We may not have a cure, but at least we can ensure that people can walk down the street without being feared or mocked. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Schizophrenia is not a fatal illness, yet sufferers are still dying 20 years too soon

We have to go beyond the well-meaning commitment to “combat stigma” and be willing to share our time – that extra twenty years we currently have to ourselves – even when we are unable to measure what this will mean.

In the UK today, people with schizophrenia have the same life expectancy as the general population of 1930s Britain. Schizophrenia is not a fatal illness. It can be hard to treat and the severity of symptoms can vary enormously. It should not, however, kill you.

On the other hand, here are some things that can: heart disease; diabetes; respiratory disease. Schizophrenia sufferers are dying prematurely, not from the disease itself but from conditions that are treatable and often preventable. This is why today, at the start of Schizophrenia Awareness Week, Rethink are launching their +20 campaign, so called because sufferers of severe mental illness die, on average, 20 years earlier than the rest of the population. 

You may be assuming that the main cause of premature death in schizophrenia is suicide. It is not. Most of these deaths have physical causes, arising due to a mix of factors, such as failure to manage the side-effects of medication, unhealthy lifestyle and poor health monitoring. A fourth factor is “diagnostic overshadowing”, whereby a physical condition is overlooked or not taken seriously due to the patient’s mental state. As the sibling of a schizophrenia sufferer, this last one in particular resonates with me. I know that doctors have done this to my brother; I have done it to him myself.

In theory it should be easy to accept that suffering from severe mental illness does not make one immune to the same ailments which affect the rest of the population. In practice, however, this can seem “a bit much”. Mental illness can be so overwhelming and so all-consuming, it can be hard to believe there is space for anything else. Physical health then becomes subordinate to disease management. Anti-psychotic drugs are necessary, therefore the side-effects must be borne without complaint. Smoking is a comfort, therefore the normal rules of harm do not apply. These are just some of the assumptions that Rethink are seeking to challenge, in what is a drive not just to promote healthy lifestyles, but to show that physical health matters for everyone.  Schizophrenia sufferers do not merely have symptoms to manage but lives to live. And by that one doesn’t have to mean getting a job / a partner / whatever else passes for “normality” – it can simply mean living a life that is of value to you, with as much joy and as little pain as possible.

When I first heard the “20 years earlier” figure, I’ll admit that some small part of me felt relief. So it’s 55 rather than 75, or 66 rather than 86. How bad is that really, given how much pain and suffering the intervening years could contain? You can almost kid yourself it’s a mercy killing. A slow, painful death, borne of ignorance and neglect, can be repositioned – by the living – as what was meant to be. We can pretend it is a rational play-off between quality and quantity of life. It’s not that anyone has sat down and reviewed the pros and cons of all these needless deaths; no one has to. Collectively, as a society, we’re making all the little decisions which mean we never have to face the big one at all. Oh look! It’s just happened! How terrible! The drip-drip effect of not caring quite enough permits us to pretend the end result is out of our hands.

And yet however awful schizophrenia is – and when it is treatment resistant, with no periods of respite, it can be awful – so many other things are entirely within the control of the society surrounding the sufferer: whether you can walk down the street without being feared or mocked; whether anyone visits you when you are too afraid to leave the house; whether anyone cares that you are healthy and secure; whether you find places – any places at all – where there are people with whom you can talk and laugh. None of this can be achieved by some vague but well-meaning commitment to “combat stigma” on the part of non-sufferers. We have to be willing to share our time – that extra twenty years we currently have to ourselves – even when we are unable to measure what this will mean. Even if there is a point at which empathy fails, we have to push onwards.

I am frightened of the future, but I want to face it with my brother. I want him to grow old with me and to live through that extra twenty years – the twenty years I simply expect – with as little fear as possible. I don’t believe any human being loses the ability to be happy, or to feel the warmth that comes from others. Much as I’d like to picture old-aged us by some cosy fireside, exchanging fond reminiscences on 1980s TV, I know it’s unlikely to be that way. But it is possible to imagine life and hope, and for some to be denied this due to stigma is a disgrace.

Glosswitch is a feminist mother of three who works in publishing.

Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn supporters should stop excusing Labour’s anti-immigration drift

The Labour leader is a passionate defender of migrants’ rights – Brexit shouldn’t distract the new left movement from that.

