Gordon Brown and the Taboo around Mental Health

Now, I've already written about Gordon Brown's mental state, and I'm not going to rehearse those arguments in this post. If you want to read my thoughts, then go here. But since the speculation about Brown's mental health is becoming pretty much a hobby for the national media, it is worth looking at another aspect to all this. Namely what this story means for mental health in general in this country.

Over at Liberal Conspiracy Laurie Penny argues that - if Brown is indeed on anti-depressants - it is a good thing:

My response? Good. Great. If the Prime Minister of Britain is suffering from depression or some other mental health condition, which given the stresses of his current position seems highly likely, then I’m glad he’s getting treatment for it. I’m glad he’s man enough to admit that he might need help.

Anti-depressants are used by millions of people in this country, although the stigma attached means that many of us don’t talk about it, and in almost all cases barring those of people detained against their will in institutions, the process is both voluntary and helpful. It takes courage to go to the doctor and say that you have a problem, even if you’re not a leading political figure who’s constantly in the public eye.

The first point is to question whether the best way to treat depression is actually through drugs. A psychiatrist would say so, but the anti-psychiatry movement would argue otherwise. By seeking medication, a depressive is simply looking to alleviate the symptoms rather than looking for a cure. If Brown is taking anti-depressants, then he should also be in some sort of therapy as well. Which then leads potentially to the dual revelation that the sitting Prime Minister is not only taking drugs, but also is in therapy. And there would instantly be massive pressure on any therapist and brutal speculation about the nature of any therapy sessions. Yet it would be comforting to know that, in a scenario whereby someone is taking anti-depressants, they are also trying to reach the route cause of the condition through therapy.

Now, Penny is right to point to the stigma surrounding anti-depressants. And the stigma is wider than that. It is around the whole of mental illness, despite the prevalence of it within society. Penny argues that it is good that Brown - if he is mentally ill - to be "man enough" (a curious turn of phrase for a feminist) to go to the doctor. Again true. But there is a wider issue at play here. If Brown is suffering from depression, then his behaviour is doing nothing more than reinforcing the stigma, and building up the taboo, around mental illness. If he is suffering, then his secretive behaviour is showing other sufferers that mental illness is something to be swept under the carpet. Brown seems to be showing that depression is a dirty secret, something to be hidden away like the mad woman in the attic.

Of course, Brown has a right to privacy, even given his elevated position in this country. And I can understand why, given the speculation around his mental health and the snide insinuations that he is not capable of doing his job* if he is suffering from a psychiatric condition, he wouldn't want to go public if he is mentally ill. Hell, if I was in his position, I probably wouldn't want to go public either. But Brown's failure to discuss this issue is further hampering his already beleaguered administration and reinforcing the negative perception in this country that mental illness is a dirty secret to be ashamed of.

And there could be an upside to Brown talking about these issues in public. If he isn't suffering from depression, then a categorical statement to that effect won't stop the whispering, but will at least reduce it and make those perpetuating the rumour look vindictive and politically motivated.

On the other hand, he may go public and admit he has a mental illness.

If the latter happens, then there will be thousands of deeply personal questions and sickening insinuations. There will be arguments that he can't do his job. Yet there will also be a national debate about depression. For the first time, many people will be exposed to the truth about an illness that will, statistically, affect someone they know. Preconceptions, assumptions and downright ignorance can be challenged and overcome. Discrimination against those who suffer from depression and other mental illnesses can be met head on. Brown can become living proof that those who suffer from depression can still do their jobs and live their lives.

Ultimately, taboos aren't eliminated and discrimination isn't ended by silence. It requires those affected by the discrimination to stand up and talk. It relies on them to challenge the false assumptions of society as a whole. If Brown is suffering from depression and seriously wants to make a difference, he could go public with his illness. It isn't something he has to do, and it would require a level of courage that hasn't been seen in him thus far. But it would create a national debate about mental illness, and it could lead to Brown finding a positive place in history that, quite frankly, is not going to be forthcoming based on the rest of his premiership.

*He can't do his job, but that is down to his arrogance, Cabinet, lack of relevant policies and fucking stupid political beliefs.