It is a course of mental illness related to sociology.Please read the attached files and watch the video (link below) to understand the task properly. Its one page writing with any of the following–

We're the ideal place for homework help. If you are looking for affordable, custom-written, high-quality and non-plagiarized papers, your student life just became easier with us. Click either of the buttons below to place your order.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

It is a  course of mental illness related to sociology.Please read the attached files and watch the video (link below) to understand the task properly. Its one page writing with any of the following–> a TikTok vedio, advertisement, media post related to mental health.

Must watch-  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZvEUbtTBes&t=344s

Please complete 3 separate sanism of each 1 page (which means three separate writing with two separate attachment)

Depictions of sanism, share the media (photo,tweet, link, screenshot, etc.), and provide a 1-page summary discussing how sanism is identifiedin your media choice and how it is being rendered invisible

Sanism and language of mental illness- https://ivacheung.com/2015/05/sanism-and-the-language-of-mental-illness/

http://madstudiesne.weebly.com/everyday-sanism.html

Please make sure it’s plagiarism free

There is a sample doc attached of how it should look.Attach reference.

It is a course of mental illness related to sociology.Please read the attached files and watch the video (link below) to understand the task properly. Its one page writing with any of the following–
Malcolm Gladwell Feb. 13, 2006 The New Yorker (Vol. 81, Issue 46) Conde Nast Publications, Inc. Article 6,308 wordsFull Text: Murray Barr was a bear of a man, an ex-marine, six feet tall and heavyset, and when he fell down–which he did nearly every day–itcould take two or three grown men to pick him up. He had straight black hair and olive skin. On the street, they called him Smokey.He was missing most of his teeth. He had a wonderful smile. People loved Murray.His chosen drink was vodka. Beer he called “horse piss.” On the streets of downtown Reno, where he lived, he could buy a two-hundred-and-fifty-millilitre bottle of cheap vodka for a dollar-fifty. If he was flush, he could go for the seven-hundred-and-fifty-millilitrebottle, and if he was broke he could always do what many of the other homeless people of Reno did, which is to walk through thecasinos and finish off the half-empty glasses of liquor left at the gaming tables.”If he was on a runner, we could pick him up several times a day,” Patrick O’Bryan, who is a bicycle cop in downtown Reno, said.”And he’s gone on some amazing runners. He would get picked up, get detoxed, then get back out a couple of hours later and startup again. A lot of the guys on the streets who’ve been drinking, they get so angry. They are so incredibly abrasive, so violent, soabusive. Murray was such a character and had such a great sense of humor that we somehow got past that. Even when he wasabusive, we’d say, ‘Murray, you know you love us,’ and he’d say, ‘I know’–and go back to swearing at us.””I’ve been a police officer for fifteen years,” O’Bryan’s partner, Steve Johns, said. “I picked up Murray my whole career. Literally.”Johns and O’Bryan pleaded with Murray to quit drinking. A few years ago, he was assigned to a treatment program in which he wasunder the equivalent of house arrest, and he thrived. He got a job and worked hard. But then the program ended. “Once hegraduated out, he had no one to report to, and he needed that,” O’Bryan said. “I don’t know whether it was his military background. Isuspect that it was. He was a good cook. One time, he accumulated savings of over six thousand dollars. Showed up for workreligiously. Did everything he was supposed to do. They said, ‘Congratulations,’ and put him back on the street. He spent that sixthousand in a week or so.”Often, he was too intoxicated for the drunk tank at the jail, and he’d get sent to the emergency room at either Saint Mary’s or WashoeMedical Center. Marla Johns, who was a social worker in the emergency room at Saint Mary’s, saw him several times a week. “Theambulance would bring him in. We would sober him up, so he would be sober enough to go to jail. And we would call the police topick him up. In fact, that’s how I met my husband.” Marla Johns is married to Steve Johns.”He was like the one constant in an environment that was ever changing,” she went on. “In he would come. He would grin that half-toothless grin. He called me ‘my angel.’ I would walk in the room, and he would smile and say, ‘Oh, my angel, I’m so happy to seeyou.’ We would joke back and forth, and I would beg him to quit drinking and he would laugh it off. And when time went by and hedidn’t come in I would get worried and call the coroner’s office. When he was sober, we would find out, oh, he’s working someplace,and my husband and I would go and have dinner where he was working. When my husband and I were dating, and we were going toget married, he said, ‘Can I come to the wedding?’ And I almost felt like he should. My joke was ‘If you are sober you can come,because I can’t afford your bar bill.’ When we started a family, he would lay a hand on my pregnant belly and bless the child. He reallywas this kind of light.”In the fall of 2003, the Reno Police Department started an initiative designed to limit panhandling in the downtown core. There werearticles in the newspapers, and the police department came under harsh criticism on local talk radio. The crackdown on panhandlingamounted to harassment, the critics said. The homeless weren’t an imposition on the city; they were just trying to get by. “Onemorning, I’m listening to one of the talk shows, and they’re just trashing the police department and going on about how unfair it is,”O’Bryan said. “And I thought, Wow, I’ve never seen any of these critics in one of the alleyways in the middle of the winter looking forbodies.” O’Bryan was angry. In downtown Reno, food for the homeless was plentiful: there was a Gospel kitchen and CatholicServices, and even the local McDonald’s fed the hungry. The panhandling was for liquor, and the liquor was anything but harmless. He and Johns spent at least half their time dealing with people like Murray; they were as much caseworkers as police officers. Andthey knew they weren’t the only ones involved. When someone passed out on the street, there was a “One down” call to theparamedics. There were four people in an ambulance, and the patient sometimes stayed at the hospital for days, because living onthe streets in a state of almost constant intoxication was a reliable way of getting sick. None of that, surely, could be cheap.O’Bryan and Johns called someone they knew at an ambulance service and then contacted the local hospitals. “We came up withthree names that were some of our chronic inebriates in the downtown area, that got arrested the most often,” O’Bryan said. “Wetracked those three individuals through just one of our two hospitals. One of the guys had been in jail previously, so he’d only been onthe streets for six months. In those six months, he had accumulated a bill of a hundred thousand dollars–and that’s at the smaller ofthe two hospitals near downtown Reno. It’s pretty reasonable to assume that the other hospital had an even larger bill. Anotherindividual came from Portland and had been in Reno for three months. In those three months, he had accumulated a bill for sixty-fivethousand dollars. The third individual actually had some periods of being sober, and had accumulated a bill of fifty thousand.”The first of those people was Murray Barr, and Johns and O’Bryan realized that if you totted up all his hospital bills for the ten yearsthat he had been on the streets–as well as substance-abuse-treatment costs, doctors’ fees, and other expenses–Murray Barrprobably ran up a medical bill