Mental illness and violence

If I believed it was possible to jinx oneself, I would say that I jinxed myself; yesterday I said I had the best sleep ever, and then last night I didn't sleep at all. Fuck you, insomnia.

In spite of being something of a political junkie, I did not watch any of the US presidential debates; insomnia is to blame again, here. I have a hard enough time falling asleep as it is without my brain being all excited over politics, both in terms of dwelling on what answers I liked, and what answers I did not like. As a result, my knowledge of what was said during the debates was limited to what was reported in the news and on the various blogs I follow.

Mitt Romney said a lot of stupid shit in the debate on Tuesday (binders full of women, eh?), which I expected. I've seen a lot of commentary regarding Romney's answer to the question of gun violence, in which he cited heterosexual marriage and parenting as the solution. Not only is this insulting to single-parent families and other non-heteronormative families, it comes across as a personal attack on President Obama, who spent parts of his live being raised by a single-mother. Hey, Romney, I haven't forgotten which one of you was the bully that helped hold a kid down and give him a haircut because you thought he was gay, and it definitely wasn't the guy in the single-parent household.

That being said, I wasn't at all pleased with President Obama's answer to that question, either:

So my belief is that A, we have to enforce the laws we’ve already got, make sure that we’re keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill. We’ve done a much better job in terms of background checks, but we’ve got more to do when it comes to enforcement.

[...]

And so what I want is a — is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. But part of it is also going deeper and seeing if we can get into these communities and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur.

Because my depression really makes me want to get my hands on an AK-47 and shoot up a public place. Thanks, Mr. Obama, I didn't know that about myself.

The idea that mentally ill people are more likely than anyone else to be violent is just as bullshit as Romney's suggestion that heteronormative marriage leads to less violent offspring. It's also insulting, as is the correlation Obama made between mentally ill people and criminals. Not only are mentally ill no more likely to be violent than someone who isn't, we're actually more likely to be the targets of crime, including violent crime (source). This is in part because of the negative stigma surrounding mental illness, a stigma that the President of the United States just helped to perpetuate.

Targeting the mentally ill is not going to reduce gun violence in the US. Personally, I think that what's needed is a serious overhaul in the way Americans view guns, as well as their precious Second Amendment. American politicians, however, seem to be unwilling to criticize a problematic gun culture, and so instead they draft ineffective laws that aim to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

Obama's answer wasn't all bad; better enforcement of existing gun control laws is a good starting point, and trying to catch violent impulses before shit gets bad also sounds like an idea. Still, there was no need to give credence to an ableist, factually-incorrect stereotype about mentally ill people in the process. Part of Obama's gun control strategy should be protecting the mentally ill, not stigmatizing us.

I expected better from this president, and I'm kind of seething over how badly he fucked up with this question. I'll never express my anger with a gun, though.

Drugs and stuff.

I wish I could say that the reason why I haven't posted anything in two months is because I've been busy, but that has not been the case. I was laid off two and a half months ago, and since I didn't have anything better to do at the time, decided to change up my crazy pill cocktail. This meant being weaned off of the three medications I had been taking so that I could start a new one without any negative drug interactions.

The weaning process took a month, and it was absolute hell. My depressive symptoms returned the second week, at which point I stopped being able to sleep on top of everything else. There really wasn't anything that could be done to relieve my symptoms, either, short of trying to find a sleep aid out there that I haven't already tried (it's a long list) that would be compatible with the new anti-depressant my doctor wanted to try once the weaning was over (a much shorter list). After the detox, there was the usual four to six week waiting period before the new drug would reach a therapeutic level. Fortunately, it's there now, and while the hunt for a new sleep aid continues, I'm back to being a mostly-functional human being.

The anti-depressant my doctor wanted to try is called Parnate, or tranylcypromine. It's in that scary class of drugs known as a monoamine oxidase inhibitor, or MAOI. They've got a bad reputation in pop culture, and a bad reaction to an MAOI has been the cause of death in more than one episode of some crime drama or novel. There's also a wealth of bad information out there about this class of drugs, and what a person can and cannot ingest while taking one, and it makes them seem more dangerous than they actually are. Furthermore, I have to wonder if this bad reputation is the reason why I'm only trying a drug in this class now, after seven years of trying to treat my depression.

