Hi @NikNik - my thoughts on this are that I feel this type of production could certainly produce stigma in people whom are easily impressionable (young, and/or naive with no knowledge of the illness); impressionable people who don't look at a movie as a purely fictional piece written for pure entertainment as intended. But instead take the central character's persona seriously as pure documentary style facts.
With some of the former it could portray those with multiple personality disorder or as they call it now DID (which I believe is a more accurate description as I explain my own personal experience with this when young);, as having a dark character with uncontrolled evil intent, and in this light I find that irresponsible script writing that produces stigma in some. For myself and some others we see it as purely fictional and thus are not open to forming this type of stigma. It does come down to how a person views this movie: whether they are that gullable or not.
Defintely sufferers would be more sensitive to how their disease is being used as a central fictional character protraying a persona of uncontrollable evil intent. As that could stick with some whom are impressionable as explained above. It's knowing the facts from fantasy.
Knowledge reduces stigma. I think to counteract any damage occurring through naivety and gullibility when viewing such movies; creating more documentaries, leaflets, books etc educating others with the real facts of this disease can reduce such stigma. Its knowing the difference between fantasy and reality. A movie is just a movie and so forth.
But I do think the producers of such movie entertainment have a responsibility to inform the public of the fictional status of their production; with creating An on-screen preclude statement at the start or end of the movie stating "this is a fictional version of an individual suffering DID and is in no way associated with or protrays any individual in real life who suffers with such a mental affliction" - it is purely fictious.".
Such should of been a legal requirement to protect reputation of those who suffer with this MI. Given they didn't do that knowing some are impressionable as explained, I also agree the movie producers were acting irresponsibly for profit. The question is when producing fictional entertainment do they have a legal duty of care? I think we may find there is such as similar disclaimers have been screened at the end of some movies in the past; and I personally believe there should be such a legal requirement to protect the most vulnerable amongst us - the mentally ill in this instance.
The true stigma happening out there when it comes to multiple personality disorder (DID) is that people believe most are faking it. They can't relate at all.
Due to childhood physical, mental and psychological abuse I suffered a psychotic episode that lasted up to approx one year when 7 years old, and suffered some of the symptoms of multiple personality disorder (much the same thing as DID I believe a new diagnostic term?). I was hallucinating and hearing voices at the time together with exhibiting one other separate identity/name presenting herself in me at that time. To my knowledge that is not text book symptoms as apparently with MPD one does not usually hallucinate etc. But that was the case back then for me.
. I remember very little of those years as most are a total blank for me, but remember bits and pieces of the abuse and my resulting psychotic episode. Being not able to process or fathom what was happening to me at such a young age, I feel that the other identity (only one other) emerging was my mind's way of escaping the horror, torment and abuse that was being afflicted on me - not the other way around. And feeling of no value I lost my own identity. Once the psychosis resolved I became myself once again and have never had another psychotic episode like that since. Life can be unbelievably cruel at times.