as large as anyone in the state of Nevada.”It cost us one million dollars not to do something about Murray,” O’Bryan said.Fifteen years ago, after the Rodney King beating, the Los Angeles Police Department was in crisis. It was accused of racialinsensitivity and ill discipline and violence, and the assumption was that those problems had spread broadly throughout the rank andfile. In the language of statisticians, it was thought that L.A.P.D.’s troubles had a “normal” distribution–that if you graphed them theresult would look like a bell curve, with a small number of officers at one end of the curve, a small number at the other end, and thebulk of the problem situated in the middle. The bell-curve assumption has become so much a part of our mental architecture that wetend to use it to organize experience automatically.But when the L.A.P.D. was investigated by a special commission headed by Warren Christopher, a very different picture emerged.Between 1986 and 1990, allegations of excessive force or improper tactics were made against eighteen hundred of the eighty-fivehundred officers in the L.A.P.D. The broad middle had scarcely been accused of anything. Furthermore, more than fourteen hundredofficers had only one or two allegations made against them–and bear in mind that these were not proven charges, that theyhappened in a four-year period, and that allegations of excessive force are an inevitable feature of urban police work. (The N.Y.P.D.receives about three thousand such complaints a year.) A hundred and eighty-three officers, however, had four or more complaintsagainst them, forty-four officers had six or more complaints, sixteen had eight or more, and one had sixteen complaints. If you were tograph the troubles of the L.A.P.D., it wouldn’t look like a bell curve. It would look more like a hockey stick. It would follow whatstatisticians call a “power law” distribution–where all the activity is not in the middle but at one extreme.The Christopher Commission’s report repeatedly comes back to what it describes as the extreme concentration of problematicofficers. One officer had been the subject of thirteen allegations of excessive use of force, five other complaints, twenty-eight “use offorce reports” (that is, documented, internal accounts of inappropriate behavior), and one shooting. Another had six excessive-forcecomplaints, nineteen other complaints, ten use-of-force reports, and three shootings. A third had twenty-seven use-of-force reports,and a fourth had thirty-five. Another had a file full of complaints for doing things like “striking an arrestee on the back of the neck withthe butt of a shotgun for no apparent reason while the arrestee was kneeling and handcuffed,” beating up a thirteen-year-old juvenile,and throwing an arrestee from his chair and kicking him in the back and side of the head while he was handcuffed and lying on hisstomach.The report gives the strong impression that if you fired those forty-four cops the L.A.P.D. would suddenly become a pretty well-functioning police department. But the report also suggests that the problem is tougher than it seems, because those forty-four badcops were so bad that the institutional mechanisms in place to get rid of bad apples clearly weren’t working. If you made the mistakeof assuming that the department’s troubles fell into a normal distribution, you’d propose solutions that would raise the performance ofthe middle–like better training or better hiring–when the middle didn’t need help. For those hard-core few who did need help,meanwhile, the medicine that helped the middle wouldn’t be nearly strong enough.In the nineteen-eighties, when homelessness first surfaced as a national issue, the assumption was that the problem fit a normaldistribution: that the vast majority of the homeless were in the same state of semi-permanent distress. It was an assumption that breddespair: if there were so many homeless, with so many problems, what could be done to help them? Then, fifteen years ago, a youngBoston College graduate student named Dennis Culhane lived in a shelter in Philadelphia for seven weeks as part of the research forhis dissertation. A few months later he went back, and was surprised to discover that he couldn’t find any of the people he hadrecently spent so much time with. “It made me realize that most of these people were getting on with their own lives,” he said.Culhane then put together a database–the first of its kind–to track who was coming in and out of the shelter system. What hediscovered profoundly changed the way homelessness is understood. Homelessness doesn’t have a normal distribution, it turned out.It has a power-law distribution. “We found that eighty per cent of the homeless were in and out really quickly,” he said. “InPhiladelphia, the most common length of time that someone is homeless is one day. And the second most common length is twodays. And they never come back. Anyone who ever has to stay in a shelter involuntarily knows that all you think about is how to makesure you never come back.”The next ten per cent were what Culhane calls episodic users. They would come for three weeks at a time, and return periodically,particularly in the winter. They were quite young, and they were often heavy drug users. It was the last ten per cent–the group at thefarthest edge of the curve–that interested Culhane the most. They were the chronically homeless, who lived in the shelters, sometimes for years at a time. They were older. Many were mentally ill or physically disabled, and when we think abouthomelessness as a social problem–the people sleeping on the sidewalk, aggressively panhandling, lying drunk in doorways, huddledon subway grates and under bridges–it’s this group that we have in mind. In the early nineteennineties, Culhane’s databasesuggested that New York City had a quarter of a million people who were homeless at some point in the previous half decade –whichwas a surprisingly high number. But only about twenty-five hundred were chronically homeless.It turns out, furthermore, that this group costs the health-care and social-services systems far more than anyone had ever anticipated.Culhane estimates that in New York at least sixty-two million dollars was being spent annually to shelter just those twenty-fivehundred hard-core homeless. “It costs twenty-four thousand dollars a year for one of these shelter beds,” Culhane said. “We’retalking about a cot eighteen inches away from the next cot.” Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program, a leading service groupfor the homeless in Boston, recently tracked the medical expenses of a hundred and nineteen chronically homeless people. In thecourse of five years, thirty-three people died and seven more were sent to nursing homes, and the group still accounted for 18,834emergencyroom visits–at a minimum cost of a thousand dollars a visit. The University of California, San Diego Medical Centerfollowed fifteen chronically homeless inebriates and found that over eighteen months those fifteen people were treated at thehospital’s emergency room four hundred and seventeen times, and ran up bills that averaged a hundred thousand dollars each. Oneperson–San Diego’s counterpart to Murray Barr–came to the emergency room eighty-seven times.”If it’s a medical admission, it’s likely to be the guys with the really complex pneumonia,” James Dunford, the city of San Diego’semergency medical director and the author of the observational study, said. “They are drunk and they aspirate and get vomit in theirlungs and develop a lung abscess, and they get hypothermia on top of that, because they’re out in the rain. They end up in theintensive-care unit with these very complicated medical infections. These are the guys who typically get hit by cars and buses andtrucks. They often have a neurosurgical catastrophe as well. So they are very prone to just falling down and cracking their head andgetting a subdural hematoma, which, if not