Social Science Weekly: Uncovering the Exploitation of the Mentally Ill for Entertainment
The controversial reality TV program “De Grote Donorshow” in the Netherlands once tested the limits of ethical television by pitting dialysis patients against each other in a competition for a kidney donation.
Viewers had the power to vote for the recipient, but here’s the twist – all contestants received a kidney in the end.
While this may seem like a resolution, it raises the question of whether it’s morally acceptable to use life-saving procedures as entertainment.
American television has yet to stoop to such lows, or so we thought.
Enter Dr. Phil McGraw, the host of the popular talk show “Dr.
Phil.”
While he may not exploit the terminally ill like “De Grote Donorshow,” critics argue that he still crosses ethical boundaries.
The show brings in guests who are encouraged by their families and carefully selected by producers, but Dr. Phil is not a licensed therapist.
He adopts a self-proclaimed profound tone and offers personal observations, leaving the guest with limited opportunities to respond.
Most episodes do not raise any alarms, and Dr. Phil connects guests with licensed doctors afterward.
However, there have been episodes featuring individuals with apparent mental illnesses that have alarmed some psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
One girl believed she was being pursued by terrorists and targeted with poisonous gasses, among other paranoid delusions.
The question arises – why allow someone with mental illness to go on national television?
In an interview with ABC News, Dr. Phil was asked if he would encourage a patient in a doctor’s office to share their problems on TV.
Surprisingly, he responded positively, stating that he would encourage it, especially if it was his own show.
This projection of private struggles into millions of living rooms around the world is hardly a recipe for improving mental health.
But it gets worse.
Dr. Phil has been accused of bullying his guests, taking advantage of the fact that the crowd is on his side.
In one particular episode, he mercilessly dissects every detail of a guest’s delusions, appealing to her sense of reason in an unconventional manner.
This approach is far from what experts would consider appropriate for helping someone with delusional thoughts.
Imagine tuning into Dr. Phil’s show with the expectation of witnessing a cancer patient being steamrolled for entertainment.
It is concerning to think that people enjoy watching emotionally vulnerable individuals receive pseudo-clinical advice.
Dr. Phil claims he is not providing therapy but rather entertaining.
However, his actions often lead to deeply wounded individuals embarrassing themselves on national television, and he plays a role in this exploitation.
The public’s appetite for seeing individuals being “roasted” is insatiable, especially when the target is someone who is mentally ill. Dr. Phil, a former clinical psychologist, seems to have found his niche in exploiting the vulnerabilities of those suffering from mental illness.
While he may argue that he is offering a form of entertainment, the moments when he seeks validation from the crowd or intentionally stirs up controversy suggest otherwise.
Rather than leaving his guests feeling empowered and ready to conquer their struggles, the show often portrays them in a negative light.
They become subjects of public scrutiny and judgment, with no opportunity for appeal or redemption.
Mental health clinicians advocate for the protection and care of individuals with mental health disorders, believing they deserve more than what the Dr. Phil Show offers.
As Dr. Todd Grande, a professor of clinical psychology, aptly stated, those who suffer from mental health disorders are among the most vulnerable in society.
Exploiting their struggles for entertainment value goes against the principles of respect, protection, and care that mental health professionals uphold.
The Dr. Phil Show falls short in providing the support these individuals truly need.