MAOIs work by inhibiting an enzyme called monoamine oxidase. Among other things, this enzyme aids in the metabolization of tyramine, a compound commonly found in food. If too much tyramine is ingested, it can lead to a hypertensive crisis-- high blood pressure, essentially. On TV, this means that if you eat a piece of cheese, you'll drop dead within minutes. In reality, though, this is unlikely, unless the person already has very high blood pressure. You might feel quite ill, and should probably seek medical attention if you experience symptoms of high blood pressure, but death is unlikely. Sorry to be the asshole to point out a medical inconsistency in CSI and the like. (I am not actually sorry.)

Anyway, now that my health is more stable, I hope to be updating this blog on a regular basis again.

Soda Cracker Diet

Every so often at work people will organize a potluck, and we had one last week-- probably the last one we'll have before the place closes. I planned to make a cheesecake, but the day before the potluck, when I was going to make said cake, my anxiety kicked it up a few notches, and the idea of getting out of bed was suddenly panic-inducing, so alas, no cheesecake. There were still plenty of other delicious things, however, and we all stuffed ourselves silly and regretted it afterwards, like we always do.

Most of us, anyway.

I know some of my co-workers are on diets and trying to lose weight. One in particular is on one of those weird programs where there is a list of foods you're allowed to eat, and you must not deviate from that list or you fail at dieting and life. Or something. I say it's a weird diet because it even forbids eating certain vegetables, and what the fuck kind of diet does that? This co-worker sat at a different desk than usual so she wouldn't be near the food, nor could she see it.

I hate diets. I hate the whole concept of dieting. I especially hate diets that restrict you to certain foods. I know that dieting doesn't work, and that the vast majority of people who diet will gain the weight back, and that this sort of yo-yoing is even worse health-wise than being overweight. (And being overweight isn't necessarily unhealthy, either.) No one has asked me for my opinion on this diet or dieting in general, and while normally that doesn't stop me, my workplace is not the place for a soap box.

The day after the potluck, I left work an hour early feeling very, very sick to my stomach, and I haven't been back at work since then. From what I've heard, though, other people have also been absent at work for the same reason. The rumour was food poisoning, but the symptoms don't match. It's not that important, though. The point is that my co-workers are vomiting a lot, and of course this is something to be shared on Facebook.

One of my co-workers posted that she had finally succumbed to the illness that had taken out a bunch of us already. I replied, comparing my symptoms with that of the others, and mentioned that I was on a soda cracker diet for a few days. Clearly I should not have mentioned the D-word, because it was at that point when things got silly.

One co-worker replied that "it" (she didn't specify if she was referring to the illness itself or my soda cracker comment) was the best diet ever.

Another co-worker replied to mention how much weight she had lost since becoming sick.

I was-- and still am-- flabbergasted at those comments. There are people who believe that wanting to puke up everything you try to put in your stomach-- even water-- isn't so bad, because at least you're losing weight! At least you're not cheating your diet!* And I feel like I'm the only one participating in that conversation who sees that sort of attitude for what it is: potentially destructive, disordered eating behaviour at worst, and a very unhealthy attitude towards food and weight loss at best.

It's so frustrating to see comments like that, because there's really nothing I can do. I tried combating opinions on dieting and weight loss and just being fat in the past at work, and I ended up hitting a brick wall so hard it was hurting my own mental health and attitude towards food. I don't have it in me to fight that battle again.

I still have all the supplies for making cheesecake, and I think I'm going to make it tomorrow. Originally I was going to bring it to work, to make up for not bringing anything to the original potluck, but fuck that; I'm going to bring it to my DnD session tomorrow night, and I think it'll be enjoyed a lot more there amongst people who don't seem to give a shit about calorie content.



*Actually, soda crackers probably aren't allowed on weird restrictive diets because evil carbs, or something like that.

Why a study on using positive thinking to treat depression has me cynical, not hopeful

From the BBC:

Cardiff University researchers used MRI scanners to show eight people how their brains reacted to positive imagery.

After four sessions of the therapy the participants had seen significant improvements in their depression.

The most glaring critique of this research is the sample size: only eight people?! The people conducting the research acknowledged that more research is necessary, however. That's not why I'm feeling cynical about the study, however.