drained, could kill them, and it’s the guy who falls down and hits his head who ends upcosting you at least fifty thousand dollars. Meanwhile, they are going through alcoholic withdrawal and have devastating liver diseasethat only adds to their inability to fight infections. There is no end to the issues. We do this huge drill. We run up big lab fees, and thenurses want to quit, because they see the same guys come in over and over, and all we’re doing is making them capable of walkingdown the block.”The homelessness problem is like the L.A.P.D.’s bad-cop problem. It’s a matter of a few hard cases, and that’s good news, becausewhen a problem is that concentrated you can wrap your arms around it and think about solving it. The bad news is that those fewhard cases are hard. They are falling-down drunks with liver disease and complex infections and mental illness. They need time andattention and lots of money. But enormous sums of money are already being spent on the chronically homeless, and Culhane sawthat the kind of money it would take to solve the homeless problem could well be less than the kind of money it took to ignore it.Murray Barr used more health-care dollars, after all, than almost anyone in the state of Nevada. It would probably have been cheaperto give him a full-time nurse and his own apartment.The leading exponent for the power-law theory of homelessness is Philip Mangano, who, since he was appointed by President Bushin 2002, has been the executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, a group that oversees the programs oftwenty federal agencies. Mangano is a slender man, with a mane of white hair and a magnetic presence, who got his start as anadvocate for the homeless in Massachusetts. In the past two years, he has crisscrossed the United States, educating local mayorsand city councils about the real shape of the homelessness curve. Simply running soup kitchens and shelters, he argues, allows thechronically homeless to remain chronically homeless. You build a shelter and a soup kitchen if you think that homelessness is aproblem with a broad and unmanageable middle. But if it’s a problem at the fringe it can be solved. So far, Mangano has convincedmore than two hundred cities to radically reevaluate their policy for dealing with the homeless.”I was in St. Louis recently,” Mangano said, back in June, when he dropped by New York on his way to Boise, Idaho. “I spoke withpeople doing services there. They had a very difficult group of people they couldn’t reach no matter what they offered. So I said, Takesome of your money and rent some apartments and go out to those people, and literally go out there with the key and say to them,’This is the key to an apartment. If you come with me right now I am going to give it to you, and you are going to have that apartment.’And so they did. And one by one those people were coming in. Our intent is to take homeless policy from the old idea of fundingprograms that serve homeless people endlessly and invest in results that actually end homelessness.”Mangano is a history buff, a man who sometimes falls asleep listening to old Malcolm X speeches, and who peppers his remarks withreferences to the civil-rights movement and the Berlin Wall and, most of all, the fight against slavery. “I am an abolitionist,” he says.”My office in Boston was opposite the monument to the 54th Regiment on the Boston Common, up the street from the Park StreetChurch, where William Lloyd Garrison called for immediate abolition, and around the corner from where Frederick Douglass gave thatfamous speech at the Tremont Temple. It is very much ingrained in me that you do not manage a social wrong. You should be endingit.”The old Y.M.C.A. in downtown Denver is on Sixteenth Street, just east of the central business district. The main building is ahandsome six-story stone structure that was erected in 1906, and next door is an annex that was added in the nineteen-fifties. On theground floor there is a gym and exercise rooms. On the upper floors there are several hundred apartments–brightly painted one-bedrooms, efficiencies, and S.R.O.-style rooms with microwaves and refrigerators and central airconditioning–and for the pastseveral years those apartments have been owned and managed by the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless.Even by big-city standards, Denver has a serious homelessness problem. The winters are relatively mild, and the summers aren’tnearly as hot as those of neighboring New Mexico or Utah, which has made the city a magnet for the indigent. By the city’s estimates,it has roughly a thousand chronically homeless people, of whom three hundred spend their time downtown, along the centralSixteenth Street shopping corridor or in nearby Civic Center Park. Many of the merchants downtown worry that the presence of the homeless is scaring away customers. A few blocks north, near the hospital, a modest, low-slung detox center handles twenty-eightthousand admissions a year, many of them homeless people who have passed out on the streets, either from liquor or–as isincreasingly the case–from mouthwash. “Dr. Tichenor’s–Dr. Tich, they call it–is the brand of mouthwash they use,” says RoxaneWhite, the manager of the city’s social services. “You can imagine what that does to your gut.”Eighteen months ago, the city signed up with Mangano. With a mixture of federal and local funds, the C.C.H. inaugurated a newprogram that has so far enrolled a hundred and six people. It is aimed at the Murray Barrs of Denver, the people costing the systemthe most. C.C.H. went after the people who had been on the streets the longest, who had a criminal record, who had a problem withsubstance abuse or mental illness. “We have one individual in her early sixties, but looking at her you’d think she’s eighty,” RachelPost, the director of substance treatment at the C.C.H., said. (Post changed some details about her clients in order to protect theiridentity.) “She’s a chronic alcoholic. A typical day for her is she gets up and tries to find whatever she’s going to drink that day. Shefalls down a lot. There’s another person who came in during the first week. He was on methadone maintenance. He’d had psychiatrictreatment. He was incarcerated for eleven years, and lived on the streets for three years after that, and, if that’s not enough, he had ahole in his heart.”The recruitment strategy was as simple as the one that Mangano had laid out in St. Louis: Would you like a free apartment? Theenrollees got either an efficiency at the Y.M.C.A. or an apartment rented for them in a building somewhere else in the city, providedthey agreed to work within the rules of the program. In the basement of the Y, where the racquetball courts used to be, the coalitionbuilt a command center, staffed with ten caseworkers. Five days a week, between eight-thirty and ten in the morning, thecaseworkers meet and painstakingly review the status of everyone in the program. On the wall around the conference table areseveral large white boards, with lists of doctor’s appointments and court dates and medication schedules. “We need a staffing ratio ofone to ten to make it work,” Post said. “You go out there and you find people and assess how they’re doing in their residence.Sometimes we’re in contact with someone every day. Ideally, we want to be in contact every couple of days. We’ve got about fifteenpeople we’re really worried about now.”The cost of services comes to about ten thousand dollars per homeless client per year. An efficiency apartment in Denver averages$376 a month, or just over forty-five hundred a year, which means that you can house and care for a chronically homeless person forat most fifteen thousand dollars, or about a third of what he or she would cost on the street. The idea is that once the people in theprogram get stabilized they will find jobs, and start to pick up more and more of their own rent, which would bring someone’s annualcost to