Individuality In Mental Health Treatments

As if there are not situations where one category of treatment or the other is ideal, some people act as if it is just medication or just reconnection with nature that would resolve mental illness as a whole.  For those who personally benefit from exposure to nature, there is thankfully no steep financial barrier to simply going outside.  A certain kind of person might assume that because observing or resting in nature rejuvenates them or calms conditions like depression, it must help other people in the same way too.  "Grounding" (letting one's bare feet contact the ground to receive benefits from the electrical properties of Earth), walking outdoors in a secluded area, or sitting in the quiet solitude of nature could be rather effective in alleviating or wholly removing specific mental health problems for specific people, but some people not only assume that this will help them because of preference or hearsay, but they might also assume that if these measures succeed for them, they must do the same for everyone else. 

Seeing or walking in nature, including doing so while barefoot, is not some default panacea for every kind of mental health problem.  Especially since the triggers for the same condition could be different for various people, the individuality of treating mental illnesses is one of the more important things to understand.  Even if this kind of exposure to nature genuinely helped someone shed or lessen their depression, anxiety, or partial numbness, it is not necessarily true that another person will be relieved of their symptoms in at all or to the same extent.  People who recommend "nature" as the solution to almost any mental health problem, as such, are fools who either are assuming that their positive experiences would be necessity be shared by other people--not that correlation proves causation anyway--believe something that is either not true or that is not true by logical necessity.

For more extreme mental health issues like total emotional numbness, psychosis, dissociative amnesia, or dissociative identity disorder, just visually examining nature would likely accomplish absolutely nothing besides perhaps briefly distracting someone from their suffering.  The same would almost certainly be true of walking around with or without grounding in the process.  Why would anyone expect for just immersing oneself in nature to resurrect lost memories, dispell alternate personalities, or bring back the capacity for emotion itself?  As controversial as they are, psychiatric medications are probably a far more effective treatment than anything having to do with merely retreating into nature, though someone enjoying recovery through other methods might then be able to find nature relaxing, comforting, or emotionally awing.

Medications still utilize elements of the natural world, but in the form of human-fashioned drugs that can exploit correlations between physical and mental phenomena to more directly address particular mental illnesses.  Is someone plagued by workplace burnout or the desire to spend some time away from other people?  Perhaps being immersed in nature could be very helpful in allowing bodily or psychological recuperation.  What of a person whose emotional numbness leaves them without any emotions or someone whose depression is so severe that they could not even enjoy nature as they might want to?  There would be no emotion for nature to stir up or no probable benefit for such depression.  If only connecting with nature could end all mental illnesses in all people, then overcoming them would be a rather simple, accessible thing for almost everyone.  The nature of subjectivity, as different individuals could have different mental reactions to what is otherwise the same experiences, is key here.