我们一直被这样教育着：要把精神病人当人看待。但是在看到疯狂女粉丝的父亲蹈海自尽的消息之后，我面临一个相反的疑惑：怎样把边缘精神病人当病人看待？
刘德华的粉丝杨丽娟疯狂追星13年，不仅自己不读书不工作不社交，而且为此赔上了父母的钱财和精力，以及生命。而她的父母则倾其所有，甚至倾其所没有，卖了房子又贷款，陪她北上南下去追逐偶像。终于见到刘德华并合影留念以后，杨丽娟仍不满足，于是父亲带着对刘德华的满腔怨恨走上了不归路。
这是一个出人意料的结局。但是回想这一家人的经历，尤其是媒体广泛报道这一年多时间来的故事，他们还会有别的出路吗？此前有人认为他们见到了刘德华就是一个大团圆，但是他们并未因此而满足。也许现在有人认为如果刘德华多给一些时间就是一个终点，其实那也只是一种假设。一个人攒积了13年的梦想，而且不是她的一个梦想，而且生命中全部的梦想，并演变成全家人的全部梦想，会因为刘德华多安排一些时间交谈就戛然而止吗？接下来又往何处去呢？因此，他们走到这一步似乎又是一种必然，如果再得不到救助，甚至还有更多的悲剧在前面等待。
现在专家教授都出来了，异口同声地说，这一家人有明显的精神病症状。如果是这样，这一年来媒体和大众扮演了什么角色呢？无异于围观一个精神病人的表演，甚至叫好和狂欢，一直看着他走上绝路。当然，这期间也有记者对他们进行规劝，也有刘德华发表声明劝其孝顺父母。但是这些声音除了促使他们更加勇敢地走向深渊之外，还起到了什么作用呢？
人类自诞生以来，就一直深受精神疾病困扰。在古代，精神病患者通常被当作神鬼附体或妖魔化身，被驱赶甚至被烧死。后来精神病逐渐地被当作疾病看待了，但是对病人的歧视却长期存在。讥笑、嘲弄、打骂、凌辱是他们的家常便饭。把病人当人看待，尊重他们的权利，一直是医生和社会活动家的重要功课。到了近现代，为精神病人正名甚至成为人文哲学的重要命题，其核心是反对对人的任何桎梏。海德格尔说过，精神病人和正常人并没有明确的边界。福柯则干脆说，精神病院就是以医学之名拘押人的囚所，“禁止发疯如同禁止发言”，也就是说，人有发疯的权利。
直到现在，对精神病人的歧视仍然普遍存在。借精神病之名打击异己甚至成为人们的惯用伎俩。三十年前，同性恋还被视为精神病患者。如今国内的一些上访者也被地方官员指为精神病人抓起来关押。一句“你有病”往往成为人们忽略他人意见和尊严的轻松借口。多数精神病人自身也歧视精神疾病，并且害怕社会的歧视，所以坚决不肯承认自己有病。在这种背景下，媒体要报道某人是精神病患者显然面临的道义和法律的压力。
在这个问题没有解决的同时，人类也面临另外一个问题，那就是如何把精神病人当病人看待，亦即如何去帮助他们。对于一些受过教育的人，要做到没有歧视很容易，最简单的办法就是不理睬他们，或者假装他们是健康人。但是如何能够既不歧视又去帮助他们，却并非一件容易的事。
杨丽娟的故事报道伊始，就有精神病医生提醒说，他们一家人可能心理不健康。在这种情况下，我们的社会做了什么呢？没有任何人、任何政府部门或任何民间组织对他们伸出援手，给予过有效的帮助。由于上述歧视因素，我们不能轻易指认一个人有精神病。于是整个社会完全无视医生的提醒，放任这一家人走到今天。这是一种可怕的冷漠。
精神疾病的发病率在全世界呈上升趋势。就个人经验而言，我的身边出现了越来越多的抑郁症患者。据称仅这一类精神疾病，全世界患者就高达3.4亿人，有的地方达到人口的10%，其中约15%的患者自杀。我目睹了一些朋友的痛苦挣扎，但常常无能为力，无论是从社会组织还是我个人都找不到任何救助的力量。他们总是说，只有自己能够救自己。作为患者，他们有资格这样说，但是作为健康人，我却深切地感到包括自己在内的整个社会的冰凉。
杨丽娟事件，让我再一次感到自己作为一个社会的人羞愧。