the program closer to six thousand dollars. As of today, seventy-five supportive housing slots have already been added, andthe city’s homeless plan calls for eight hundred more over the next ten years.The reality, of course, is hardly that neat and tidy. The idea that the very sickest and most troubled of the homeless can be stabilizedand eventually employed is only a hope. Some of them plainly won’t be able to get there: these are, after all, hard cases. “We’ve gotone man, he’s in his twenties,” Post said. “Already, he has cirrhosis of the liver. One time he blew a blood alcohol of .49, which isenough to kill most people. The first place we had he brought over all his friends, and they partied and trashed the place and broke awindow. Then we gave him another apartment, and he did the same thing.”Post said that the man had been sober for several months. But he could relapse at some point and perhaps trash another apartment,and they’d have to figure out what to do with him next. Post had just been on a conference call with some people in New York Citywho run a similar program, and they talked about whether giving clients so many chances simply encourages them to behaveirresponsibly. For some people, it probably does. But what was the alternative? If this young man was put back on the streets, hewould cost the system even more money. The current philosophy of welfare holds that government assistance should be temporaryand conditional, to avoid creating dependency. But someone who blows .49 on a Breathalyzer and has cirrhosis of the liver at the ageof twenty-seven doesn’t respond to incentives and sanctions in the usual way. “The most complicated people to work with are thosewho have been homeless for so long that going back to the streets just isn’t scary to them,” Post said. “The summer comes along andthey say, ‘I don’t need to follow your rules.’ ” Power-law homelessness policy has to do the opposite of normal-distribution socialpolicy. It should create dependency: you want people who have been outside the system to come inside and rebuild their lives underthe supervision of those ten caseworkers in the basement of the Y.M.C.A.That is what is so perplexing about power-law homeless policy. From an economic perspective the approach makes perfect sense.But from a moral perspective it doesn’t seem fair. Thousands of people in the Denver area no doubt live day to day, work two or threejobs, and are eminently deserving of a helping hand–and no one offers them the key to a new apartment. Yet that’s just what the guyscreaming obscenities and swigging Dr. Tich gets. When the welfare mom’s time on public assistance runs out, we cut her off. Yetwhen the homeless man trashes his apartment we give him another. Social benefits are supposed to have some kind of moraljustification. We give them to widows and disabled veterans and poor mothers with small children. Giving the homeless guy passedout on the sidewalk an apartment has a different rationale. It’s simply about efficiency.We also believe that the distribution of social benefits should not be arbitrary. We don’t give only to some poor mothers, or to arandom handful of disabled veterans. We give to everyone who meets a formal criterion, and the moral credibility of governmentassistance derives, in part, from this universality. But the Denver homelessness program doesn’t help every chronically homelessperson in Denver. There is a waiting list of six hundred for the supportive-housing program; it will be years before all those people getapartments, and some may never get one. There isn’t enough money to go around, and to try to help everyone a little bit–to observethe principle of universality–isn’t as cost-effective as helping a few people a lot. Being fair, in this case, means providing shelters andsoup kitchens, and shelters and soup kitchens don’t solve the problem of homelessness. Our usual moral intuitions are little use,then, when it comes to a few hard cases. Power-law problems leave us with an unpleasant choice. We can be true to our principlesor we can fix the problem. We cannot do both.A few miles northwest of the old Y.M.C.A. in downtown Denver, on the Speer Boulevard off-ramp from I-25, there is a big electronic sign by the side of the road, connected to a device that remotely measures the emissions of the vehicles driving past. When a carwith properly functioning pollution-control equipment passes, the sign flashes “Good.” When a car passes that is well over theacceptable limits, the sign flashes “Poor.” If you stand at the Speer Boulevard exit and watch the sign for any length of time, you’ll findthat virtually every car scores “Good.” An Audi A4 –“Good.” A Buick Century–“Good.” A Toyota Corolla–“Good.” A Ford Taurus–“Good.” A Saab 9-5–“Good,” and on and on, until after twenty minutes or so, some beat-up old Ford Escort or tricked-out Porschedrives by and the sign flashes “Poor.” The picture of the smog problem you get from watching the Speer Boulevard sign and thepicture of the homelessness problem you get from listening in on the morning staff meetings at the Y.M.C.A. are pretty much thesame. Auto emissions follow a power-law distribution, and the airpollution example offers another look at why we struggle so muchwith problems centered on a few hard cases.Most cars, especially new ones, are extraordinarily clean. A 2004 Subaru in good working order has an exhaust stream that’s just .06per cent carbon monoxide, which is negligible. But on almost any highway, for whatever reason–age, ill repair, deliberate tamperingby the owner–a small number of cars can have carbon-monoxide levels in excess of ten per cent, which is almost two hundred timeshigher. In Denver, five per cent of the vehicles on the road produce fifty-five per cent of the automobile pollution.”Let’s say a car is fifteen years old,” Donald Stedman says. Stedman is a chemist and automobile-emissions specialist at theUniversity of Denver. His laboratory put up the sign on Speer Avenue. “Obviously, the older a car is the more likely it is to becomebroken. It’s the same as human beings. And by broken we mean any number of mechanical malfunctions–the computer’s not workinganymore, fuel injection is stuck open, the catalyst died. It’s not unusual that these failure modes result in high emissions. We have atleast one car in our database which was emitting seventy grams of hydrocarbon per mile, which means that you could almost drive aHonda Civic on the exhaust fumes from that car. It’s not just old cars. It’s new cars with high mileage, like taxis. One of the mostsuccessful and least publicized control measures was done by a district attorney in L.A. back in the nineties. He went to LAX anddiscovered that all of the Bell Cabs were gross emitters. One of those cabs emitted more than its own weight of pollution every year.”In Stedman’s view, the current system of smog checks makes little sense. A million motorists in Denver have to go to an emissionscenter every year–take time from work, wait in line, pay fifteen or twenty-five dollars–for a test that more than ninety per cent of themdon’t need. “Not everybody gets tested for breast cancer,” Stedman says. “Not everybody takes an AIDS test.” On-site smog checks,furthermore, do a pretty bad job of finding and fixing the few outliers. Car enthusiasts–with high-powered, high-polluting sports cars–have been known to drop a clean engine into their car on the day they get it tested. Others register their car in a faraway town withoutemissions testing or arrive at the test site “hot”–having just come off hard driving on the freeway–which is a good way to make a dirtyengine appear to be clean. Still others randomly pass the test when they shouldn’t, because dirty engines are highly variable andsometimes burn cleanly for short durations. There is little evidence, Stedman says, that the city’s regime of inspections makes anydifference in air quality.He proposes mobile testing instead. Twenty years