigorously
- Socialize / Interact with friends, family, colleagues.
- Exercise
- Read / Educate myself about Depression
- Work at achieving my long-term goals (Right now for me that means studying)
- Eat healthy
- Have regular sleep pattern
- Take time to do something I enjoy but is just a pastime (For me that’s comedy)
- Share my story, ideas, beliefs with others (through this blog!!)

Some of these probably apply to many people, some perhaps to no one. The important thing to remember is that doing 1,2 or 5 of these will only have limited effect (and in fact, NOT DOING some or many of these make nullify those which we do. That’s just how the Depressed mind thinks).

Priorities

2009-01-28T22:13:00.001-08:00

Organizing, prioritizing, and making lists seems somewhat easy; establish what takes up the most time and put those in your Day-timer in order.
Doing that allowed me to complete tasks, and get things done, but never felt I achieved anything.
When I review my priorities in terms of what is important TO ME, things are rather different.
At this point, here is what is important to me in order:
- My Recovery / Health
- Finding / Keeping work / Getting my finances in order
- My studies and education
- Fitness
- Blogging
- Comedy

Here’s how I can do each:
-Recovery / Health: Take my medication, improve my self-discipline, read about recovery, socialize / build relationships, eat healthy, make my cause be known.

- Work / Finances: Apply / Interview / discipline myself to tolerate what I dislike by remembering I am more than my job / Save money / Pay debts.

- Studies / Education: Apply myself to daily studying, reading and reviewing.

- Fitness: Discipline myself to a regular workout schedule, eat healthy, participate in races.

- Blogging: Educate myself on blogging techniques, blog every day.

- Comedy: Write / Rehearse every day.

When I look at it this way, things seem much more worthwhile. The #1 thing in my life is my health and recovery. I can not let that slip at all, because without health, I can not do the rest and anything I would do without being healthy would be useless to me.
The other 5 are strictly based on where I am in my life right now. They are totally flexible. When I’m looking for work, work and finances do take priority, but when that part of my life stabilizes, perhaps another will supplant it as “second”.

Questions and opinions

2009-01-20T15:59:00.000-08:00

Would the fear / misunderstanding / stigma of mental illness be an in-born biological and physiological defence mechanism? A defence that tells us “None of our species (especially not our providers / protectors (MEN) ) can be disabled to the point of having difficulty coping / adjusting / adapting, because if that is so, our entire species is at risk!!” ?

Do we really like the underdog, or do we just root from the sidelines and feel good after he succeeds?
We love stories of overcoming obstacles and redemption, but do we love these same people BEFORE they “succeed” ?

We sugar-coat (even avoid talking about) Depression by sticking to what the person did “right”. We avoid the discomfort of discussing Depression. Not very tough / generous / helpful / useful / humanistic / thoughtful / humble / loving is that now!!!

And how educational is it to avoid learning about something?

Justifications such as “we don’t know” and “we’ve haven’t had it” only confirms ignorance and weakness.

Choices

2009-01-07T21:54:00.000-08:00

We often hear (even within the mental health fraternity and medical community) that a large part of recovery from mental illness is a matter of “choice”. That when the person “chooses” to no longer be depressed, recovery will follow.
How come we never hear that people who don’t have mental illness are CHOOSING not to educate themselves? Choosing to “not know what to do”? That they choose to do nothing instead of getting involved?

Why is it the mentally ill and substance abusers who are making “bad choices”? Isn’t it a “bad choice” to remain ignorant about scientifically proven illnesses?

We all know that mental illness is stigmatized, what is never said is that stigmatization = intolerance.

Isn’t it a “bad choice” to stigmatize a group of people?

Mental illness is the only scientifically proven medical type of condition for which ignorance is accepted, even promoted.

What are WE afraid of?

2009-01-07T21:20:00.000-08:00

“No matter how you may have redeemed yourself - no matter how many good deeds you have stacked up to counterbalance what you once did - the shame of it is still scorching hot. The better a man you’ve become, the more godawful it sounds hearing what you once did. Once it’s out, you’d like to do nothing but crawl under a rock. Shame has dragged many a life right back down. For this season, most men run from their shame and run from anything that might remind them of it.” - Po Bronson (Why Do I Love These People)

That is one of the best description of why men “don’t talk about it” I’ve ever heard. Talking about it (in our minds) simply reminds us of how fucked up we have been / are.
When you add to that the social stigma (IE. Shame), “talking about it” is doubly shameful.

What is rarely (if ever) mentioned is how people WHO DON’T HAVE depression are afraid of talking about it. Especially (once again) when it involves men.

