One of my
strongest focuses in the mental health debate is on the mental health
<--> human rights issue. As the human rights basics are not yet in place,
if I see a big focus on for example a trauma model for mental problems as more or less ‘The humanistic approach’, I feel it’s a bit of a digression, because yes,
there are many who have suffered traumas
who suffer psychologically years after, and there is a big lack in mental
health services for letting people share
and process their traumas in an empathic environment that gives everyone enough
space and time for this to be possible. I fully support and express the need for great changes related
to that. At the same time, the reasons people suffer mentally may vary a great
deal. Stress (not just trauma related), inflammation, physical illness/injuries/pain,
side effects from medications, diet/lack of vitamins/minerals, psychosocial contexts and problems other than traumas are, in
addition to traumas, examples of factors that might lead to mental problems,
and often several factors may contribute in a complex mix, as for example the
discourse of epigenetics opens up for.
Nobody with
mental problems should be forced into anyone’s field of mental help understanding. The freedom to choose help within varied fields, including alternative
fields, should apply to everyone. If someone imposes on someone else that the reason for their mental problems
is trauma and that they need trauma help, that is just another - consciously or unconsciously - attempted restriction to
each person's space to define what is-,
what is not-, and what it is that one
thinks one needs. From a human rights perspective, a person with mental
problems should also have the legal right to reserve oneself from any mental help whatsoever. It should be fully respected if a person says:
- Yes, your interpretation of my mental
problems and help needs fit well with my own understanding, but I choose not to
receive any of your relevant help with that.
