The term "insanity" originated in the 1550s of persons, "mentally damaged" or also called mad, unsound mind, outrageous, excessive, extravagant, or not well. Does this however locate the root of what a person is known to be? Are suffers meant to be labeled to such a degree of words? Does this come into play with the thought of who is taking action here at will? The person is at odds with a health condition. They are at the mercy of suffering from a root cause, not the other way around. To say someone is outrageous is to claim they did something or acted out however can we claim they were not convinced by their own thoughts that made them "perform" in such a way? In the absence of the mind lays one steady human being, in the presence of the mind remains all, and in the separation of the mind lays the unknown. Willingness v.s. unwillingness is the tiebreaker. Control v.s. uncontrolled. Control and willingness can often be lost in mental illness through choice. The choice is the "make it or break it" keeper. Do I choose to? One asks his/her self. When the lack thereof choice ceases to be present we begin to wonder if we are in control and still mentally aware or present. Should "insanity" be defined then as a lack of choice? No one chooses mental insecurities and sicknesses and no one chooses the label yet both are given. Why?