Bronson, in the same book seems to avoid using the “d-word” when describing depressive symptoms in men he interviewed, whereas it is utilized about women with the same symptoms. Descriptions of some men include “ alcohol/drug abuse, excessive anger, loss of enjoyment in previously enjoyable activities”. Even his own story includes low self-esteem, isolation. These are all symptoms of depression, in the DSM-IV no less. Never is the d-word used though. Yet, in very similar descriptions of women going through the same symptoms, the d-word is regularly dropped.
Beyond the “they were not diagnosed as depressed” reasoning / excuse, one could easily add “these are typical symptoms of depression”. In fact, if people show symptoms of other diseases, we don’t hesitate to say “it could be…”, “it sounds like…” . Obviously not only are people with depression the only ones who “don’t talk about it”.

Think about this

2008-12-31T22:18:00.000-08:00

In mentioned in my December 11th entry golfer John Daly and how people stuck by him when he was doing well, but wanted nothing to do with him when he was going through hard times. Well today on the news, he announced that he had been suspended for 6 months by the PGA and he felt it was a just suspension. The only thing the PGA said was that they would not comment as it has always been their policy not to comment on fines and suspensions. Daly being one of the better known golfers (for good or bad), the PGA had the responsibility to announce it, even if just to explain Daly’s non appearance in tournaments over the next 6 months.
Would I’d like to know, is what is the PGA doing to help Mr. Daly, or are they simply sending him to his room to “think about it”, and come back in 6 months when he’s ok?
Shame on you PGA.

Within the depressed community, we have to change our language, and I’m not talking about the therapeutic idea of “changing ones thinking”, but stop talking about depression in a shameful way. Also, propagating the idea that “only we understand it because we live it” only enables the belief that it’s all about us and gives the outside world a free pass.

You want to stop a stigma? Stop talking about stigma.

The stigma of depression only makes things comfortable for everyone. Us sufferers only share among ourselves and our therapists which is very comfortable. Non-sufferers don’t have to discuss it which is comfortable for them.
Lets all be adults, and step out of our comfort zone.

Men are expected to show vulnerability, except when they are vulnerable.

The physical and physiological part of depression is just a small part of the disease. The social aspect is just as (if not more) significant, yet not addressed nearly enough.
That’s why giving the same treatment to all depression sufferers (increasing serotonin levels, helping thought patterns, and getting back to functionality) is just (in my opinion) about 30% of treatment. Finding a passion, a purpose, a sense of belonging, improve self-esteem, self-love. These things are too rarely addressed in traditional therapy. As much as these are continuously evolving, once they are established, it make the depressed person more confident (rather obvious), will actually make them more humble as they will feel they belong to a group / society which is bigger than them and they will in turn see the uniqueness in others (IE. That we’re not all just cogs in the wheel, that everyone brings something).

When it comes to propensity of depression, we still hear than “woman are more susceptible than men”. I have mentioned how I disagree with this, and here’s a statistic I would like bring about.
Men commit suicide 4 times more often than women.
Two thirds of all suicides are committed by people suffering some sort of depression.

I’m not great at math, but by my calculations, for each 100 suicides, 80 are men, and 20 are women, and 67 are by people suffering some form of depression.

Depression is a much more fatal disease in men.

My Story

2008-12-28T21:55:00.001-08:00

I remember being depressed as far back as my teenage years. Obviously, this is hindsight, but locking myself in my bedroom listening to music and reading sports scores while not giving school work even the slightest thought was more than common teenage rebellion.

For the longest time I believed I would always be “all right”, that somehow things out of my control would always be there to keep me in “liveable circumstances”.
I believed that living a “normal/average/common” pedestrian life of “waking up, going to work, have dinner, take a dump, sleep and repeat” would be sufficient to lead to happiness. What I didn’t recognize was that I was extremely unhappy, so just aiming at keeping the same life would never change my happiness level.
So I did try living the “normal” life, had a girlfriend, rented an apartment, had a 9-5 middle management job, bought a car, had credit cards. I came off as a good guy with a good life. Reality is that I was miserable, but couldn’t even see it. I started drinking daily, my girlfriend left (to which I used to joke that if I could leave myself I would), missed worked regularly, but didn’t care about anything. That’s not quite true, I cared about how I was perceived. The “good guy with the normal life” is who I had to be. If I was unhappy or had problems it was up to me to solve them, because people are not interested in others’ problems, and admitting difficulties is whiny and needy.

