Timkins, MD - the root causes of my depression certainly go back to my response to a (non-violent) family break up around my second birthday, when I physically lost my father and emotionally lost my mother (though I didn't find this out until after my two suicidal episodes). It's certainly worth knowing whether there are steps which might be taken to reduce the later onset of depression if much of it is related to societal issues such as those raised by Timkins. But that doesn't, of course, lessen the need to deal with those currently depressed or at risk.

Faustino...THANX... that frank admission is in line with what Timkins is saying, and what duck 'should' be saying.

Much of our mental illness is symptomatic of social breakdown and our fleeing from the family values of former years.

A strong family, with a values framework that upbuilds, supports and cares, and most of all gives hope, is pretty much a guarantee against depression.

Unfulfilled or unrealistic aspirations, based on distortions from the media (which are trying to sell us things) about how things are or should be, contribute to depression, when there is little family support for the individual.

It amazes me that we have wings, feathers, flat bills, webbed feet, and float in water, make quacking sounds yet no one is calling us 'ducks'. Social decay is happening at an accellarating rate, enduring values are fragmented and disowned by those who should be promoting them. 'greed' is not just good, its the catchcry of a generation. But bankrupt academics, wandering social commentators, and make it up as u go philosophers can only see symptoms.

Lets stop treating the symptoms, and return to our 'father' from the far land where after expending our social inheritance on loose living, the only food we had were the pigs slops.
Like the prodigal son, we should return to our Creator with the confession "We are not worthy to be called your children"... only to find His open arms waiting, the fatted calf prepared for a feast, and a signet ring placed on our finger.

There is a Christ shaped hole in each one of us, I hope we all fill it with the only One who can fit.

DB, Timkins - you might be interested in my resposne to Nick Gruen's article "How are we going? Happy?" if you haven't seen it.

Those who wish to push their own personal agendas rather than addressing the content of the article are seemingly unaware of the pressures that are brought to bear on families when they have a mentally ill adolescent child.

Under a couple of decades of policies of deinstitutionalisation of mentally ill people, it is families who often bear the brunt of caring for children with psychiatric illnesses. Within families it typically falls to mothers to provide care for sick children, on top of their disproportionate contribution to domestic responsibilities. Where there are inadequate or nonexistent external mental health services, this can create intolerable stresses on families which can break under the load of trying to care for a child with chronic, stigmatizing illness.

Of course family breakdown can induce or exacerbate mental health problems in kids - as it evidently can among adults, some of whom seem to use this forum as a form of therapy. However, that was not the subject of the article. Do any of the barrow-pushers have any comments that actually address the content of the article?

Mahatma Duck,
You wish to push your own personal agendas
You rather not address the content of the article
You are seemingly unaware.
You seem to use this forum as a form of therapy.
You are not the subject of the article.
You are a barrow-pusher.
You have no comments that actually address the content of the article

It is ironic that you have made many posts that have nothing at all (i.e. zilch) to do with the topic, and you have made those posts to specifically name-call and malign other posters, and now you seem to want to make generalised maligning statements about other posters, without addressing them specifically.

The authors want more money from the taxpayer. Many people want that, but I am rather suspicious of mental health workers, because I have heard that their success rate is rather low. Mental health could become a thriving industry, where many mental health workers are employed, and most of it becomes taxpayer funded, but the success rate of those mental health workers is actually quite low.

The authors do not give specific details of what is causing so much mental illness in young people. That is suspicious to start with, and if they don’t know what is causing so much mental illness, (or are unwilling to say it), then why should they be given more taxpayers money? They could do more harm than good with that taxpayer’s money.

Overall, I think the authors are sidestepping many issues, are not properly informing the public of why there is so much mental illness amongst young people, are avoiding mentioning what appears to be the no1 problem for young people (i.e. family breakdown), are trying to hide the fact that the success rate for mental health workers is not that great, are wanting more from the taxpayers pocket, but are not telling the taxpayer of how they intend to spend their money.

If they want more money from the taxpayer, they would have to supply better details of exactly how they are going to spend that money.

More parrot-like prattling, designed to disguise the commentator's ignorance about inequities and deficiencies in adolescent mental health services.

I note that our valiant advocate for the family has failed completely to address the burdens placed upon families of mentally ill adolescents by inadequate and inequitable services.

Oh that's right - there were no mentally ill children before second-wave feminism or deinstitutionalisation.