THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The state government’s proposal to rename government-run Mental Health Centres as ‘Centre for Happiness and Wellness’ has triggered opposition from experts and the Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS), Keralam branch. The health department submitted the proposed name to the Kerala High Court after the court suggested renaming the institutions.
However, mental health experts and the IPS have objected to the move, alleging that the government and the health minister’s office took the decision without adequate consultation with stakeholders. The Kerala Government Medical Officers’ Association has also urged the government to consider IPS’ suggestions.
According to government sources, the proposal was submitted to the court without adequate consultations within the Directorate of Health Services and the State Mental Health Authority. By the time IPS office-bearers met officials at the health minister’s office, the proposal had already been submitted, sources said.
“We have decided to become a party to the case,” IPS state president Dr Sagar T told TNIE. “While the objective behind renaming mental health institutions is to reduce stigma, merely changing their names will not address the issue.”
The IPS has suggested names such as ‘State Institute of Mental Health and Wellness’ or ‘Regional Institute of Psychiatry and Wellness’. “Mental illness and wellness are two distinct concepts. Mental illness is caused by biological, biochemical, psychological, and social factors. Happiness is only one component of an individual’s mental state,” Sagar said.
Mental health experts said the stigma associated with such institutions stems largely from their colonial-era buildings, bare isolation rooms resembling jail cells, shortage of human resources, and overcrowding.
They also pointed out that the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, uses the term ‘mental’ throughout. It defines ‘mental illness’ and lays down provisions governing facilities providing care to persons with mental illness. Under the Act, such institutions are termed ‘Mental Health Establishments’, professionals as ‘Mental Health Professionals’ and patients as ‘Persons with Mental Illness’.
The IPS further noted that Mental Health Review Boards, quasi-judicial bodies overseeing such institutions under the Act, also use the term ‘mental’ and do not consider it stigmatising.
“The Clinical Establishments Act, 2010, recognises psychiatry as a distinct medical specialty. ‘Behavioural management’ is not a recognised specialty, which could create complications relating to licensing and registration,” Sagar said.
He pointed out that The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) regulations require insurers to cover mental illness on a par with physical illness. “If a facility is officially designated as a wellness or behavioural centre rather than a medical institution, insurers may treat its services as non-medical and deny claims,” he said.
Psychiatrists also highlighted that the World Health Organisation has recognised mental health as an integral part of health since 1948.
Major institutions, including NIMHANS in Bengaluru and IMHANS in Kozhikode, retain the term ‘mental’ in their names. While ‘wellness’ is generally associated with lifestyle, fitness, and self-care, psychiatrists argued that conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and severe depression accompanied by suicidal tendencies cannot be adequately represented by the term.
‘Will not solve issue’
While the objective behind renaming mental health institutions is to reduce stigma, merely changing their names will not address the issues, say experts
Indian Psychiatric Society suggests names such as ‘State Institute of Mental Health and Wellness’ or ‘Regional Institute of Psychiatry and Wellness’