So through the years, I bounced from job to job, apartment to apartment, even when back to live at home (which I actually patted myself on the back for being “strong enough” to do it). Living with my parents gave me the same sense of comfort I grew up with that despite everything, my circumstances would always be “liveable”.
Back on my own, the revolving door of bouncing from job to job, apartment to apartment continued, I drank more, lost relationships as quickly as I made them.
My frustration against the world I kept to myself (can’t be whiny), but my feelings were “my life is a fucking mess, people must know that I’m not living “normally” but they prefer thinking I am.”
My quandary was that I couldn’t express my misery (barely admitted it to myself) because that was “whiny” and admitting I wasn’t “normal”, yet at the same time I was miserable to the point of not seeing the point of living. But, get this, doing anything rash about it would not be “normal” either!!!
So I had to live with something I couldn’t bare, and was not allowed to express!!

Now several years later, more jobs, living arrangements and screwed up relationships, I’m much better. Thanks to great help as well as decisions I took to stop drinking, and take care of my overall health.

As for the “normal” life, FUCK THAT, my life is anything but normal, but I’m actually happier than I have been in a long time.

To those of you who may relate to some of this, I did leave a lot of details out. Not in order to make it a feel good story, but because some of it is still very painful. We don’t have to put every single detail out there, but it is important to recognize our unhappiness with our lives.

I don’t have any secret formula for how I got to feel better, but what has (and still does) help(ed) me is a genuine un-concern for others opinion of me. In fact, I sometimes even revel in the fact that I live on a daily basis shit that most “normal” people are too scared to even think about.

December 23rd 2008

2008-12-23T23:11:00.000-08:00

Today was a great day!! Got up at 8AM went out for a short run on a cold, snowy morning with snow-filled and icy sidewalks. It was invigorating and felt awesome. Came back home, did a few chores, and went back out for a nice long walk in downtown Vancouver, through Stanley Park and took a few pictures (See my Facebook page).

I learned a great lesson today. My circumstances were not really any different than yesterday, tomorrow they’ll likely be very similar again. Today I felt good, and it was easy to get up, go running, make productive decisions. Several factors helped that, some I can control (good night’s sleep, eat well), others I don’t control (the bright sunshine this morning was a great motivator to go outside).
The lesson for me is that I only control part of my mood. That the part I don’t control will sometimes be crappy, other times good. When it’s crappy, to go ahead, at least, with what I do control (not let myself get overwhelmed by that which I don’t control), and when it’s good, to recognize that and appreciate that I am only partly responsible.

Thoughts

2008-12-21T23:13:00.000-08:00

December 21st 2008
There are so many examples of how hegemonic masculine norms help justify ignoring mental illness.
I’ve said this so often I sound like a broken record, but until it’s heard and understood I won’t stop saying it.
Mental illness (Depression, Bipolar, Schizophrenia…) are the only medical conditions which non-sufferers can justify not believing through ignorance (the old “I haven’t had it so I don’t know”).
Men are defined as such (IE. “MEN”) only AFTER they have “succeeded” (IE. Made money), or show some physical “toughness”.
What do we (as a society) generally say of Ernest Hemingway, Hunter Thompson, Kurt Cobain, Dédé Fortin? They were brilliant artists, expressed themselves (in different ways) through their art. What do we do to make their existence worthwhile? We buy books and records!!! When will we accept that they were troubled, inherently sad, and that by our accepted standards of “manhood”, they were WEAK?

What do we say about men like Ted Turner, Pierre Péladeau, and Howard Hughes? What great businessmen they are / were. We also call them “eccentric” which is a nice way of saying they’re “crazy”, but since they’re “successful” (IE. Have lots of money), and aren’t a “burden”, we are right in doing nothing.

This afternoon I was walking along Davie St. in Vancouver, among the people there was this fellow who stood out in the crowd as he was saying out loud “people are so nice” in an aggressive and sarcastic way. He was basically saying the same thing I have thought for a long time (and am saying here!!!) but coming from “someone like him” it’s seen as rambling. The exact same thing said by someone with letters at the end of their name, or who has “succeeded” (by societies hegemonic masculine norms) would be welcome as a great new way of thinking, and a new way of explaining mental illness.

Fear is often given as justification for the ignorance of mental illness. If people are so “fearful” of mental illness, where did their strength and toughness go?

Don’t ask why depressed people don’t “snap out of it”
Ask what you can do to help them.

Depression is a very lonely existence. That’s way getting involved is so important.

People have said that I am purposely contrarian, but that’s not true. I just see the world differently.

The help currently available for Depressive men is definitely lacking. The only role “recovery” plays is getting a man back to “functionality” (IE. Work, pay his bills, and no longer be a burden). In other words, “Be like the rest of us (a consumer) and shut up”.

Despite (not because of) having gone through the hell of Depressive, I’m more interested in helping depressives than anything else.

