%203d.jpg)
Beyond Schizophrenia
Beyond Schizophrenia
Social Stigma
The stigma surrounding schizophrenia remains deeply harmful and misunderstood. Society often labels people with schizophrenia as dangerous, unpredictable, or incapable — images shaped more by media stereotypes than by reality. These misconceptions create fear, discrimination, and isolation for those living with the condition.
In this section of the blog, I highlight how this stigma not only affects how others treat people like me, but also how it shapes our self-image and confidence. It becomes an invisible weight that interferes with recovery, relationships, and opportunities. I advocate for recognizing the humanity, depth, and potential of people with schizophrenia, urging society to move beyond fear and toward understanding.
My message is clear: people with schizophrenia deserve dignity, not judgment — and recovery is possible when support replaces stigma.
What is a "normal" person ?
In this room filled with 100 people, there is one person who is living with schizophrenia. 1% of the worldwide population is living with this mental illness.
If you add to this the people living with any mental illness at all, what portion represents "normal" people?
In my book, a mental illness is a mental deviance in comparison to the norm.
Do you see the red dot towards the bottom-left of this image here below?
According to Cambridge University Press, the proportion of violent crime in society attributable to schizophrenia consistently falls below 10%. Which means that in a room filled with 100 people afflicted with this illness, less than 10 commit violent crimes. This also means that in a room filled with 1000 random people, less than one person is likely to commit a violent crime because of schizophrenia.
Taboo
One on every 100 people in this world has schizophrenia. In some countries, people with this illness are considered as people who have a gift… that of being able to communicate with spirits.
I’m being told by fellow schizophrenics that I am “symptomatic” and therefore ill because I believe and experience it. I’m being told by a Christian community that I am a sinner if I communicate with spirits. I am being told by my healthcare providers that, as in color-blindness, my brain tricks me into believing this. Some communities on the web deny me the right to write about this because it seems to “encourage delusions”.
Even some of my good friends say, without having read any of my story, which is on a blog accessible to everyone, that I may hear voices but that they are created by schizophrenia and therefore I am wrong to think that my voices are communications from spirits.
Some of these friends I find are reasonably educated, but they stand firm on their position without knowing the facts.
I received my first psychotic diagnosis and antipsychotic prescription back in 1999 from a psychiatrist who hadn’t taken any blood, no biopsy, had not done any scans, no physical exam or anything but had a 20 minute interview with me in which I only tried to explain to him that I had experienced a manifestation from an invisible being, a voice, or as I see it, spirits.
Knowledge, belief and doubt
How does a fish in an aquarium explain to its roommates that the light that appears when the owner switches it on, is not the Sun?
How does a baby boy explain to his little sister that the other man there is their father’s twin?
How does a monkey explain to its siblings that the zookeeper just performed a magic trick?
How does Papa-bear explain to Mama-bear that he encountered a mirror in the forest?
How can I convince you that I’ve seen a ghost, and although this may have caused me to become sick, it is in no way a “symptom” of mental illness?
It's one thing to see and want to describe the things you see. It is quite another thing to be able and to succeed in describing them.
The portrait of a ghost is made by writing.
There is a difference between not believing because you have a reason not to believe and not believing because you have no reason to believe.
If I have a reason not to believe, it does not imply that I have proof to provide but certainly that I have at least experienced something that leads me to be convinced that I am justified in not believing.
If I have no reason to believe, it simply implies that I have not had an experience that would allow me to make an informed decision on the matter.
Someone who understands is a person who has experienced what is necessary to understand. Someone who claims to be an "expert" on an issue and who has not had the experience relevant to the question should refer to the person who has experienced it.
When an individual who does not believe because he has no reason to believe and who is in a position of authority because he calls himself a "specialist", subjects a subject by this authority to his beliefs, he must necessarily yield the passage if his subject manifests that he believes because he has reason to believe.
When a psychiatrist who has not experienced a psychospiritual manifestation forces a patient to undergo anti-delusion treatments because he openly states that he is communicating with the afterlife, the one who has no reason to believe administers authority over the one who has reason to believe.
When the psychiatrist is the specialist to whom an entire society turns to learn about a reality and the psychiatrist says that he "knows" because in fact he only "does not believe because he has no reason to believe", this defines a margin of error into which all those who believe without being able to prove fall and suffer unjustly.
