Hi, I'd like to help you with your question.
It depends on what kind of supports the person has in place. It certainly helps to have family close by, but if that family does not understand the mental illness or is dysfunctional, then it can be a hindrance. In that case, then a good therapist and helpful friends can be better supports and living apart may even be helpful.
If the family is supportive however, then living apart can be more difficult. But it can be done with the right supports in place.
If you have any more questions, please let me know.
I hope this helped you,Kate
Yes, it may be right for some people. It all depends on the circumstances.
I was wondering how to express this: sociologists describe it as the break up of the extended family - and that seems to be one process affecting isolation as people have moved towards the nuclear family.
Again the other point is the nuclear family mightin turn break up with the divorce rate.
Do you think this is accurate?
Yes, I'd agree that the break up of the family affects isolation. It is becoming more of an issue in our current times with the acceptance of divorce as an option. Family members are moving away from each other as well. It becomes more difficult to keep families in the same area. This can also affect isolation.
you mention that a dysfunctional family could be harmful
Do you think r d laings description of the family as developing kids in a double bind ( where whatever they they are told they are wrong) and of being batted like a ping pong between arguing parent would be an example of harmful family?
Yes, I agree that sounds like a harmful situation. However, R.D. Laing had a very different view of the causes of psychiatric conditions. Although childhood issues such as abusive parents and kids caught between arguing parents can be the cause of emotional distress, they are not always the only cause.
I didn't know wherther Laings view of Schizophrenia was applied just to kids as it normally occurs in you early twenties?
Here in the UK there are plans to treat Sz patients at home but I think a dysfunctional family may mean this was a bad idea?
My main question though would r d laings view of Sz mean that people diagnosed around that age mean people were better off in hospital?
I am not sure most people of this age group would still be living at home so I wonder at what sort of age living at home would become dysfunctional for patients in the manner described by Laing?
It very much depends on the situation of the patient. Patients are only better off in the hospital if they are a danger to themselves or others or truly cannot function in daily life outside of the hospital.
Staying with a dysfunctional family when dealing with a mental illness is not ideal. In that case, a group home or other similar situation with the support of therapists, counselors and psychiatrists as needed would be the best situation.
Although I am not as familiar with Laing's theory as other theorists, it does not appear that he is very clear on this topic.
The age at which someone should not be living at home would definitely have to be judged based on the individual's diagnosis and situation. And it would also depend on the family's ability to care for the individual and the level of dysfunction of the family, if any existed. There really is no way to have a set age for a person to live apart from the family as each person is different in circumstances.
No, hospital treatment is only indicated if the person is in danger from themselves or to someone else or they are so mentally ill they cannot function in society.
I am going to opt out to let another professional help you.