Shorter's preface, to me, was interesting because it seemed to focus more on brain chemistry and genetics as a connection to mental illness. After reading all three preface's it seems like qualities from each one would make the approach to mental illness better

I want to know how this stigma developed. Why can we look at a person with a broken arm or chicken pox and wince when we do, but then carry on with our lives when, on the flipside, someone mentions that they have a psychological disorder of some sort causes us to look at them with big eyes and then scoot away?

Each of the pieces does focus on a different aspect of mental health, and I think that it's only through looking at all three that we can obtain a clearer view of mental illness and how it fits into American society.

If people were more open about illnesses would it be easier and more acceptable for people to seek out help?

What has happened to the majority of mental institutions?

I was struck by the language used to describe mental illness and the mentally ill. Words that are not as commonly used today such "lunatic" and "insane" seem to reflect a permanent state, whereas "mentally ill," sounds rectifiable. Does this reflect the change in availability and types of treatment over time, or is it simply a change in appropriate language?