OCD Action

playthoseblues
Member

Hi Guys,

Sorry I haven't been on in a while, been really busy. Just saw an article on the Daily Mail website for OCD. Thought you might be interested, and at least it's getting awareness out there!

Jon

Linky: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2097587/Nurse-Debbie-Thomson-tells-overcame-battle-taboo-OCD.html

Tue Feb 7 2012 18:17:14 #
Cuthbert ffoliott
Moderator

Thanks for relaying that link to us, PTB. Now, I do not know about the general quality of the Daily Mail, but this article is what we need. There is no sensationalism or 'Schadenfreude' involved.

My only caveat: there's some emphasis on will power as a means of overcoming OCD. Yes, there are courageous folks, also at this site, who manage to apply techniques by themselves to put an end to their thoughts and actions, or at least to keep them in check.

But we must not enter the territory where prodding by laypersons is accepted, as in: 'hey, c'mon, show some character, you don't have enough willpower, don't be weak and stop all that useless checking of yours!'.

It's a thin line, and not without dangers, and it would be sad if some people, not in the know, would selectively remember only that 'will power' from the article.

But: in general, and read as a whole, it is mucho OK in my view. and I really am glad it's out there.

Wed Feb 8 2012 11:17:27 #
chloe
Member

Hi Jon,

Very interesting article, I can really relate to it.
Thankyou.

Love Chloe X

Wed Feb 8 2012 11:28:35 #
BT
Member

Did anyone read this comment?!

"The young mother, who has been on antidepressants three times ... Antidepressants should not have been prescribed as they would certainly NOT help with OCD. They are likely to be the reason for the suicidal thoughts that Debbie had, rather than the OCD itself." Dr John.

Wed Feb 8 2012 12:11:50 #
BT
Member

Or these (I've copied them with their errors as well as ignorance):

"Sad yes but she's quiet welcome to come around my house if she can't find anything ti clean at hers."

"Today weve got OCD, yesterday it was the girls who kept losing their skin. Why do these people want to share these distressing, embarressing conditions with the rest of the population? Five minutes of fame?? Personally, I dont think they`re playing with a full deck!!!!!"

"OCD yet another fashion label for self indulgence and lack of won't power....!!"

Wed Feb 8 2012 12:21:54 #
Cuthbert ffoliott
Moderator

Hi BT -

your quotes are opinions of ignorant people who like to vent their indignation on the internet; and portray themselves as 'righteous' and 'ornery' citizens. It is a sad fact that such comments can find their way to the average reader of the Mail's website (although they don't reach the paper version, of course).

I think that it is an ubiquitous phenomenon in modern media: the relativistic (and false) notion that 'the other side must be heard too', as if all opinions, the knowledgeable and the totally idiotic and uninformed, are of equal worth - which automatically leads to the publishing of aggressive and wrongful accusations, pure slander, and character assassinations.

Being uninformed is no crime. Being uninformed and still beating others into a pulp (virtually, I mean) certainly is. It is a moral transgression.

My advice: ignore the hate, and enjoy the article itself. That brings peace of mind. I deliberately never watched FoxNews, and never will. That improves life to a real extent.

Cheers, enjoy the day, and don't let those 'commenters' (I use the term with great reservations...) spoil your mood.

Cuthbert.

Wed Feb 8 2012 12:40:12 #
BT
Member

Thank you, Cuthbert, you are right, of course. What do you make of the doctor, though? If indeed he is a doctor!

Wed Feb 8 2012 12:50:37 #
Cuthbert ffoliott
Moderator

Hi BT -

thanks for pointing me to that 'doctor'! I dare safely place a bet that that commenter isn't a doctor, but some malicious imposter. Real doctors tend to not post such replys, by the way. Making such a statement out in the open can bring you into enormous trouble, in personal, financial, and occupational terms.

That said, his claims are a blatant lie. It would be awful if someone followed his 'advice'.

You raised an interesting question: we here have someone, who made a public statement, a wrong and potentially harmful statement, and in all probability deliberately created the impression that he is knowledgeable and a clinical expert.

Could he be sued?

Wed Feb 8 2012 13:11:44 #
chloe
Member

Hi,

I hadn't read the comments that followed the article. I am angry and upset by them.
If the so called reason for bringing OCD into the public eye was for self indulgence and five minutes of fame, how come I never told a soul for over forty years and it is sometimes called the secret illness because people like myself are to scared and ashamed to admit it?

