Chapter 9 An Autoethnographic Examination of Anosognosia in a Sibling Exhibiting Severe Psychosis: Reimagining Inclusiveness in MHRR

Cynthia Ryan

What is the most important takeaway from your chapter? 

The most important takeaway from the chapter is that the dominant perspective in MHRR scholarship is not inclusive of individuals experiencing severe psychosis alongside anosognosia (a lack of self-awareness of mental illness).  This oversight is problematic, given the absence of an openness to rhetoricity among many in this population and the real threat these individuals often pose to themselves and others. 

If you were making discussion questions for students (advanced undergraduates or early graduate students) to go along with your chapter, what would they be?  

 In what ways do current constructions of mental illness in MHRR scholarship enable and constrain frameworks for analysis? 

Should medication and other forms of treatment be mandatory for individuals who suffer from severe psychosis and anosognosia? What is at stake from an ethical perspective and for whom?   

How has a biomedical perspective on mental illness further complicated the diagnosis and treatment of individuals, especially those exhibiting symptoms of severe psychosis and anosognosia? 

What questions do you feel your chapter leaves un-examined or where would you go with it next? 

How might MHRR scholars invite examinations of individuals with severe psychosis and anosognosia without forfeiting the ethical values established in the field? 

What form might co-survivor experiences take and how might they be addressed in MHRR scholarship? 

Is there anything that you want those considering doing work in MHR to know? 

While humanist values should guide MHRR scholars’ work, it is important to consider how this default approach to mental health rhetorics can lead to simplification of complex mental illnesses as well as complicated “rhetorical ecologies” in which mental illness is experienced. 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email