Posted by greywolf on March 23, 2006, at 9:43:01
In reply to Re: Depression drugs work in just half of patients » greywolf, posted by Meri-Tuuli on March 23, 2006, at 8:25:21
I would not be surprised at all to hear the Bush Administration proposing stricter controls on the prescribing of ADs and the introduction of new ADs into the market just so the Administration looks like it's doing something to control the rise of health care costs.
Believe me, in this country right now, there will be little support for restricting drugs used for the treatment of cancer, AIDS, and other physiological illnesses, but meds for mental illness will be fair game. A huge portion of the American population will buy into the "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" approach to treatment of mental illness, and those ubiquitous Lucinda Bassett mental wellness ads that impliedly denigrate those who take ADs and other drugs will become all that more common.
This study is not likely to be a good thing for those whose lives are actually improved by ADs. I think it's important, therefore, to accentuate the positives of current pharmaceutical treatments because an attack on ADs can lead to an attack on lots of other drugs.
Seriously, can you imagine the accolades that would be bestowed on the researchers who create a med that cures or significantly helps 50% of lung cancer patients? How about a drug that is effective for 50% of AIDs patients?
I wish it were better, but 50% is much preferable to 0.
poster:greywolf
thread:623557
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20060322/msgs/623615.html