Chemicals of Pleasure/Comfort and Pain/Discomfort
A man’s personality, his tastes, his decisions and choices, his gestures and actions, his culture and commitments are determined by the type of chemicals his brain and body secrete when he is exposed to a source of pleasure/comfort and pain/discomfort.
If something inspires him to be afraid, the secreted biochemicals may be unpleasant. If something inspires him to take action, in such a case, taking action or the thought of taking action will be for him directly associated to a pleasant secretion.
If a man takes a drug which will result in a presence of pleasant chemicals in his body and/or brain, his personality, his tastes, his decisions and choices, his gestures, actions and his commitments and thereby his habits and culture will be corrupted by this consumption.
If psychedelic drugs lead a man to be possessed or influenced by a malevolent spirit, his spirit-attitude will be corrupted.
If a man takes a medicine (prescribed drug – as in psychiatry), this should result in fixing a problem which causes him to function abnormally. But what is a normal behaviour?
What is “Normal” ? What is the Matrix in my book?
For me, the Matrix (in reference to the movie The Matrix (1999)), is a world created by Man throughout centuries. It is the result of understanding, the building of scientific knowledge, the clash of cultures, battles and wars, bloodshed and death of our ancestors and predecessors. It is a heritage through immense sacrifice, hardships and pain.
If the “normal” world is the Matrix, and if one who has success in this “normal” world qualifies as a normal person, the poor, the sick, the mentally ill, and the fallen angels are those living outside the Matrix.
A poorly recognized double-standard
Some people claim they can uncover truths about a person by reading cards or examining the lines of their hand. But I believe there’s another, perhaps simpler, way.
I believe that one can understand a person’s spirit by observing what I call their extensions — the outward manifestations of their inner world. These are all the things that can be shaped or influenced by their intent, their words, and their behavior. For instance, their belongings — including something as significant as an aircraft. In today’s world, owning a plane speaks volumes about a person’s status and wealth.
Even an automobile can offer insights: is it well-maintained, luxurious, or modest and falling apart?
And does their home reflect the same characteristics? In truth, everything a person owns or creates carries the imprint of their inner life — and, conversely, their spirit can be read through these outward signs.
The most personal of these extensions is the body itself — our first vehicle. A mark on the skin can speak just as loudly as damage or detail on a car, a piece of furniture, a tool, or any other possession.
These personal signatures go beyond material goods. They are also expressed through one’s creations, speech, and writing — in the language used, the choice of words, the tone, the sophistication, the jargon. Everything we touch or express bears something of who we are.
However, this way of reading a person is not foolproof. There’s a crucial caveat: some individuals' inner realities do not align with the usual codes by which such external signs are interpreted. This creates a kind of double standard that often goes unacknowledged.
Mental illnesses like schizophrenia can disrupt a person's trajectory, altering — or even collapsing — the inner foundations from which growth and self-expression emerge. As a result, traditional markers of success or identity may no longer apply in the same way.
In my case, schizophrenia led me into the woods, quite literally. The forest was beautiful, and I stayed there for over ten years before I found my way back out. But those years were not void or meaningless. On the contrary, I lived through real and serious experiences that shaped my spirit in profound ways. I developed resilience, intuition, reflection, and spiritual insight — all of which became valuable assets when I began rebuilding my life. The world may not always recognize the skills forged in isolation or suffering, but they are real and transferable.
Today, I understand that — despite the excellent care available from professionals here in Quebec — this double standard remains poorly understood. More importantly, I now see that this hidden standard affects not only people with schizophrenia, but many others whose paths diverge from society’s expected norms.
The bonsai and the oak
The oak is life-size. It has braved the bad weather of its habitat for more than 100 years... A colossus of exceptional beauty.
The bonsai that has matured in the shade of the oak tree since the same time is a miniature clone of the latter.
Its small size is part of its charm.
Its appearance is refined and its foliage is of a balanced aesthetic and worthy of the spirit of its creator.
Just like the oak, some people sport a charisma of prestige that can deeply impress.
The physical size of the bonsai does not deny it the possibility of possessing the same attributes.
With life experience, stability and endurance, all can shine with the rich characteristics that nature can bestow.
Response to my complaint by the Medical Examiner
September 16, 2008
Sir
Your complaint was forwarded to me by Ms. (X), Service Quality and Complaints Commissioner, on July 22, 2008. I have just completed the study.
