A recent open letter addressed to University of Ghana professor Ransford Gyampo has sparked discussions on the importance of language in the context of mental health. The letter, written by Nana Yaw Osei, Ph.D., criticizes the use of the term “mad” to describe individuals with serious mental illnesses (SMI). This critique highlights a broader need to address how mental health is perceived and discussed both publicly and in academia.
In the letter, Dr. Osei argues that terms like “mad” are not only derogatory but also epistemologically naïve and professionally offensive. The commentary reflects a growing awareness that language shapes public perception and stigma around mental health. In this context, it’s important to use terminology that respects the dignity of individuals living with mental health conditions. The United States Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) defines SMI as a diagnosable mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder that significantly interferes with an individual’s life.
Thailand faces similar challenges in changing perceptions around mental health. With rising cases of mental health issues among the population, how we frame our conversations becomes crucial. Using terms that trivialize serious mental health conditions can create barriers for those seeking help. The terminology used—whether in media, classrooms, or casual conversations—should reflect empathy and accuracy, avoiding the perpetuation of stereotypes.
The global implications for mental health language are significant. In Ghana, as in Thailand, economic hardships, social pressures, and cultural expectations add to the mental health burden. Hence, the potential effects of stigma amplified by careless language can have real consequences, discouraging people from seeking needed treatment or disclosing their struggles.
As the discourse around mental health evolves, it’s imperative to reflect on our language choices. In Thailand, educational campaigns and policy shifts need to emphasize mental health literacy. This approach would dismantle stereotypes, encourage positive dialogue, and support systems that foster mental well-being.
While cultural nuances exist between different societies, the universal goal is to foster a societal framework where mental illness is understood as a medical condition, not a personal failing. Moving forward, adopting sensitive language can contribute to creating environments that encourage support and healing, aligning with Thai values of compassion and respect.
The letter’s reminder to use expressions such as “died by suicide” instead of “committed suicide” addresses the neutrality required when discussing mental health. Such shifts in language foster a more compassionate and realistic understanding of mental health struggles, compelling Thailand to examine and modernize its own narratives surrounding mental health.
For individuals and policymakers, the actionable step is to embrace and promote mental health awareness and advocacy. Resources should be directed at educating the public, reducing stigma, and promoting terminology that is both accurate and respectful. This reflective practice not only aids in professional settings but also in everyday language that can empower those living with mental health challenges to lead fuller lives.