E Royal College of Psychiatrists, to protest against the film. In their joint press release they say that the film considers schizophrenia, its symptoms, and treatments as a joke. The charities as well as the college usually are not calling for a ban but will likely be handing outleaflets at 300 cinemas and have demanded that the film be provided an “18” certificate. The behaviour portrayed within the film, they argue, has absolutely nothing whatever to perform with schizophrenia. Additionally they point out that individuals affected by schizophrenia don’t switch from “gentle to mental,” because the billboard advertisements say, but are more often withdrawn. The truth is, “split personality” is actually a totally various situation, a dissociative disorder as opposed to a psychotic illness. Me, Myself Irene will not be terribly funny, and it really is one particular extra instance of how people with mental illness are stigmatised by the media. Charlie/Hank is portrayed as violent, dangerous, and unfit to hold a responsible job. The film perpetuates damaging myths about mental illness. Charlie’s illness is blamed on his private weakness, and he is “cured” not by medication or therapy, but by his own will power along with the like of an excellent lady. Would anyone ever expect someone with diabetes, or any other chronic illness, to overcome their condition by willpowerRita Baron-Faust wellness journalist, New YorkBMJ VOLUME 321 23 SEPTEMBER 2000 bmj.comALEX BAILEY/DNQX chemical information FILMFOUR LTDreviewsDoctors within the Films: Boil the Water and Just Say AahPeter E DansMedi-Ed Press, three.08, pp 408 ISBN 0 936741 14 7 Rating:f you are honest, can you say you have by no means wanted to be Harrison Ford, Sean Connery, or Michael Douglas (older readers can substitute Clark Gable or Errol Flynn) Or how about one of several Grants, Hugh and Cary Due to the fact they’ve all wanted to become you, at the very least transitorily; cinema icons to a man [women readers, your day will come], they’ve acted as medics in motion pictures. It indicates the commercial mileage in medicine that the film industry has extended recognised as well as the star power which has fuelled well-known myth producing about medical doctors more than the years. Peter Dans is an internist at Johns Hopkins University having a longstanding passion for films, especially medical doctor movies. He’s written a regular column about them to get a US medical journal, and his book starts the sizeable job of contemplating the whys and wherefores of this underexplored genre. Dans picks out themes which include “Hollywood Goes to Healthcare School” and “The Kindly Saviour” and appears at chosen films asIcase research, prefacing every single chapter with observations about the subject in question. He tends to make trenchant points in regards to the portrayal of female and black doctors–note their absence from the opening list–in chapters that inevitably raise as several queries as they answer. The book is laced with a worldliness that prevents it from drifting into self reference–in one particular nicely turned sentence Dans observes that “A generation that hardly knew serious illness came to find out excellent health as a right as an alternative to a fragile blessing.” Dans confines his considerations to storylines, explicitly renouncing any aspirations to film studies-style academia. While this policy will most likely suit most readers, it may leave others hankering for any tiny extra cinematographic PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20110692 commentary. The book performs inside its own terms, even so, mainly because Dans’s lively prose brings the films to life. Are any of them really very good Effectively, “good” is, not surprisingly, a problematic adjective; even though it is actually correct that a discerning audience with no unique interest may be unimp.