The autism/vaccine conspiracy "theory" (I use the term very loosely) is arguably a subset of Big Pharma Conspiacy Theory Ableism, though admittedly not all who espouse this view are self-identified liberals. That topic, however, deserves more specific attention than I can give it here. This post is about a more generic ableism that one hears all too frequently in supposedly liberal critiques of the pharmaceutical industry. My intention in this post is not to defend the business practices of the pharmaceutical industry. The fact that health is a matter of profit is an absolute abomination. But that doesn't let liberals off the hook for being ableist in their critiques of corporations and the healthcare system.
To hear some (usually non-disabled) liberals tell it, almost all Big Pharma products are largely evil and/or unnecessary. Why, if we would all just eat x diet, use x, y, and z vitamins and herbal remedies, and exercise so many hours a day, we would all be perfectly healthy (able-bodied, neurotypical) and have little or no need of pharmaceuticals!* It's those damned evil corporations which are causing most of our health problems in the first place! They're deliberately not curing diseases! They just want to make us dependent on their products! Uh-huh.
This kind of dismissive thinking ignores the fact that many people do in fact require medication for their everyday comfort and survival. There is nothing inherently tragic about taking medications daily. Presumably TABs who recoil in horror at the thought of taking pharmaceuticals daily don't think that taking their vitamins or brushing their teeth is some huge tragedy.
Now most people will probably concede the necessity of pharmaceuticals with regards to medication for many physical illness, such as insulin for diabetes (though that often doesn't stop them from being ableist as hell in their statements and attitudes). But with many other disabilities, things get trickier. While many people with physical disabilities face dismissive attitudes--people are particularly prone to scoff at fibromyalgia and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome as "fake illnesses"--this is especially apparent in the realm of mental/neurological conditions.
As a case in point, I give you a recent Jezebel article, "Why Are All Our College Kids Going Crazy?"
While I also have several issues with the New York Times article that the Jezebel post reported on, there's more than enough to unpack in the Jezebel article alone. Starting with the awful, awful title.
Yes, folks, "crazy" is an ableist term, and self-proclaimed liberals should damned well know better than to use it in reference to people with mental health conditions. Some neuro-atypical people use the word to refer to ourselves in a reclamatory way, and that's okay. But if you've never faced ableist oppression as a result of being non-neurotypical, you don't get to use that word to describe people who have. Absolutely not. And referring to us as "Fucked Up," or "Clinically Fucked Up," as the author of this post does, is no less problematic.
But the language of the post isn't the only, or even necessarily the biggest, problem with it. The problem is that the post and the comments betray an abysmal understanding of mental health issues in the name of promoting a conspiracy theory which doesn't even make any damned sense. (Jezebel's idea is that Wal-Mart is to blame for the increase of college students utilizing mental health services.)
If the meds are so effective then why would all the kids on them be right back in the counseling centers?
Yes, because apparently psychiatric medications aren't effective unless they are able to solve every single problem perfectly. If someone still needs counseling in addition to medication, clearly the medication has had no effect whatsoever. This is Jezebel's "logic," and what a load of bullshit it is. Look, I have Major Issues with the way in which psych meds are presented in the original Times article, too. I don't think we should be presenting meds, and certainly not any particular med, as a magical cure-all for particular mental health conditions. Human brains and bodies are incredibly varied in ways which psychiatry doesn't yet understand. This does not, however, mean that all psychiatric meds are completely useless for everyone, or that a particular med isn't effective unless an individual doesn't want or need any counseling at all. The idea is preposterous, and frankly it seems to me as though this author has little if any personal experience in dealing with mental health issues.
In any case, Jezebel is promoting the stigma against seeking any kind of help for mental health issues, whether it be medication or counseling. These kinds of attitudes are all too prevalent in our society, and certainly do prevent people from seeking help which could be beneficial. For those of us who already have mental/neurological diagnoses and use mental health services, these kinds of attitudes serve to further marginalize us, making us all the more reluctant to disclose our disabilities to the people whom we encounter. I remember when I first saw a counselor at the age of ten, after my school told my parents that they needed to get me counseling. I remember feeling profoundly shamed at having to go to counseling sessions. Jezebel is perpetuating the kind of internalized ableism that many people with mental health conditions face when seeking help.
None of this is to say that Big Pharma is great, meds are always the answer, or that all psychiatrists are completely wonderful and trustworthy. There are serious problems with the current system, and it's definitely worth talking about. I know too many people, including my partner, who have been harmed by over-zealous psychiatrists who over-prescribe potentially dangerous psych meds.
When it comes to psych meds, I am pro-informed choice. People should be able be active participants in their mental health care and make decisions based on thorough, unbiased information about potential side-effects, and should always have the option of stopping meds without being labeled "non-compliant" or another derogatory term. People should also be able to use psych meds without fear of being stigmatized and brushed off as Big Pharma's dupes. Other people's mental health diagnoses and medical choices shouldn't be open to public commentary. Even comments which seem extremely general, such as "ADD is over-diagnosed" or "the pharmaceutical industry is making everyone think they have mental illness" often are a commentary on individual people and their situations. We should never lose sight of that.
I don't know very much about the relationship between Wal-Mart and university pharmacies. I do, however, as a consumer of mental health services and psych meds, think that Jezebel is very much barking up the wrong tree. When I go to my university's counseling center, I am not bombarded by pharmaceutical ads every which way. I am not offered free samples of a particular medication. As a result, I trust the psychiatrist I see through my student health services far more than I do someone I might see privately. So why is Jezebel so hung up on the Wal-Mart/college pharmacy conspiracy theory? This theory is not only ableist, as Jezebel expressed it, but it also doesn't make very much sense. But I think it's pretty clear that Jezebel is not interested in having an honest discussion about psych meds and mental health issues so much as it is taking pot shots at Wal-Mart and us "crazies."
Shame on them, and on any other "progressive" who would dehumanize people with disabilities and trivializing the difficult choices we make in order to push a conspiratorial agenda. Yes, there is much to criticize about the pharmaceutical industry. No, it is not necessary to label people with mental/neurological impairments as fakers, dupes, and crazies while making these critiques.
*The fact that many people can't do these things because of class, disability, and time constraints is generally overlooked by the privileged people who espouse these kinds of beliefs.
Posts