To do this, I reviewed the wording of the complaint, met with you, carefully reviewed your medical records, and met with Dr. (your current psychiatrist).
During my visit with you, you handed me a document entitled: "Soins de Santé?!! Ben waillons donc", which I read with great interest. I note a copyright 2008 where it is forbidden to reproduce, etc. I will therefore not reproduce any excerpts here. We notice, however, that you have an original philosophical mind and an undeniable talent for writing.
In the letter of July 27, 2008, we note that on April 7, 2008, you filed a complaint concerning a lack of response to "this document" (the one reproduced on August 15, 2007).
This document tabled on August 15, 2007 read as follows: My document entitled "Cartography of the New World" is my statement and covers what I have to say to psychiatry. I personally filed it with psychiatry on May 29, 2007. I volunteered to answer all questions from my psychiatrist, Dr. (your current psychiatrist), about the document honestly, accurately and completely. At the end of that meeting on August 15, 2007, she made it clear to me that my file as it currently stands and even in consideration of my written statement, does not justify any change in diagnosis or prescription.
I demand a reply to this document as soon as possible. Please choose one or more of the following options:
A- If you choose not to respond, you can simply sign this document and mail it to me at the address indicated above.
B- I demand a written, formal and official acknowledgement of the fact that any connotation of "false belief" associated with my communications with the afterlife by the diagnosis with which I am associated by psychiatry is not verifiable.
C- If my communications with the afterlife are delusional, I demand clearly documented proof.
D- I demand that my file be clearly and officially dissociated by the name of my diagnosis...
1. of all the schizophrenics who were delusional and
2. of all schizophrenics who are aggressive.
E- If I am not schizophrenic, I demand a written confession from the chief authority concerned
In the letter you sent me on July 31, 2008, after accusing the Dr. (your previous psychiatrist) of being devoid of ingenuity for scientific nomenclature, you propose to help me "rename" your diagnosis. You argue that the word "schizophrenia" inspires an ugly creature that eats its own stools and you propose instead that of "psychospiritually perceptive", an expression that would aim to neutralize the false connotations of "delirium", "hallucinations" and "false beliefs" associated with your name since 1999. I must admit that this is a way that is not lacking in originality to solve this thorny problem of diagnosis. However, when we met in early August 2008, I asked you what you thought your diagnosis of your illness was; You answered me without any hesitation: schizophrenia.
This seems to respond "de facto" to item "E" of your complaint. In addition, Dr. (your psychiatrist) maintains the diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. This also responds to item "A" of your complaint. I do not think it says in your record that you are delusional and aggressive. We must all agree that not all schizophrenics are delusional or aggressive. This adequately addresses your complaint in item "D". As for your complaints about item "B" and "C", I do not believe that your psychiatric diagnosis should be associated with it: it is recognized and accepted that some people have this power of medium to communicate with the afterlife. It is quite obvious that no one can prove whether this power exists or does not exist. Therefore, we cannot call "mentally ill person who is delusional" one who says he is able to communicate with the afterlife.
As for your letter dated August 2, 2008 concerning (a nurse), the "model" employee, this type of complaint does not concern the Medical Examiner, but rather the Service Quality and Complaints Commissioner. The Medical Examiner is only concerned with complaints against physicians.
In this letter of July 27, 2008, you argue that after seven and a half years of cooperation with the prescription, your choice was to completely cease cooperating with the prescription of antipsychotics two months after filing a request for clarification on August 15, 2007. You note, rightly, that there is no law that requires you to comply with the psychiatric care plan.
You have consulted for pain with a diagnosis that eventually turned out to be that of ankylosing spondylitis for which you will be treated. After waiting eleven hours in the emergency room, you were committed to psychiatry without your authorization, by order of the Court. These court documents indicate that psychiatry declared your mother to be the respondent. Your mother assured you that she had strongly forbidden psychiatry to insinuate her authorization in the slightest. No physical threat was the subject of any of your three internments.
Your letter of August 6, 2008, which concerns a new complaint, joins the other letters in which you maintain that you were hospitalized in psychiatry by mistake. The rest of this missive where you say you were placed in a damp room etc... does not concern the medical examiner.
Your letter of August 6, 2008 concerning your weight does not concern the medical examiner either, although I read it with interest.
