Posted by zeugma on August 24, 2003, at 13:02:47
In reply to Re: Strattera really better than stims for ADD?, posted by utopizen on August 23, 2003, at 22:42:56
Strattera will only replace stims as first-line tereatment for uncomplicated ADHD when and if conclusive evidence surfaces that that Strattera is either better than or equal to stims in efficacy, and has fewer side effects in the bargain. At least, I fervently hope that will be the case. I realize fully that the stims are not the most 'politically correct' drugs, and this could create a bias in favor of Strattera. Something of the same kind seems to have happened with the SSRI's with respect to the benzodiazapines, which likewise are less ;politically correct' drugs. (In the bargain, the SSRI's displaced existing treatments for depression, the TCA's and MAOI's, due to the mislabeling of these drugs as 'antidepressants.') A read through some outstanding books by David Healy, "The Antidepressant Era" and "The Creation of Psychopharmacology", will provide illustrations of how historically this process has worked. The term 'pharmacological Calvinism' was coined by the eminent researcher Gerald Klerman to describe why this happens. I'll give a quote from one of Healy's books ("The Antidepressant Era") that sums up this part of his argument:
"[pharmacological Calvinism] refers to a belief system in which drug use is held to be bad and even dangerous if it makes you feel good. A drug that makes you feel good either is somehow morally wrong or is going to be paid for with dependence, liver damage, chromosomal change, or some other form of secular theological retribution. Following up this lead, an NIMH study in the 1970's found that many lay people viewed nervous problems as a sign of moral weakness and the use of something like tranquilizers for such difficulties as further evidence of weakness."
poster:zeugma
thread:52294
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20030823/msgs/253595.html