What they have written is dangerous because it could prevent other sufferers from seeking help.
If I had read something like that it might have stopped me seeking help and God knows where I would be if that was the case.

I am so sorry to rant on, but it's ignorant comments like that which make it so hard for us to accept our illness and all the shame and stigma which surrounds us.

They should engage their brains and get their facts right before commenting on something that they know nothing about.

End of rant!!!!!! Sorry again!!!!!

Chloe X

Wed Feb 8 2012 15:15:39 #
Cuthbert ffoliott
Moderator

Hi Chloe -

no worry, lady. I admire the way you let off righteous steam here. It frees the mind and soul. Don't apologise, please.

The media should be moderating much, much more diligently, in cases like this one. And just block out what is so obviously ignorant garbage.

Two things:

- had the article been about cancer, there'd been most probably no comments of this nature. OCD is often kept secret, invisible to the outside world, and it is very underdiagnosed (or wrongly diagnosed). That causes stigma, negative branding. And it is awfully irresponsible for any medium to put such dreck online. Isn't there some watchdog that criticise sharply here, or intervene?

- the reason for still printing that offensive nonsense might well be: the filthy lucre. See: if all comments had been of a calm, decent, and praising nature, there would have been no ripples in the pond. But by making public those pieces of sh*t, the web page in question becomes controversial. And that attracts many more viewers, and generates many more 'unique hits' for the mail (i.e. visits). People love controversy. And sensation. And the Mail will be all too happy to inform its online advertisers about so many hits. And get paid well for that.

That's the way the world works, alas.

Wed Feb 8 2012 15:48:34 #
playthoseblues
Member

Hi Chloe,

I wouldn't worry at all about those comments. Loads of people go on there and just flame and troll the topic at hand.

And I can put on it 100% that Dr John is not a doctor, people just signing themselves off as different names. The only thing I disliked about the article was the bit with celebrities, I do think that is controversial.

Jon

Wed Feb 8 2012 16:43:14 #
Cuthbert ffoliott
Moderator

@Playthoseblues -

I had a brief glance, and I do think that the Mail has intervened here and there. At any rate, that stupid 'Dr John' got 5 negative judgments from others on his record. There are more really emphatic comments now. And it looks like a real doc has chimed in too (giving his location as Mayfair).

Now, about the celebrities - I think that can have its advantages. Mind: I detest 'celeb culture' in general, it probably the most useless pastime for youngsters. But we have to accept that celebrities are role models in these days, and if a teenager reads that someone he admires a lot also suffers from OCD, that may give some comfort and support (apart from the just realisation that no one on the planet can be perfect, not even one's idols).

Also: please don't underestimate the effects of search engines. Someone may search for David Beckham on Google, and because the Mail is widely read, she/he has a fair chance of landing on the page with that article - and benefit from that.

But what I personally find grating: people labeling themselves as 'OCD' or 'control freak', just because they think it's fashionable, and that it will make them more interesting in any popular 'scene' or clique out there. That's a combination of ignorance and vanity in my book.

Wed Feb 8 2012 17:18:18 #
playthoseblues
Member

I totally agree with that last paragraph Cuthburt! It's when they write that Katy Perry has 'OCD' tendencies. That grates me!

Wed Feb 8 2012 17:42:38 #
Cuthbert ffoliott
Moderator

Hiya Playthoseblues -

I see your point better now, thanks for clarifying. Indeed: if a medium like the Mail chooses to illustrate an OCD story with some celeb examples, it should absolutely not mix up real and incapacitating OCD with 'tendencies' that may be inconsequential.

Hypothetical example: Imelda Marcos (from the Philippines) had thousands of pairs of shoes (and the money to purchase those). Suppose she'd have told some sensationalist news hack: 'Ooohhh, I suffer so much each morning, I need about 30 minutes to choose a pair... it's my OCD, you see...'.

I don't think that that would have been to the advantage of our common cause.

Thu Feb 9 2012 12:02:54 #
jon
Member

Chloe,

1) The Daily Mail is an honorary member of the gutter press - they should have properly filtered those messages - but essentially they are only concerned about sales and controversy
2) Such open media will always attract the scum who are ever present around, they will crawl from the gutter given half a chance, and scum are normally best ignored or stepped upon.

Those comments angered me also, but so does dog poo on my shoe, and I treat them with same contempt.

Sat Feb 11 2012 17:51:50 #
chloe
Member

Hi Jon,

Well said !!!!!!

Chloe X

Sat Feb 11 2012 22:50:17 #