Posted by med_empowered on July 19, 2005, at 17:45:30
In reply to Re: Bad (but expected) news about ADs, posted by linkadge on July 19, 2005, at 16:41:08
The Study, as I understand it, was publicly funded (there weren't any Scientologists bank-rolling it or anything, lol). I say this news is "expected" or at least "not unexpected" because we've all had or known people who had problems with ADs and/or didn't get any meaningful amount of relief, AND b/c of all the coverage as of late on the power of Big Pharma to manipulate every aspect of the health industry, including (in the US) the FDA (Factoid: 10% of the FDA's budget comes FROM Big Pharma.) I think the common tactic of casting suspicion on those who would DARE to question the status quo, whether it be in psychiatry or elsewhere, reveals a desperate attempt to MAINTAIN the status quo and sustain a sort of Orthodoxy in science, which is completely inappropriate. A number of other publications have criticised ADs and other psychiatric drugs--some were laughed off, some were simply ignored or pushed to the fringe. My problem is this: it seems that Psychiatry has become so obsessed with the "broken brain" theory of mental illness/personal problems that is has chosen to rididcule, minimize, and ignore other potentially helpful perspectives. Even now, in the wake of evidence that ADs sometimes increase suicidality and that they do, indeed, carry serious side-effect risks, psychiatrists often seem to be so hooked on the "broken brain idea"--and the power, prestige, and drug-company money that comes with it-- that they will fight to protect their pet theory (belief is probably a better word) from any data, even the best, that dares question it. In science, the idea is that one should pursue the truth, or something close to it. How can psychiatrists be said to be "pursuing the truth" when they close off all avenues of research and inquiry except for the "acceptable" ones? How can a "science" claim objectivity and intellectual rigor when it attacks those who dare ask questions or raise concerns? I dont doubt that the antidepressants have helped some people--and thats great. But, remember what they teach you in basic statistics: anecdotal evidence is terribly flawed; the "bigger picture" usually gives more insight into the matter. So yes, I know several people who have been helped by antidepressants, but I also know that larger studies have, overall, pointed only to a relatively weak depression-fighting effect. As for suicide...I also know that tricyclics and MAOIs were introduced in the 1950's, which is also the decade that saw the introduction of Thorazine and the real "birth" of psychopharmacology. Since then...suicide rates HAVE gone up, especially among children and teens. MORE people are kept in prisons than ever before in US history. MORE people abuse drugs. Are our brains somehow MORE broken than they were in the 1950s? I doubt it. I think life is complex, people are complex, and the problems that people have--whether you call them "issues" or "mentall illness"-- are also infinitely complex. I mean, ask yourself: do we just have less serotonin than we did the 50s? Or, maybe, could widespread social isolation, materialism, discrimination, world hunger/poverty, war, and problems like the AIDS epidemic lead to the kind of widespread confusion and misery you see today? Granted, people have always had problems, but this promise that Prozac and company will make it better is recent...and it seems to be a hollow promise, indeed. Overall, I think psychiatry's failing, it fatal flaw, is its self-importance, its arrogance. For thousands of years, people have searched for answers about life and happiness/unhappiness. As a result, humanity has art, religion, philosophy, music...things that make life meaningful, full, rich...and worth living. How can psychiatry, which emerged from the madhouse with claims of "curing the insane" even TRY to compare itself to these endeavors? How can psychiatrists dare to assert that their expensive little pills are some how of equal value as, say, the teachings of Jesus, Buddha, or Gandhi in explaining and healing life's pain? And how can a profssion which views anyone who isnt smiling, happy, always productive, with a proper sleep schedule, healthy sex life and "good attitude" as somehow diseased and deviant claim to be "empowering" and "helpful" ? Those who refuse psychiatric medications or deny their diagnoses are often told they "lack insight." Ask yourself--when a psychiatrist tries to reduce a PERSON to symptoms and disorders and reduces the incredible complexity of existence to the clump of brain cells in our head--who is it, really, that "lacks insight" ?
poster:med_empowered
thread:530123
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050718/msgs/530212.html