Good question. As far as I can tell, there isn't much of one!

I agree that a lot of this depends on the safe space itself. I recently read a description of safe spaces that made me think a lot about their potential: "[They are] alternative discursive arenas where vulnerable groups can reconfigure and reframe their experiences of the dominant, public sphere, with the ultimate aim of returning to the public sphere better armed to combat their own oppression." I think that when these spaces are not viewed as a place to hide but rather as a place to collectively process and reframe experiences, they can have enormous benefit, especially in institutions of higher education. THAT BEING SAID, I am skeptical that this is the role safe spaces actually play in many college campuses. As a member of Gen Z, it's my impression that many of these spaces simply act as echo chambers for a specific ideology. TLDR; I think that the most effective safe space is one that deconstructs dominant culture, not dismisses it. Does this make any sense??? lol

@Jay Zhou I see what you're saying. In my experience, at least, media influences how our generation sees substance use. For example, smoking (cigarettes) is seen as a very uncool thing to do because of the numerous media campaigns trying to convince people not to start smoking. On the other hand, marijuana is glorified through various celebrities who use it on a regular basis. Because our generation is so interconnected through the use of social media, it seems that media is more powerful than ever in the way we perceive illicit substances.

#2 is so important, and not something that enough people realize! Although depression is an illness, it can't be 'cured,' which is part of what makes it so dastardly.

Great point! Caring for the elderly creates many much-needed jobs.

Just as we've seen, one of the most effective tools to combating depression is media representation. Among younger generations, celebrities coming forward with their stories have helped many recognize what serious conditions they actually are. If older celebrities were to come forward with their stories, it would certainly help many of their older fans come to terms with any mental health issues they could be suffering from. Furthermore, I think it's important to spark honest discussion within the elderly community. The younger generations of America have been for the most part entirely connected by technology, something of which older generations might not reap the benefit. By setting up meetings concerning mental health in communities with high concentrations of the elderly, awareness around these issues might be raised.

In the U.S., it's becoming increasingly accepted to put elderly people in retirement homes when they suffer from unmanageable mental illnesses (just like for physical illnesses). Speaking to many of my friends from East Asia, however, I understand that there tends to be a stigma against putting elderly family members in either retirement homes or hospices. Because elders, in some households, are seen as the most respected members of the family, I can understand why it would be horrifying to "send them away" to be taken care of by strangers. In the U.S., however, retirement homes/hospices are seen as a normal option for families who don't have the time or means to take care of the elderly members of the family. Although I don't know where I stand on the issue, I can see both sides of the argument -- hopefully I figure out my stance before I grow old myself!

Although, as @Hyunseo Kim pointed out, many of the symptoms are similar, there can be some differences in the symptoms of geriatric depression as compared to depression in younger peoples. For some older adults with depression, sadness is not their main symptom; instead, symptoms such as tiredness, insomnia, and irritability may be more prevalent. Furthermore, memory issues and cloudiness of mind can be dismissed as dementia, and many medications for the elderly can cause depression as a side effect, making depression especially difficult to treat in elderly patients. https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/depression-and-older-adults

Adding onto @vpathy20 's point, mental health is something which has only been destigmatized in popular culture in recent years -- for generations that grew up learning that mental health was less valid/serious than physical health, it's not hard to see how you can end up with an entire generation of individuals who don't realize the importance of their mental health concerns.

I think elderly people can be especially susceptible to depression for a variety of reasons; most notably, I think that the declining quality of life as one ages can be incredibly discouraging. As we get older, and our health begins to deteriorate, it’s easy to get into the mentality that, because we can’t do all of the things we used to be able to, we can no longer find things to enjoy. Furthermore, the creation and increasing reliance on techology lead the elderly, who grew up without any modern technology, to feel isolated.

Unfortunately, in America, at least, the stereotype of a "crazy old person" seems to pervade the majority of our society. For whatever reason, we seem to have this idea that most people become mentally challenged as they grow older, and thus, when elderly people do develop mental illnesses, it's seen as a natural process. While issues such as dementia do tend to come with old age, depression is not something exclusive to the elderly, and we should begin to approach it with the same attitude that we do for people of other ages.

Damn -- that's the question, isn't it? I think you've just hit upon the million-dollar question, to which I can't seem to come to a concrete answer. 🤷🏻‍

I think I have to disagree with some of what's said here: first, I don't think it necessarily incentivizes companies to create better vaccines. While this could be the case, such as in more recently developed vaccines, most vaccines have been monopolized by massive corporations. For this reason, there's no real competition, so there's no incentive to improve the product. More pressingly, the profit from vaccines could instead drive the company to simply inflate the price of their product in order to make more money (as has been seen in recent cases, such as with the scandal regarding the price inflation of the EpiPen). It's not like people are just going stop using vaccines, so, aside from public backlash, is there any reason these companies like Sanofi Pasteur wouldn't maximize profits, even if it were at the expense of the health of the public?

In a literal sense, of course. I don't think there's any logically-founded way to debate that. In a more metaphysical sense, I can see how people might say no. It's easy to forget, but a pretty massive American population firmly believes that the foundation of liberty is the right to individual decision -- when the government steps in to force an individual to make a choice that they might personally disagree with, is that beneficial to the wellbeing of freedom in a country? If the government infringes on the way we choose to raise our children, where do we draw the line?

I agree with everything said here, but I don't think the issue is this clear-cut. When we say that there's an unequivocal ethical violation on behalf of the parents who decide not to vaccinate their children, we're judging them against our values, in which the best path to safety is science and medicine. Many in the U.S. who choose not to vaccinate their children do so for religious reasons, because they believe that their deity can keep their children safer than any new scientific advancement. On top of that, the scare around vaccines causing autism is (almost, but) not entirely baseless. Vaccines such as the flu vaccine contain ingredients that have been linked to brain damage and impaired neurological function, and, while it's true that these substances have been reduced to a harmless amount in vaccines, if there were to be either a manufacturing or human error, the consequences could be severe. In addition, it's not unheard of for young children to have allergic reactions to vaccines, something which can often be fatal. While risks like these are very slight, the combination of many can be enough to convince people to rely on religion instead. Many in the U.S. (especially in rural areas) are inherently distrustful of the government as well, an understandable sentiment, as the U.S. government has, in the past, lied to the people en masse in order to do what it considered best for their safety (think: PRISM). All in all, although I disagree, I can see where people come from. However, it's important to remember, as was mentioned above, that people who choose not to vaccinate their children affect not only the lives of their children, but the lives of others. I think this is where the issue becomes really sticky: how do we balance the rights of individuals with the wellbeing of the community?

Although the U.S. government recommends vaccines for children, and, in the case of government-sponsored healthcare, helps pay for them, the decision on whether or not to vaccinate is entirely the decision of the parents/legal guardian. There has been a very public push for vaccines in recent years, however, as cases of measles spread by unvaccinated children have devastated communities. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4927017/ https://www.vaccines.gov/getting/pay/index.html https://consumer.healthday.com/kids-health-information-23/measles-news-464/here-s-what-happened-when-1-unvaccinated-nyc-kid-got-measles-736305.html