Op-Ed: It’s Not Rational
It’s hard to say exactly when Britney Spears fell apart. CBS News’ Britney Meltdown Timeline begins in February 6, 2006 when Spears was photographed driving with her 4-month-old son in her lap rather than in his car seat. The Atlantic Monthly reported that the intense media coverage that surrounded Spears didn’t begin until paparazzi caught her shaving her head in February 2008.
“Forever, she has been in on the joke,” said Harvey Levin of TMZ to Atlantic Monthly, referring to Britney Spears going back to the sites of unflattering photographs and restaging them. “She also has been severely mentally ill for a while.”
Spears’ behavior became erratic and dangerous very publicly. Every move was documented and exploited—the public couldn’t get enough of her antics and news media profited from the photos and news clips. But the media knew she was sick. In the same Atlantic Monthly article the journalist talked about a photograph of Spears carrying a prescription stimulant in her bag. All the evidence of her mental illness was laid before the public to scrutinize and they did. And everyone missed the story.
Because of the relentless media coverage of Spears, we now have photographic evidence of how our society has come full-circle since de-institutionalization—our mentally ill loved ones are once again put on display for the amusement of others.
I don’t think it was unethical for the media to cover her story and it is not unethical to miss the story. Spears is a public figure who put herself in the spotlight, which does not mean she doesn’t deserve the same compassion as any other mentally ill person, it means that the public is already engaged in her story and news coverage of her in any mental condition is a business. But how her story was covered reveals an interesting story about the American mental health system and the way mental health is viewed in American society.
Spears was able to go so long without medical intervention because of laws enacted to protect the mentally ill from the over-medication and poor conditions they had been subject to in state-run institutions. Public backlash brought de-institutionalization in the 1960s, but the result is that mental illness is now treated more like a life-style choice then a condition where the inflicted lose their ability to make informed decisions. It’s not illegal to be mentally ill, so a person cannot be forced into treatment unless she is a danger to herself or other. But mental illness means that someone is not thinking rationally, causing non-compliance. It’s a catch-22: patients can’t make rational treatment decisions without treatment. Even if a mentally ill person is in danger of hurting herself or someone else, she may still not even get treatment—just end up in the court system.
Pete Early uses the case of Joyce Brown to illustrate the problems with mental health laws in his book “Crazy.” Brown was forcibly removed from the streets and put in a shelter, along with other homeless people, in a New York City Mayor-led effort to protect them from a particularly bitter winter. The case became a sensation because Brown’s civil rights were violated—she did not pose a threat to herself or others and it was within her rights to live on the streets if she chose. Though Brown ate out of garbage cans and was often so delusional she defecated in her own clothes, The American Civil Liberties Union fought to have her released. She eventually was, since being mentally ill is not illegal, and after the stability she regained from the hospital wore off, she was back on the streets, screaming and cursing.
If the court system treats mental illness as a life choice it is illogical to pass moral judgment on the paparazzi who photograph the mentally ill Spears the same way they do celebrities who make poor life choices. How are they to draw any other line?
But the stories that covered Britney Spears should have asked how our society got to the point where a mentally ill person must be carted away strapped to a gurney before that person is given proper psychiatric care. They should have asked why it is socially acceptable to mock the displays and antics of a mentally ill person. The larger story in the Spears’ drama was completely glazed over by the news media. We should have been questioning how we got back to mocking rather than treating. As a society we often glorify the past, but how we treated our mentally ill a hundred years ago should be one history we don’t want to repeat.
“Forever, she has been in on the joke,” said Harvey Levin of TMZ to Atlantic Monthly, referring to Britney Spears going back to the sites of unflattering photographs and restaging them. “She also has been severely mentally ill for a while.”
Spears’ behavior became erratic and dangerous very publicly. Every move was documented and exploited—the public couldn’t get enough of her antics and news media profited from the photos and news clips. But the media knew she was sick. In the same Atlantic Monthly article the journalist talked about a photograph of Spears carrying a prescription stimulant in her bag. All the evidence of her mental illness was laid before the public to scrutinize and they did. And everyone missed the story.
Because of the relentless media coverage of Spears, we now have photographic evidence of how our society has come full-circle since de-institutionalization—our mentally ill loved ones are once again put on display for the amusement of others.
I don’t think it was unethical for the media to cover her story and it is not unethical to miss the story. Spears is a public figure who put herself in the spotlight, which does not mean she doesn’t deserve the same compassion as any other mentally ill person, it means that the public is already engaged in her story and news coverage of her in any mental condition is a business. But how her story was covered reveals an interesting story about the American mental health system and the way mental health is viewed in American society.
Spears was able to go so long without medical intervention because of laws enacted to protect the mentally ill from the over-medication and poor conditions they had been subject to in state-run institutions. Public backlash brought de-institutionalization in the 1960s, but the result is that mental illness is now treated more like a life-style choice then a condition where the inflicted lose their ability to make informed decisions. It’s not illegal to be mentally ill, so a person cannot be forced into treatment unless she is a danger to herself or other. But mental illness means that someone is not thinking rationally, causing non-compliance. It’s a catch-22: patients can’t make rational treatment decisions without treatment. Even if a mentally ill person is in danger of hurting herself or someone else, she may still not even get treatment—just end up in the court system.
Pete Early uses the case of Joyce Brown to illustrate the problems with mental health laws in his book “Crazy.” Brown was forcibly removed from the streets and put in a shelter, along with other homeless people, in a New York City Mayor-led effort to protect them from a particularly bitter winter. The case became a sensation because Brown’s civil rights were violated—she did not pose a threat to herself or others and it was within her rights to live on the streets if she chose. Though Brown ate out of garbage cans and was often so delusional she defecated in her own clothes, The American Civil Liberties Union fought to have her released. She eventually was, since being mentally ill is not illegal, and after the stability she regained from the hospital wore off, she was back on the streets, screaming and cursing.
If the court system treats mental illness as a life choice it is illogical to pass moral judgment on the paparazzi who photograph the mentally ill Spears the same way they do celebrities who make poor life choices. How are they to draw any other line?
But the stories that covered Britney Spears should have asked how our society got to the point where a mentally ill person must be carted away strapped to a gurney before that person is given proper psychiatric care. They should have asked why it is socially acceptable to mock the displays and antics of a mentally ill person. The larger story in the Spears’ drama was completely glazed over by the news media. We should have been questioning how we got back to mocking rather than treating. As a society we often glorify the past, but how we treated our mentally ill a hundred years ago should be one history we don’t want to repeat.
Comments
Post a Comment