看到DANWEI网将《广电总局恶搞国产影视》一文译成英文，转贴以致谢。

SARFT spoofs domestic films
by Chang Ping / SMW
What is SARFT for? Most people would think that it is used to criticize domestic film and TV; otherwise, why would it issue ban after ban on TV and demand cut after cut during film reviews? Not long ago, a SARFT official issued a statement after watching a TV program that parodied Curse of the Golden Flower and The Banquet, saying, “artistic works should not be permitted to criticize domestic film.” Perhaps because this had too much of a “officials may set fires but the people may not light lamps”-flavor and was too divorced from common sense, the media felt uncomfortable recording his exact words in their reports, and voluntarily changed it to “domestic films cannot be spoofed” (不准恶搞国产电影).

But it appears that SARFT was not grateful; they apparently really wanted you to understand: forbidding you from playing at something was for no other purpose than to keep it for themselves. So goes criticism, and so goes such a fun pursuit as egao. For example, saying “Restricting broadcasts of foreign cartoons during prime-time is the cry of the youth” is very egao: evidently those TV stations were stupidly unaware of the demands of the audience, but fought to broadcast foreign cartoons that were detested by the general youth. Recently, a deputy director at SARFT blasted Li Yu’s Lost in Beijing and urged Jia Zhangke to learn sympathy for others. No matter how you look at it, straight-faced irony, egao criticism.

According to that deputy director, Lost in Beijing tells the story of a migrant worker couple. The wife is raped by her boss, and the husband uses this to blackmail the boss for 20,000 yuan. When he finds his wife is pregnant, he demands 120,000. The deputy director said, “As artistic expression, this story can be forgiven. But as Chinese people, we cannot permit this film to make an insulting depiction of our times.” Why is it that “Chinese people” and “artistic expression” are so incompatible? His statement sounds a little bit insulting to the Chinese people. As for the story, even speaking from a strict interpretation of the law, isn’t this just an out-of-court arrangement of a civil matter subsidiary to a criminal investigation, commonly called a “private settlement”? Give it to a judge, and it’s possible that the judgment would be for 120,000 yuan – how does this insult the Chinese people? It’s too egao! Thinking it over, it’s best just to trust the analysis of someone online: “What an outrage! How could our Our bosses or leaders rape? Our boss only seduces, commits adultery, and drives good women to prostitution!”

As for Jia Zhangke, this deputy director’s evaluation was genuinely innovative. Jia Zhangke has neither box-office nor scandal; isn’t it his reliance on “compassion for lower levels” that’s allowed him to make it to today? Even Zhang Weiping wasn’t so bold as to deny this point during their argument, and he even admitted that Jia makes “art films” – in the minds of movie people, “art film” is a term of respect. This deputy director used his position as a “good friend” to say, “I’ve reminded Jia Zhangke that if he wants to climb high, he must have compassion for others. The words of this “good friend” were too weighty, virtually ripping everything out from under him, and they were directed at an entire generation: for sixth-generation directors, this is a common failing, to “not infuse movies with one’s own feelings, but to depict things too objectively from the standpoint of an observer. This naturalistic description can extremely easily become an absolute realism. They’ve ignored drama; what they shoot looks exceptionally icy, monotonous, and insufficiently saturated with color….” What would the outcome be of following this deputy director’s prescription for warmth, saturation, and drama? Isn’t it clear to everyone that this would be a “main theme” film? He no longer uses “not permitted” in his sentence structure, but rather uses the techniques of artistic criticism to issue orders, the position of a good friend to perform administrative work. This too is egao. Like they say, face heaven and earth without reservation, but fear the official who’s got an education.