ago, he invented a device the size of a suitcase that uses infrared light to instantlymeasure and then analyze the emissions of cars as they drive by on the highway. The Speer Avenue sign is attached to one ofStedman’s devices. He says that cities should put half a dozen or so of his devices in vans, park them on freeway off-ramps aroundthe city, and have a police car poised to pull over anyone who fails the test. A half-dozen vans could test thirty thousand cars a day.For the same twenty-five million dollars that Denver’s motorists now spend on on-site testing, Stedman estimates, the city couldidentify and fix twenty-five thousand truly dirty vehicles every year, and within a few years cut automobile emissions in the Denvermetropolitan area by somewhere between thirty-five and forty per cent. The city could stop managing its smog problem and startending it.Why don’t we all adopt the Stedman method? There’s no moral impediment here. We’re used to the police pulling people over forhaving a blown headlight or a broken side mirror, and it wouldn’t be difficult to have them add pollution-control devices to their list. Yetit does run counter to an instinctive social preference for thinking of pollution as a problem to which we all contribute equally. Wehave developed institutions that move reassuringly quickly and forcefully on collective problems. Congress passes a law. TheEnvironmental Protection Agency promulgates a regulation. The auto industry makes its cars a little cleaner, and–presto–the air getsbetter. But Stedman doesn’t much care about what happens in Washington and Detroit. The challenge of controlling air pollution isn’tso much about the laws as it is about compliance with them. It’s a policing problem, rather than a policy problem, and there issomething ultimately unsatisfying about his proposed solution. He wants to end air pollution in Denver with a half-dozen vans outfittedwith a contraption about the size of a suitcase. Can such a big problem have such a small-bore solution?That’s what made the findings of the Christopher Commission so unsatisfying. We put together blue-ribbon panels when we’re facedwith problems that seem too large for the normal mechanisms of bureaucratic repair. We want sweeping reforms. But what was thecommission’s most memorable observation? It was the story of an officer with a known history of doing things like beating uphandcuffed suspects who nonetheless received a performance review from his superior stating that he “usually conducts himself in amanner that inspires respect for the law and instills public confidence.” This is what you say about an officer when you haven’tactually read his file, and the implication of the Christopher Commission’s report was that the L.A.P.D. might help solve its problemsimply by getting its police captains to read the files of their officers. The L.A.P.D.’s problem was a matter not of policy but ofcompliance. The department needed to adhere to the rules it already had in place, and that’s not what a public hungry for institutionaltransformation wants to hear. Solving problems that have power-law distributions doesn’t just violate our moral intuitions; it violatesour political intuitions as well. It’s hard not to conclude, in the end, that the reason we treated the homeless as one hopelessundifferentiated group for so long is not simply that we didn’t know better. It’s that we didn’t want to know better. It was easier the oldway.Power-law solutions have little appeal to the right, because they involve special treatment for people who do not deserve specialtreatment; and they have little appeal to the left, because their emphasis on efficiency over fairness suggests the cold number-crunching of Chicago-school cost-benefit analysis. Even the promise of millions of dollars in savings or cleaner air or better police departments cannot entirely compensate for such discomfort. In Denver, John Hickenlooper, the city’s enormously popular mayor,has worked on the homelessness issue tirelessly during the past couple of years. He spent more time on the subject in his annualState of the City address this past summer than on any other topic. He gave the speech, with deliberate symbolism, in the city’sdowntown Civic Center Park, where homeless people gather every day with their shopping carts and garbage bags. He has gone onlocal talk radio on many occasions to discuss what the city is doing about the issue. He has commissioned studies to show what adrain on the city’s resources the homeless population has become. But, he says, “there are still people who stop me going into thesupermarket and say, ‘I can’t believe you’re going to help those homeless people, those bums.’ “Early one morning a year ago, Marla Johns got a call from her husband, Steve. He was at work. “He called and woke me up,” Johnsremembers. “He was choked up and crying on the phone. And I thought that something had happened with another police officer. Isaid, ‘Oh, my gosh, what happened?’ He said, ‘Murray died last night.’ ” He died of intestinal bleeding. At the police department thatmorning, some of the officers gave Murray a moment of silence.”There are not many days that go by that I don’t have a thought of him,” she went on. “Christmas comes– and I used to buy him aChristmas present. Make sure he had warm gloves and a blanket and a coat. There was this mutual respect. There was a time whenanother intoxicated patient jumped off the gurney and was coming at me, and Murray jumped off his gurney and shook his fist andsaid, ‘Don’t you touch my angel.’ You know, when he was monitored by the system he did fabulously. He would be on house arrestand he would get a job and he would save money and go to work every day, and he wouldn’t drink. He would do all the things he wassupposed to do. There are some people who can be very successful members of society if someone monitors them. Murray neededsomeone to be in charge of him.”But, of course, Reno didn’t have a place where Murray could be given the structure he needed. Someone must have decided that itcost too much.”I told my husband that I would claim his body if no one else did,” she said. “I would not have him in an unmarked grave.”MALCOLM GLADWELL COPYRIGHT 2006 All rights reserved. Reproduced by permission of The Condé Nast Publications, Inc. http://www.newyorker.com/ (MLA 9th Edition)    Gladwell, Malcolm. “MILLION-DOLLAR MURRAY.” , vol. 81, no. 46, 13 Feb. 2006, p. 96. , link.gale.com/apps/doc/A142490814/CPI?u=winn62981&sid=bookmark-CPI&xid=9efd65c0 . Accessed 10 Aug. 2022. GALE|A142490814
It is a course of mental illness related to sociology.Please read the attached files and watch the video (link below) to understand the task properly. Its one page writing with any of the following–
LABELING AND STIGMASeptember 26 & 28 Everyday Sanism•-isms are a fundamental topic for critical scrutiny in sociology•classism, heterosexism, ethnocentrism, ableism, racism, sexism/genderism, and ageism•understandingthe ways in which normative practices and beliefs function to oppress and discriminate those on the periphery•Sanismisasystem,orwaythatmakesitokayforsocietytoother(pickon,makefunof,discriminate,reject,silence)people with mental health disorders•The –isms are similar in that they can be stereotypes (how we think), prejudice (how we feel) and discrimination (how we act) towards others Instagram Tw i t t e r Tik Tok Novelty Shops Sociological Imagination•C. Wright Mills•“Thesociologicalimagination enables us to grasp history and biography and the relations between the two within society that is its task and its promise”•Private Troubles Social Problems SanismAssignment•Who created this text/media and why?•What is being presented in the material/text?•What argument does it make?•What kinds of images are used and why?•How is the main subject (situation, person, policy etc.) being constructed/presented? &/orWhat is the main concern, issue, tensions and how is it presented?