I guess my point was pretty muddled with my post. My main point was that these awareness campaigns can be helpful in terms of encouraging discussion; however, we need to be critical of what conversations emerge. I have provided workshops at schools and with other social service sectors (such as settlement workers) as a part of my job and also observed many done in various settings, but there seems to be an emphasis on presenting various diagnostic categories and suggesting people refer to psychiatric care. It would not be fair to make a blanket statement that this is unhelpful, but I do think there needs to be more of a push for people to feel confident in connecting with one another. It can add to the 'stigma' when people are encouraged simply to categorize. In one of the Bell ads, a character mentions how someone has been off for a month because of "Bipolar Disorder". Another worker dismisses this, thinking it was 'fake'. The first character assures the worker that he had looked it up and that it was a 'real diagnosis'. This may seem like semantics or being overly critical, but I do feel a trend towards an emphasis on 'professional help' versus understanding as a responsibility of all. Any mental health professional will admit that our actual roles are quite limited in the lives of those dealing with emotional toil, and that friends and family are far more important. I can see how some may say Bell encourages this, but seen in the context of other awareness campaigns, I am not sure it achieves this.
The other point is whether the campaign help substantively. This critique, just as the previous one, is not directed specifically at Bell but at our society, our governments etc. There is a money component to Bell's campaign, which is good (though would have been even better if Bell would just give the money and not insist on attaching names etc. .. though that wouldn't make sense for them), but what we have seen is cutbacks in government funding and a reliance on grant-based funding. This funding is almost never sustainable and has led to contract-based work, programs being set up one year and cut another etc. The Healthcare system needs to be properly funded - and these one off donations (even if done annually) are not the answer. This money also doesn't address the fact that the main stressors for mental health go far beyond the healthcare system - housing, policing, welfare etc. It's hypocritical when politicians piggy back on these campaigns while at the same time exacerbate the problem with their policies.
Lastly, the focus on stigma can also be limiting, as it focuses on 'internal reactions' versus discrimination. Yes, it's important that people feel comfortable to be open about their struggles, but are companies like Bell responsive and accomadating to these issues. Can someone take time off in the same way someone whom has fallen physical ill could. Is worklife balance encouraged? Are workers being paid a living wage so they are constantly stressed about their living situation? Just today, this article came out:
http://canadalandshow.com/article/le...nd-no-benefits criticizing Bell for its own mental health practices.
For me, it's frustrating on the frontlines as the situation is getting worst year by year. All those waitlists I mentioned have increased for one. We spend more time shuffling papers and sending referrals to non-existant services, than actually sitting down and providing counselling. The system is so very broken and yet every year, Bell and others can pat their backs and take in the praise. Some might say I am being unfair, since "at least Bell is doing something", but given the major standing of companies like Bell in society, we need to have higher standards.