A last document, read with great interest, does not bear a date: it is the text where you note:
1. Consequences of internment on your health: three months in early 1999 and one and a half months in early 2000.
1. Psychological shock at the time of your knowledge of the internment order.
2. Painful and ineffective adjustment to the life of an undeserved internment that does not promise to end. You feared that you would never get out and this anguish lasted until the last hour of your two internments.
3. Painful and ineffective adjustment to the conditions of internment (i.e. atmosphere of perpetual internment difficult to bear, type of company (mental illness) that weighs heavily on morale, freedom and privacy very restricted, requirement of very rapid adaptation to difficult conditions (e.g. having to sleep in a room with a patient with a very strong body odor due to lack of hygiene or with chronic problems of snoring that interfered with my sleep).
4. Compounding effect on stigma.
5. Frustration with serious harm to my freedom.
1. Consequences of medication on your health (Prescription established on February 9, 1999, withdrawn in July 2008)
1. Psychological shock at the time of your knowledge of the treatment order.
2. Heavy physical effect that made waking painful and awake incomplete and difficult to maintain, which led to a marked decrease in psychological alertness and therefore a decrease in self-esteem.
3. Excessive weight gain (up to about 50 pounds) that has led to a loss of self-confidence.
4. A marked accentuation of back pain and dermatitis in the face.
5. Since the beginning of 2007, serious problems of gastric acidity.
6. Psychological difficulty in having to ingest a product you do not trust on a daily basis.
7. Increasing effect on stigma.
8. Frustration with the gross injustice of an abusive intrusion.
1. How stigma affects your health.
1. Strong psychological shock at the time of your diagnosis of mental illness (the lack of awareness and education in your life about mental illness, the very strong contrast between your way of seeing what you are experiencing and what suddenly a specialist tells you what you are experiencing.
2. Severe psychological shock at the time of your admission to the social group called "paranoid schizophrenia" given the severe characteristics associated with it (the reputation associated with this diagnosis is seriously defined by people who tend to commit serious wrongdoing or to behave in an immoral or particularly non-exemplary manner).
3. Frustration at being unable to convey the falsity of stigma in relation to your situation thanks in large part to the public assertions of your psychiatrists.
4. Humiliation when your psychiatrist summoned your loved ones (including some of your best friends at the time) to tell them that you were mentally ill.
5. Frustration with serious harm to your rights and freedoms: Simply by stigmatization, you have been infringed on a great freedom to which you are entitled: the freedom to know that people who know you attribute to you your fair value free from a destructive connotation of madness.
It is a very realistic, appropriate and orderly document.
The detailed study of the hospitalization file from June 28 to August 28, 2008 leads us to reflect and question the relevance of your last internment.
We are, of course, sorry for the situation you have experienced and thank you for bringing it to our attention. Indeed, the feedback of our customers is valuable to us because it often contributes to the improvement of the delivery of care.
If you are not satisfied with this report, you have 60 days to have your file reviewed by the review committee. To do so, you have 60 days to have your file re-examined by the review committee. To do this, you can contact Mrs. (MC) at the 1234567.
Please accept, Sir, the expression of my distinguished sentiments.
· Medical examiner
Anti-stigma awareness tool
With a deep commitment to freeing people from the weight of stigma, I propose this documentary project to readers of this blog who may have the means to bring it to life.
Title: A Skeleton in My Closet
Goal:
To feature the coming-out of someone who has successfully reintegrated into society after a life challenge that carries heavy stigma — whether rooted in mental illness, past criminality, or addiction — in a program designed to challenge prejudices and promote understanding.
Synopsis:
The documentary follows three individuals in their daily lives over the course of a week, showing routines and interactions that reveal them as relatable, ordinary people. The specific “skeleton” in their closet — their stigmatized past — is only revealed at the very end of each segment, encouraging viewers to first connect with them on a human level before confronting their own biases.
Examples of participant profiles:
-
A person living with a mental illness — e.g., someone who has managed paranoid schizophrenia for over 20 years.
-
A reformed offender — e.g., a person who served a prison sentence for murder and has lived crime-free for more than 20 years.
-
A recovered addict — e.g., someone rehabilitated from drug addiction for over two decades.
-
Any other stigmatized life experiences (e.g., refugees, people who survived cults, those recovering from homelessness, etc.).
All participants have been fully reintegrated into society for close to 20 years.
