Posted by Dinah on September 1, 2010, at 7:19:35
In reply to Re: Anti-psychotics not mood stabilizers? » Dinah, posted by obsidian on August 31, 2010, at 22:10:48
Was the article anti-med?
I confess it was the part about how the medications worked that caught my attention. That they treated the symptoms rather than revealed the underlying cause. I think he was responding to the idea that if some people with a certain condition responded to an SSRI, it must mean that their condition resulted from low serotonin. He was saying it was more like treating pulmonary edema. It can be caused by many things, but the symptoms have to be addressed.
So that in this case, responding to antipsychotics isn't necessarily diagnostic of any particular condition. (Unlike response to an antibiotic which would indicate that the infection was bacterial rather than viral.) It just means that anxiety and agitation respond well in some people to the tranquilizing effects of antipsychotics. Not finding seroquel tranquilizng might be more diagnostic than finding it tranquilizing, from all I hear of it.
If I'm making sense.
I suppose he is also saying that addressing the symptoms isn't really sufficient, and it would be better to address the root cause as well. Just as with pulmonary edema you would both treat the symptoms and address the underlying condition? And perhaps that sometimes the effect of medications may make it difficult to address the root cause?
I suppose all that would be where clinical judgment comes in.
Or at least that was my reading of it. But since I latched on to the portion I liked, I might have missed the meaning of the article as a whole. :)
poster:Dinah
thread:960844
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20100829/msgs/960923.html