On the surface, this looks like something that could potentially help some people manage their depression. There's nothing wrong with that. My concern is how this will feed into the narrative that people with depression might feel better if they just think positively!

Yes, because thinking wonderful thoughts is the secret to flight and the cure for depression.

Obviously, this attitude aggravates me to no end. It's easy for someone who isn't mentally ill to conjure up happy thoughts. Someone with depression, on the other hand, might find that a bit more difficult. It's important for any article discussing mental illness and possible new treatments to be aware of the stigma and prevalent narratives surrounding said illness, and to ensure that the article doesn't further those things.

Yes, this research has potential. I won't be pleased if people who are not familiar with depression cite it when telling a depressed person to think happy things, though.

Bad jobs

According to Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, there is no such thing as a bad job. This is the attitude members of government are taking as they propose changes to Canada's Employment Insurance (EI) system, changes that could affect myself and my co-workers. (By the way, the layoff notice I got? It was not pink. I was disappointed.) While some have been fortunate enough to find employment elsewhere, many of us will find ourselves collecting EI. That's what happens when the third-largest employer in town shuts its doors in rural Nova Scotia. Many of the people I work with are nervous about these changes, and with good reason. Not many details have been released yet, in true secretive Tory fashion, but from what I've read in the news, it doesn't look good.

First and foremost, there have been proposed changes to the types of jobs people collecting EI are allowed to turn down. Under current rules, you can turn down jobs that aren't in the field you're trained in, or jobs that are significantly below your previous rate of pay, without losing your benefits. Flaherty wants to change that. This has lead to criticisms from the Opposition NDP that teachers, nurses and software developers might be forced to accept a job driving a cab or serving coffee at Tim Hortons, criticisms which are probably hyperbolic.

Obviously, it would be bad if highly skilled individuals are forced to work in fast food or risk losing their EI benefits. What about people already working low-skilled jobs, though? My current job- the one I'll be losing in just over two months- is an entry-level job at a call centre. I would like to be able to move on up to getting a job that will let me use the skills I have, but under these changes, I stand a very real chance of being forced to take that Tim Hortons job. My co-workers will be in the same boat. For me, working in fast food would mean taking a pay cut, for starters. Assuming fast food pays minimum wage-- and most of the time, they do-- I'd earn about 11% less than I currently do. When you're already low-income and struggling to pay the bills, that can be significant. I'm also losing my health insurance when I lose my call centre job, and jobs in the food service industry don't generally offer benefits. I can only think of one that does-- McDonald's-- but I don't know if those benefits will be in any way comparable to what I have now. My prescription drug costs alone would be in the area of $200 per month without coverage. I absolutely cannot afford both an 11% pay cut and the need to pay for my medications completely out-of-pocket.

Collecting EI already means I'm taking a pay cut; I'll receive 55% of my wage, which will actually put me below the poverty line. That 55% is coming out of my gross wages, however; the amount I get after deductions (which includes paying a premium for that health insurance I mentioned earlier) is a good bit lower than that. Also, my cost of living is higher when I'm working compared to when I'm not. I no longer need to worry about transportation costs, for example. Finally-- and probably most significantly-- I will be better able to afford my medication if I'm collecting EI. This is because my gross income while collecting EI means that I'll not only qualify for the Family Pharmacare program here in Nova Scotia, but my deductible will be quite low. Working a minimum wage job would mean my deducible would be four times higher. I would not be able to afford my medication.

Let that sink in for a minute: I am better able to pay for my medication when not working compared to if I was working.

Without my medication, I would be unable to work. Hell, even with my medication, I have a hard time working; I can't imagine what my life would be like without it. What this means for me is that, when I look for a new job, I have to be picky. I cannot afford to work at a job that does not offer health benefits which would allow me to pay for the medication I need to do the job.

Minister Flaherty is quite wrong when he says that there is no such thing as a bad job. If changes to EI mean that I am forced to take what is, for me, a bad job, I would be unable to keep said job. My health would deteriorate until I am forced to quit or take a leave of absence, or I end up getting fired for some combination of poor performance and too many sick days.

Unlike the idea of teachers and nurses working at Tim Hortons, what I am describing is not hyperbole. If changes are made to the type of jobs EI claimants are allowed to refuse, this could very well be my reality, and it is a very scary reality.