•Whose point of views presented? challenged? How is it being told?•How do sociological concepts such as (social norms, power, values, groups, beliefs, gender, race, orientation, etc.) help to understand how audiences may ‘read’/understand the material/subject?•What/how are assumed truths/ assumptions/ take for granted wisdom contested (orenacted) in the text/media (by who? & What is response) Who experiences mental illness?1,2•In anygivenyear,1in7 Canadians experiencesamentalillness•1 in3Canadians will be affected by mental illness in their lifetime•Everyyear,1in7peopleusehealthservicesformentalillness•Canadianfemales are 30% more likely than males to use health services for mental illness•Young people aged 15 to 24 are more likely to experience mental illness and/or substance use disorders than any other age group•Men have higher rates of substance use disorders than women, while women have higher rates of mood and anxiety disorders•Canadians in the lowest income group are 3 to 4 times more likely than those in the highest income group to report poor to fair mental health•Studies in various Canadian cities have indicated that between 23% and 67% of homeless people may have a mental illness ‘Sick Role’3Temporary social role that individuals take when they become illPatter n of behaviourthat people must do as part of the “responsibility” of being sick•The sickpersonisexemptfromnormalsocialroles•The sick person is not responsible for their condition•The sickpersonisobligatedtogetwell•The sick person is obligated to seek technically competent help Criticisms•Focus on acute illness rather than chronic illness•Limited toselectphysical conditions, ignoring psychosocial conditions•Medico-centric with a professional bias against self-care•Decontextualized, failing to consider the influence of aspects of social location (culture, class, gender) Labeling ourselves and others as ‘ill’4Break the rules (primary deviance)Labeled as deviantAdopt the role of “deviant”Conform to the label (secondary deviance)•Thomas Szasz (1960) –”The myth of mental illness”•Howwelabelpeoplematters•LabelingTheory(ThomasScheff, 1 9 6 6 )•If a person breaks norms (cognitive, performance, feeling) they’re labeled as mentally ill (i.e., diagnosed). They then begin to act in accordance tothat label Labeling ourselves and others as ‘ill’5Labeled and social meanings of label become relevant to selfResponse: SecrecyWithdrawalEducationNegative consequences for self-esteem, earnings, social tiesVu l n e r a b l e t o new disorder or repeat episodes of existing disorder•What does thereactiontothelabellooklike?Whataretheconsequences?•Modified labeling theory (Link et al., 1989)•Key:beliefsaboutdevaluationanddiscrimination Stigma5•Erving Goffman, 1963•Stigma is “an attribute that is deeply discrediting” that reduces someon“from a whole and usual person to a tainted; discounted one”-Abominations of the body (i.e., deformities)-Blemishes of individual character (as inferred from mental illness, addiction, unemployment…)-“Tribal” identities (race, sex, religion, nationality)•Updated: Stigma exists when a person is labeled and thus linked to negative stereotypes; categorized as ”them”; and experience status loss, discrimination, and unequal outcomes (Link & Phelan, 2001, 2013) Do we see stigma toward Mental Disorder?•In some ways, the public has become more accepting•More willing to report having a mental disorder•More likely to approach others and utilize informal support to cope with mental disordersAnd yet…•Newspapers articles on mental disorder mention violence, criminals, use theme of fear •We don’t want to associate with people with mental disorders Experiences of Stigma6•In a 2019 survey of working Canadians•75%ofrespondentssaidtheywouldbereluctant(48%)–orwouldrefuse (27%) -to disclose a mental illness to an employer or co-worker•Respondentswerenearly3timeslesslikely to want to disclose a mental illness like depression than a physical one like cancer•To preasonsforthisreluctance were:The beliefthatthereisstigmaaroundmentalillnessNot wantingtobetreateddifferentlyorjudged,andBeing afraid of negative consequences, such as losing your job•However,76%ofrespondents stated that they themselves would be completely comfortable with and supportive of a colleague with mental illness Public Perceptions of Stigma7 What does stigmamean?•Negative judgement•Judgement based on one aspect of a person’s life•Long-lastinglabels•Disgrace•Embarrassment andshame•Something you are not proud of and what to hide•Being treated differently from the rest of societyHow does stigma affect people?•Violation ofhumanrights(e.g.,beingtreatedwithlessconsideration and respect when seeking medical care and housing)•Lackofemployment(losingjobsanddifficulty getting jobs)•Negative feelingsaboutthemselves(internalizing negative beliefs of others)•Avoiding services (e.g., disrespectful treatment)•Continuing substance use (to cope with other people’s negative attitudes and their own feelings) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQoiz4wfV_c&ab_channel=NationalCouncilofSocialService Things to reduce stigma71.Know the facts.Educate yourselfabout mental illness including substance use disorders.2.Be aware of your attitudes and behaviour. Examine your own judgmental thinking, reinforced by upbringing and society.3.Choose your words carefully. The way we speak can affect the attitudes of others.4.Educate others.Pass on f actsand positive attitudes; challenge myths and stereotypes.5.Focus on the positive. Mental illness, including addictions, are only part of anyone’s larger picture.6.Support people. Treat everyone with dignity and respect; offer support and encouragement.7.Include everyone. It’s against the law to deny jobs or services to anyone with these health issues. Reactions to StigmaElephant in the Room: Mood Disorders Society of CanadaBring Change to Mind: nonprofit started by Glenn Close ´Aggressive, ever-increasing sales targets in call centres, regardless of sick days, disability´Bullying by managers (pressure to meet targets)´Stress-related anxiety, depression, stress leave, physical health effects (e.g., ulcers), leaving the job´Bell denied the claimshttps://www.cbc.ca/news/health/bell-employees-stressed-by-sales-targets-1.4418876 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdUz0tlKZ78&ab_channel=BringChangetoMind Stigma Power8Bourdieu –symbolic powerPeople achieve three basic goals by stigmatizing other people:1)Exploitation/domination (keeping people down)2)Enforcement of social norms (keeping people in line)3)Avoidance(keepingpeopleaway)Stigmatization is an exercise of power –takespowertostigmatizeEffects of stigma are a social penalty (loss of status and potential for discrimination)Mechanismfordiscrimination-Direct person-to-person discrimination-Structural discrimination-Interactional discrimination-Discrimination operating through the stigmatized person Tics and Tik Tok References1.CAMH. (n.d.) Mental Illness and Addiction: Facts and Statistics. Retrieved from: https://www.camh.ca/en/driving-change/the-crisis-is-real/mental-health-statistics2.Government of Canada. (2020). Mental Illness in Canada. Retrieved from: https://health-infobase.canada.ca/datalab/mental-illness-blog.html3.Segall, A., Fries, C. (2011). Applying the Sociological Imagination to Health, Illness, and the Body in Pursuing Health and Wellness. (1stEdition), pp. 28-56.4.Cockerham, W.C. (2021) Mental Disorders as Deviant Behaviour(11thEdition), pp. 110-133.5.Cockerham, W.C. (2021). Stigma in Sociology of Mental Disorder (11thEdition), pp. 246-259.6.Ipsos. (2019). Mental illnesses increasingly recognized as disability, but stigma persists. Retrieved from https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/mental-illness-increasingly-recognized-as-disability7.CAMH. (n.d.) Addressing Stigma. Retrieved from: https://www.camh.ca/en/driving-change/addressing-stigma8.Link,B.,Phelan, J. (2014). Stigma Power. Social Science & Medicine, 103, 24-32.