Public Advocacy Letter
A Call for New Diagnostic Language to Recognize Long-Term Recovery from Schizophrenia
To mental health professionals, researchers, policymakers, and fellow psychiatric survivors,
I was diagnosed with schizophrenia over 25 years ago. At the time, this diagnosis came with fear, stigma, and a sense of permanent dysfunction. I believed—and was often told—that recovery was unlikely.
Today, I am living proof that this is not always the case.
I write to you not only as someone who has carried this diagnosis, but also as a committed citizen, now living a stable, clear-minded, and socially integrated life. Through years of struggle, adaptation, support, and inner transformation, I have reached lasting clarity and stability. I have not experienced symptoms of this illness for many years. I lead a fulfilling daily life, maintain healthy relationships, and contribute to my community. And yet, the label of schizophrenia continues to follow me, as though my mind were frozen in time.
My journey has not been easy. In 1997, I dropped out of university. I became isolated, was evicted from my family home, handcuffed, spent a night in a cell, and appeared before the courts. I was hospitalized four times, totaling nearly ten months. I was prescribed medications I didn’t believe in. I endured their side effects, and I believed people were judging me, mocking me, spying on me. I thought I was being pursued by the government. I didn’t realize until 2009 that these were real symptoms of schizophrenia.
Since then, I have taken charge of my life. I pursued therapy, changed my treatments, returned to school, and have held a stable full-time job since 2013. I got married and became a homeowner in 2017. Yes, I still take antipsychotic medication—probably for the rest of my life—but I am well. I am recovered.
And yet, despite all this, one thing remains: society’s perception of me. For most people in Quebec, schizophrenia still implies violence, unpredictability, and danger. That’s the image shown in the news. But the reality is very different: only 1 in 1,000 people with schizophrenia will commit a violent act. And yet, in a room of 10,000 people, the remaining 9,990 with the same diagnosis are still seen as threats because of media portrayals of the rare few.
I even asked my psychiatrist if it was possible to change my diagnosis, because the label “paranoid schizophrenic” felt so unfair and stigmatizing. She declined—and I understand. Currently, there is no recognized medical term that distinguishes between someone in acute psychiatric crisis and someone like me, who has lived a calm, productive life for over a decade.
This brings me to a question that I believe urgently needs attention: the need to publicly acknowledge the diversity of outcomes within a mental health diagnosis.
Schizophrenia is too often seen—wrongly—as a lifelong sentence of instability, incapacity, and isolation. But this narrow view doesn’t reflect the reality of a growing number of us who have reached long-term recovery—sometimes with treatment, sometimes through personal, therapeutic, or spiritual transformation. And yet, this progress remains invisible, as the label continues to create unfair obstacles in employment, insurance, and social credibility.
That is why I’m calling for the creation of new diagnostic language. It is time to draw a clear distinction between individuals currently experiencing acute symptoms, and those who, though once diagnosed, now live with balance, autonomy, and discernment. This could take the form of updated medical terminology, a diagnostic subcategory, or even a certificate acknowledging stable recovery.
The medical system does offer terms like "in remission," but these are rarely used or understood by the public. The original term “schizophrenia,” coined by Eugen Bleuler in 1910, described a “splitting” of the mind—an idea that no longer reflects what many of us feel after years of healing.
We need language that honors transformation, reduces stigma, and promotes recovery. I advocate for a shift in the collective perspective—medical, legal, and administrative—toward so-called “serious” psychiatric disorders. It is time to see resilience, healing, and growth not as rare exceptions, but as real possibilities.
A term such as “post-schizophrenic state,” “integrated psychosis recovery,” or even a new non-clinical label could help differentiate those of us who have moved beyond acute symptoms. Just as cancer survivors are no longer permanently called “cancer patients,” we too deserve a name that reflects our present—not just our past.
I do not ask this only for myself. I ask it on behalf of all those quietly rebuilding their lives after what is often called one of the most severe mental illnesses.
A more humane and hopeful classification would not only benefit us—it would send a clear message to those newly diagnosed: recovery is real.
I thank all individuals and institutions who take the time to consider this appeal. It is rooted in a desire for justice, dignity, and inclusion for everyone who, like me, refuses to let a diagnosis define their entire existence.
Let us work together—as patients, professionals, and advocates—to modernize the language of psychiatry so that it reflects not only illness, but also resilience, recovery, and hope.
Respectfully,
- Anonymous Author