Thoughts

2008-12-11T22:47:00.000-08:00

Isolation is a commonly known symptom of depression. That’s precisely why non-depressives need to get involved (because part of depression is difficulty to socialize).

The verb “enable” is defined as “to make able; give power, means, competence, or ability to; authorize: This document will enable him to pass through the enemy lines unmolested.”
But when used to explain to behaviour of “helping” a person struggling with substance abuse or mental illness, it always has a negative connotation.
As we see in that definition, one can “enable” positively another. Why don’t we “enable” others to sobriety, health?
When thinking of “enabling” destructive behaviour, we usually think of it originating from the substance abuser / mentally ill person, as if they’re taking advantage of others.
What about when the substance abuser / mentally ill person is “enabled” by people who encourage their behaviour?
Since it’s easier to see in public figures or people of notoriety, and I know a lot about sports, I will athletes as examples. I will find it extremely hypocritical when men such as John Daly, Sean Avery, even Mike Tyson get better (or worse) and people will give the boring statements of “we always knew he could get better” or “it’s so sad, we should have seen the signs and done something.” Those are nothing but excuses to justify their inaction.
I don’t recall ever being helped in a truly altruistic way. Of course every person which has helped me along the way wanted me to get better, but the main goal of “helping” has always come off as selfish to me since the expected result is that I become “normal” (IE. Work, pay bills, fend for myself) which is precisely the type of life that depressed me.
I believe several people do not seek help for depression precisely because they feel (rightfully so) they will basically be taught / told how to be “normal” which is what makes them depressed to begin with.

More thoughts

2008-12-06T19:01:00.000-08:00

Before calling a depressed person “courageous”, ask yourself ; What have you done to truly educate yourself about depression?
What have you ever done and what are you currently doing to concretely help someone with Depression?

People (still) seem surprised at military men who come back from combat with mental illness (Post-traumatic stress disorder / Depression).
We simply can not fathom the thought of our frontline defenders/protectors having mental “deficiencies”.
At it’s worse (and this is all too common in the USA), we watch them become hopeless, homeless, and even PREFER seeing them commit suicide than offer help.
The same is true of professional athletes (Sunday “warriors”). We love (even expect) them to “play through pain”, even if that pain is head trauma (concussion). Muhammad Ali’s Parkinson’s which was provoked by numerous blows to the head is “heroic” and “courageous” . Nice way of saying “We can’t admit that such a tough man’s mind can get injured.”, or admitting that our “entertainment” has disabled this man.

As for the whole “Men don’t talk about it” (generalization). Let’s ask ourselves “WHY don’t men talk about it?”. Is it just ego/vanity? If do, ALL men are vain egoists (generalization), including your brother, father, husband…
What if men are actually deeper than that?
What if we as a society, even a SPECIES, simply can not accept that our providers/protectors/defenders (can get) ill minds?
Mental illness gets the bad rap that “a large proportion of people prescribed psychiatric medication are non-compliant.” Studies have shown that non-compliance for blood pressure and diabetic medications are about the same as for psychiatric meds.
For those who like conspiracy theories, it could be argued that we don’t want people to take psychiatric medication and that’s why we talk so much about non-compliance.

Random thoughts

2008-12-05T10:24:00.000-08:00

Hearing people saying they wish others could live what they have because life has made them so happy is totally foreign to me. I don’t wish my life on anyone.

Yesterday was one of my worse days. I had images of how I could die; hanging, knifing, firearm, pills. I didn’t want to kill myself, but wanted to die.

I can no longer be afraid of how others (may) perceive or interpret me and my cause.

I’m still fascinated at how I can show (even feel!!) so positive with others when deep down I feel like shit.

The stigma about men with depression is cultural, social, and even biological. As a species we don’t want to know that the hunter/provider is emotionally distressed. Statistics show that men commit suicide 4 times more often than women. Nevertheless, there’s still a perception of male suicide as “courageous” (IE. “He knew he couldn’t go on”), even “romantic” in some cases (IE. Ernest Hemingway, hunter S. Thompson).
There’s also a huge element of de-responsabilising ourselves from others’ suicides. The whole “we didn’t know he was that bad” or “we’ve never had depression, we don’t know” indirectly PROMOTES suicide, because if others “don’t know”, well the solution seen by the depressive is what he’ll take.
As a society, we must accept responsibility for mental illness and suicide.

Statistics regarding depression are skewed because they are based on numbers of people diagnosed, but it is also known that men do not declare symptoms of depression (as of other ailments!!) as often as women. Lower diagnosis of depression in men can also be partly attributed to gender bias. Although the DSM-IV does not distinct depression in men from female depression, yet many medical professionals look for “more” symptoms before diagnosing men.