It is a course of mental illness related to sociology.Please read the attached files and watch the video (link below) to understand the task properly. Its one page writing with any of the following–
Stigma strikes like the Lernaean hydra of myth, a multiheaded serpent capable of attack and injury from many directions. Stigma robs people with mental illness of rightful opportunities in work, education, housing and healthcare. It leads to institutionalisation and coercion where empowerment and recovery are required. It promotes internalised prejudice and why try reactions: ‘why should I try to live on my own; I am not competent!’. It creates structural inequities, for example government systems that fail to provide appropriate supports for mental health services. For these reasons, stigma is a major target of advocates who embrace strategies meant to eliminate its pernicious influence on society. Governments in most Western countries have joined with these groups to institute broad-based anti-stigma programmes. Australia rolled out Beyond Blue more than a decade ago with the UK joining the fray a few years later with Time to Change. The USA, Canada, and most member nations of the European Union have similar active programmes. Like many public health priorities, the zeal to rectify the problem sometimes gets ahead of the research examining the strategic impact. Fortunately, researchers are partnering with advocates to examine the impact of anti-stigma strategies, in the process yielding a portfolio of studies that begins to shed light on effectivev.ineffective approaches to stigma change. The paper by Clement and colleagues (this issue) provides a nice example of a well-crafted investigation of approaches to eliminating stigma. 1 Clement et alused experimental methods to contrast the effects of two contact-based approaches to changing stigma in the public with that of education; 1by contact we mean anti- stigma programmes that rely on planned interactions between people with mental illness and the public. The two contact strategies were: (a) a film-based intervention where viewers observed a group of service users and carers telling their stories of illness and recovery and (b) the same kind of narrative but with users and carers live and engaged in the setting (an in vivo strategy). Findings were compelling, for example the investigators showed both contact conditions yielded significantly better effects on attitudes about mental illness compared with education. Mostly, no difference was found between film-based and in vivoconditions. These findings join a burgeoning collection of research on stigma change strategies. A recently completed meta-analysis uncovered 79 studies that examined anti-stigma programmes yielding more than 600 effect sizes. 2Two results were especially relevant: consistent with Clements et al, contact yields significantly greater effects on attitudes and behavioural intentions than education. However, different from the findings of Clement and colleagues, in vivocontact seems to have a greater impact than video-based approaches. In vivo v.media-based approaches to stigma change Clement et al 1juxtapose two important agendas in stigma-change programmes: broad audience v.grassroots control. Videotaped contact has the potential for a broad audience: disseminating the video via a variety of online platforms and television networks exponentially increases exposure of the anti-stigma effort compared with face-to-face approaches. Pursuit of a broad audience widens the domain of outcome assessment beyond a direct impact (how does the stigma-change programme diminish stigmatising attitudes and discriminatory behaviours?) to notions of market penetration (what percentage of a population is aware of and can recall an anti-stigma message?). The inherent strength of broad audience approaches is that they can have an impact on a sizeable proportion of a population, something much harder to achieve when using in vivoapproaches. Video-based approaches can be distributed across networks or internet platforms with a conceivable impact on vast audiences. Distribution, however, is not sufficient. Viewers need to attend to the message and subsequently recall it for it to have an impact. This can be a difficult achievement in a media universe where the population is bombarded with public service messages. Effects can be further muted by the passive and seemingly repetitive nature of some social marketing approaches. Social networking sites like Facebook may promote the kind of active interaction that can enhance anti- stigma effects: discussion boards or the viral spread of anti-stigma messages among one’s friends network may augment the anti- stigma message. Still, social marketing critics are concerned about the potential of ‘slackeracy’, a kind of slack advocacy that happens from mindlessly endorsing a position on a webpage (like a pink ribbon in solidarity with people with breast cancer) that does not lead to any meaningful action for the cause. The use of a broad audience focus has been criticised as undermining grassroots control, i.e. the kind of resources needed 7 Research and the elimination of the stigma of mental illness { Patrick W. Corrigan Summary Video-based and in vivo(face-to-face) contact have been shown to be effective ways to change stigmatising attitudes and behaviours. The two approaches reflect the strengths and weakness of sometimes conflicting priorities in anti- stigma programmes: broad audience v.grassroots control. Regardless of perspective, anti-stigma interventions have the greatest impact when contact is targeted, local, credible and continuous. Declaration of interest None. The British Journal of Psychiatry (2012) 201, 7–8. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.111.103382 Editorial Patrick Corrigan is Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the Illinois Institute of Technology, where he is principal investigator of the National Consortium on Stigma and Empowerment (www.ncse1.org). {See pp. 57–64, this issue. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.111.103382 Published online by Cambridge University Press to produce social marketing campaigns are typically provided by governments or large non-governmental organisations partnered with advertising consortia. Government control centralises the effort and distances it from the mass of people with mental illness who are directly harmed by stigma, those likely to own the cause after a specific campaign runs its course. These large campaigns can be hijacked by government processes and agendas that lack the kind of flexibility needed to bring real change at the local level. Does this mean governments have no role in stigma change? After all, governments have been known to be potent forces for social justice. Opening Minds by the Canadian Mental Health Commission may have got it right. They built their programme on more than 75 user-based programmes distributed across the country’s ten provinces and three territories.Principles that promote a change in attitudes Whether it be a broad audience or a grassroots focus, there are five principles that promote strategic stigma change defined by the acronym TLC3: targeted, local, credible, continuous contact. 