Something strange is happening on the British left – a kind of deliberate collective amnesia. During the EU referendum, the overwhelming majority of the left backed Remain.

Contrary to a common myth, both Jeremy Corbyn and the movement behind him put their weight into a campaign that argued forcefully for internationalism, migrants’ rights and regulatory protections.

And yet now, as Labour’s policy on Brexit hardens, swathes of the left appear to be embracing Lexit, and a set of arguments which they would have laughed off stage barely a year ago.

The example of free movement is glaring and obvious, but worth rehashing. When Labour went into the 2017 general election promising to end free movement with the EU, it did so with a wider election campaign whose tone was more pro-migrant than any before it.

Nonetheless, the policy itself, along with restricting migrants’ access to public funds, stood in a long tradition of Labour triangulating to the right on immigration for electorally calculated reasons. When Ed Miliband promised “tough controls on immigration”, the left rightly attacked him.  

The result of this contradiction is that those on the left who want to agree unequivocally with the leadership must find left-wing reasons for doing so. And so, activists who have spent years declaring their solidarity with migrants and calling for a borderless world can now be found contemplating ways for the biggest expansion of border controls in recent British history – which is what the end of free movement would mean – to seem progressive, or like an opportunity.

The idea that giving ground to migrant-bashing narratives or being harsher on Poles might make life easier for non-EU migrants was rightly dismissed by most left-wing activists during the referendum.

Now, some are going quiet or altering course.

On the Single Market, too, neo-Lexit is making a comeback. Having argued passionately in favour of membership, both the Labour leadership and a wider layer of its supporters now argue – to some extent or another – that only by leaving the Single Market could Labour implement a manifesto.

This is simply wrong: there is very little in Labour’s manifesto that does not have an already-existing precedent in continental Europe. In fact, the levers of the EU are a key tool for clamping down on the power of big capital.

In recent speeches, Corbyn has spoken about the Posted Workers’ Directive – but this accounts for about 0.17 per cent of the workforce, and is about to be radically reformed by the European Parliament.

The dangers of this position are serious. If Labour’s leadership takes the path of least resistance on immigration policy and international integration, and its support base rationalises these compromises uncritically, then the logic of the Brexit vote – its borders, its affirmation of anti-migrant narratives, its rising nationalist sentiment – will be mainlined into Labour Party policy.

Socialism in One Country and a return to the nation state cannot work for the left, but they are being championed by the neo-Lexiteers. In one widely shared blogpost on Novara Media, one commentator even goes as far as alluding to Britain’s Road to Socialism – the official programme of the orthodox Communist Party.

The muted and supportive reaction of Labour’s left to the leadership’s compromises on migration and Brexit owes much to the inept positioning of the Labour right. Centrists may gain personal profile and factional capital when the weaponising the issue, but the consequences have been dire.

Around 80 per cent of Labour members still want a second referendum, and making himself the “stop Brexit” candidate could in a parallel universe have been Owen Smith’s path to victory in the second leadership election.

But it meant that in the summer of 2016, when the mass base of Corbynism hardened its factional resolve, it did so under siege not just from rebelling MPs, but from the “Remoaners” as well.

At every juncture, the strategy of the centrist Labour and media establishment has made Brexit more likely. Every time a veteran of the New Labour era – many of whom have appalling records on, for instance, migrants’ rights – tells Labour members to fight Brexit, party members run a mile.

If Tony Blair’s messiah complex was accurate, he would have saved us all a long time ago – by shutting up and going away. The atmosphere of subterfuge and siege from MPs and the liberal press has, by necessity, created a culture of loyalty and intellectual conformity on the left.

But with its position in the party unassailable, and a radical Labour government within touching distance of Downing Street, the last thing the Labour leadership now needs is a wave of Corbynite loyalty-hipsters hailing its every word.

As the history of every attempt to form a radical government shows, what we desperately need is a movement with its own internal democratic life, and an activist army that can push its leaders as well as deliver leaflets for them.

Lexit is no more possible now than it was during the EU referendum, and the support base of the Labour left and the wider party is overwhelmingly in favour of free movement and EU membership.

Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Diane Abbott are passionate, principled advocates for migrants’ rights and internationalism. By showing leadership, Labour can once again change what is electorally possible.