Eating disorder advocates like myself walk a careful line with the media: yearning for good coverage of the issue but wary of being used for sensationalist and harmful "entertainment."
Tracey Gold's new series, Starving Secrets on Lifetime, doesn't just walk that line; it actively exploits it. In an unashamed use of celebrity and desperate images, this series tries to vaccinate itself against the charge of exploitation by marking it "educational."
Controversy surrounds all eating disorder media because of strong conflicting opinions between advocates. While the National Eating Disorders Association head has been quoted as saying "We do not support putting people who are ill on television," a leading treatment provider who does appear in the show asserts "it's going to happen -- we're not going to stop reality TV -- and hopefully somebody with integrity will do it."
Starving Secrets does some things right. It fails, however, in revealing ways.
The series succeeds in ways that are probably only visible to those of us who know eating disorders well: it is free of some the most damaging stereotypes. Gone are the tired ideas about victimized, permanently damaged people who can never recover. Missing from the first episode, at least, are the tired and discredited ideas about pathological families and abuse.
Compassion shines through as well: the producers and treatment providers -- and the single family member shown -- are caring and optimistic. There is no pity or condescension. The perspective of each patient is clearly seen and well-illustrated. We see and hear the grueling and confused experience of the patients and there is absolutely no glamorization of their conditions.
What is notably missing, and painful to advocates like myself, is the absence of real information about what causes, and what treats, an eating disorder. This information is what would make this show go from exhibitionism to educational, and it fails. Despite recent advances in research and effective treatment absolutely nothing seems to have changed in the way the illness is approached since the 1980s. That is tragic lost opportunity in such a high-profile show.
Without any mention of the biological and neuropsychiatric underpinnings of eating disorders, the public is left as usual to assume that these patients chose and continue their symptoms willfully. Without explanation that low weight and bingeing and purging all create serious and overwhelming psychiatric symptoms, the viewer is led to believe that the patient's eating only matters when they are near death. By painting recovery as a process of self-knowledge and motivation, families are misled that their own ill loved one simply doesn't want recovery enough, or refuses to understand.
Also absent is family. The two women portrayed in the first episode are young adults. Taking these patients entirely out of the context of their families and those earlier interventions is a lie of omission -- because patients need treatment that works in the months after the cameras go away. These two patients have been treated in the past and that treatment has failed them repeatedly. Why? The elephant in the room is the question of why this period of treatment will be different, and whose responsibility will it be if it does not.
Filming and broadcasting mentally ill people is an unfortunate new and growing fad. There is no question that being filmed does change the outcome -- and being desperate enough to sell one's story has a coercive effect. Producers sell this kind of public exposure to patients and their families as free access to care, and due to the realities of poor insurance coverage in the US and demonstrably poor mental health care methods, there are countless patients who have run out of options and are on their "last chance" for intervention, over and over. We need to ask, is this really "free" treatment? Or is it exploitation of ill people which risks harm to the patient and to the majority of people who will not receive this exposure?
Follow Laura Collins Lyster-Mensh on Twitter: www.twitter.com/feasttweets
Lea Lane: My Reality TV Addiction
There was a time when I DIDN'T WANT to get better, and actively fought anyone, tooth and nail, who tried to help me. I wanted attention, though I said I didn't, and I liked being sick. The illness evolved over the years, and by the time I wanted to get better, I no longer thought it was possible.I didn't bother trying. People who believed it for me got me through. I don't think I'm alone in this. It's a very confusing process to work through when a person is starving to death. And confusing to those around them. If this tv program helps someone believe they deserve treatment and a life without the ed is possible, I'm okay with that, for now.
I was also, as ever, extremely frustrated at the use of numbers. How tacky. I am WAITING for a news-article or media-piece that does NOT highlight the sufferer's weight. Because all can tell when someone is underweight - that is enough. It is INTENSELY triggering to show weights. How many times have experts shared their opinions on this, only to be ignored by media? Therein, more than anything else, did I think this became sensationalist. Particularly because they shared Rivka's weight, as an anoretic, but not Melissa's, as a bulimic. SO FRUSTRATING.
Anyway, yes. I will probably watch the show. I think the possibility of seeing other chronic sufferers improve (that DOES give hope, regardless) outweighs my frustration at
The author of this blog is an author of a book re: how family members can aid in their "child's" recovery....an approach not very effective with "adult children". the show is criticized for no family involvement, yet how could that have been portrayed and not labeled as even more exploitive?
I watched this show, fully expecting to be extremely critical, as an eating disorder professional, but came away somewhat indifferent. I believe anyone who chronically suffers from an e.d.could be given hope watching, albeit superficially, Ryvka's recovery process!
I do need to clarify that the term "child" refers to our offspring of all ages. My children remain my children even when they are adults. Parents still have love and responsibility for their children when they grow up - even if we don't have legal responsibility. This is true for any illness or injury, not just a mental health problem. I encourage all parents to step up and support and help their loved ones no matter what the age.
As for how could family involvement be portrayed and not labeled as exploitive? My goodness, why would that be any different?
Not sure that I understand the question" my goodness, why would that be any different"?
Luckily we live in a time when we can access real information at our fingertips. I would direct anyone to www.FEAST-ED.org, a website full of up-to-date information on the latest research and evidence-based treatment options, and to www.aroundthedinnertable.org, a forum of caregivers from around the world. It has meant the difference between life and death to many sufferers to have their parents or other loved ones intervene in a very active, loving way.
Kudos to people like Laura who are working to promote truth and health!
This is distressing exploitation. Full stop. To not include up to date evidence based treatments (albeit the evidence base is small) is, to my mind, criminal.
I have no idea who Tracey Gould is. I guess she is not big in the UK. However, I am deeply saddened that she is party to reducing a brain disorder to a television programme, omitting the most essential information and not including the family, which has been proved to be a most effective tool in recovery.
I am sad and disgusted.