3 Contact with people with mental illness is fundamental to public stigma change Several factors enhance contact and are incorporated into the remaining four strategic stigma-change principles. Contact needs to be targeted Rather than focusing on the population as a whole, contact is more effective when targeting key groups, typically people in positions of power like employers, landlords, healthcare providers, legislators, and media outlets. Targeting stigma not only suggests the ‘who’ of strategic contact but also the corresponding ‘what’; what needs to be changed. These are affirming behaviours that seek to increase employer hires and landlord leases and the provision of quality health services to people with mental illness. Local contact programmes are more effective ‘Local’ has several meanings but may include geopolitical and diversity factors. It seems reasonable, for example, to believe that target-group interests are shared within geographical regions, such as the UK or more narrowly within a country like Wales. Still Wales is more homogeneous than other UK nations, and surely more so than the diversity of the European Union where rural, urban, and suburban considerations may vary greatly. Sociopolitical factors within more narrowly defined areas are also important. Large cities will include neighbourhoods of differing socio- economic status that are likely to influence target-group interests; for example, employers in impoverished parts of a city will require different contact than peers located in wealthy suburbs. In addition, rural and urban resources differ calling for distinct contact programmes. Given research on health and healthcare disparities, consideration of ethnicity and religious background is additionally important for crafting local programmes. Contacts must be credible The contact person should be similar to the target. This could mean employers, landlords, healthcare providers and police officers with mental illness present to other employers, landlords, healthcare providers and police officers. A message in addition to ‘people with mental illness recover!’ needs to be provided by a member of the target group; ‘The person in recovery can be successful’. For example, employers should tell peers that the person will be a good worker. Contact ‘partnerships’ are a good solution, combining consumers with representatives of the target group; think of the compelling civic group meeting where a person with mental illness talks about her recovery followed by the boss who discusses the success resulting from having hired her. Contact must be continuous One-time contact may have some positive effects but these are likely to be fleeting. Contact must occur multiple times with the quality of contact varying over time. This calls for different consumer and target partners, messages, venues and opportunities. It also reminds advocates that stigma change is not easily accomplished and requires not only ongoing efforts, but continual quality assessment of those efforts. Partnership with skilled investigators like Clement et alhelps achieve this goal. Continuous and local priorities also call for participatory action research, investigations that are equally directed by advocates and researchers. As advocates continue to partner with social marketers in order to erase the stigma of mental illness, they must continue to discern what works, from what does not, from what might actually result in unintended consequences. Many advocates wish to ‘educate away’ our problems, a principle that is largely not borne out by research. Face-to-face interchange with people with lived experience is essential. As we seek to disseminate these approaches to populations, we need to balance the benefits of media-based approaches with the strengths of grassroots inter- ventions. Careful and rigorous research like that conducted by Clement and colleagues is a model for continued efforts in this regard. Patrick W. Corrigan , PsyD, Distinguished Professor of Psychology, Illinois Institute of Technology, First Floor, 3424 S State Street, Chicago, Illinois, IL 60626, USA. Email: [email protected] First received 30 Sep 2011, final revision 16 Apr 2012, accepted 30 Apr 2012 Acknowledgement Partial support received from NIMH grant #1P20 MH085981-03. References 1 Clement S, van Nieuwenhuizen A, Kassam A, Flach C, Lazarus A, de Castros M, et al. Filmed v. live social contact interventions to reduce stigma: randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry2012;201: 57–64. 2 Corrigan PW, Morris SB, Michaels PJ, Rafacz JE, Rusch N. Challenging the public stigma of mental illness: a meta-analysis of outcome studies. Psychiatr Serv , in press. 3 Corrigan PW. Strategic stigma change (SSC): five principles for social marketing campaigns meant to erase the prejudice and discrimination of mental illness. Psychiatr Serv2011;62: 824–6. 8 Corrigan https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.111.103382 Published online by Cambridge University Press
It is a course of mental illness related to sociology.Please read the attached files and watch the video (link below) to understand the task properly. Its one page writing with any of the following–
Everyday Sanims Everyday Sanism Fatema Sumaiya Department of Sociology and Criminology, University of Manitoba Soc 3660: Sociology of Mental Disorder Erin Scott November 15th, 2022 Sanism The video was extracted from YouTube, whereby a famous comedian jokes about how people with depression deal with suicidal thoughts. A user named Mojo commented that African Americans express their sadness by playing the saxophone in the streets. (Netflix is a joke, 2021). The main concern is that people have something to smile about when it comes to suicidal thoughts and people facing depression. Mojo finds it funny that African Americans prefer to play the saxophone in the streets while faced with depression. It is also racist to conclude that African Americans are the only ones who relieve stress and depression through play the saxophone. It is a social norm to take care of people with mental illnesses. Mojo and the comedian fails to adhere to the norm whereby they take the jokes beyond what society expects. Racism is also not accepted in the current society, especially regarding issues concerning mental illness. Mojo fails to adhere to this, targeting a specific race in his comment. Mental illness can be treated through medical treatment or physiological therapies (William, 2016). This can be an effective way of assisting people with depression to recover. People with mental disabilities require moral and medical support. However, society has failed to give them the necessary support. People should indeed have fun but should consider the impact of their fun activities on the groups of people who will be affected. There is a need to look into each piece of information being presented to come up with the most appropriate conclusion. In this case, the comedian and audience have not paid attention to their actions’ impact on people facing depression. It might lead to more harm in case the information is perceived negatively. Reference: William, C. (2016). Sociology of Mental Disorder, Taylor & Francis Group. ProQuest Ebook Central. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/umanitoba/detail.action?docID=4710761. Netflix is a joke (2021). 14 minutes of Comedians reaffirming mental health struggles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWtUA0s3U4I&t=228s

Writerbay.net

Do you need academic writing help? Our quality writers are here 24/7, every day of the year, ready to support you! Instantly chat with a customer support representative in the chat on the bottom right corner, send us a WhatsApp message or click either of the buttons below to submit your paper instructions to the writing team.


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper
Writerbay.net