Shown: posts 1 to 13 of 13. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by antigua on November 29, 2005, at 15:33:56
My pdoc says that I will be on meds forever, given the number of depressive episodes I've had and their increased reoccurring frequency. I don't like that thought.
Who believes in forever meds? Is it like forever therapy? (And yes, I know diabetics need meds for life, so why should I be so resistant? I've been through that argument... but it doesn't change the way I feel.)
Any thoughts?
antigua
Posted by Squiggles on November 29, 2005, at 17:19:01
In reply to Forever meds, posted by antigua on November 29, 2005, at 15:33:56
I would rather not be on medication forever;
but I have on occasion been off, and seen
the consequences -- much worse. It is an
unfortunate burden. If your meds are adjusted
to your comfort level, you might just get
used to them without being overly aware
of the effects.State-of-the-art :-)
Squiggles
Posted by Pfinstegg on November 29, 2005, at 18:58:27
In reply to Forever meds, posted by antigua on November 29, 2005, at 15:33:56
It's hard to accept that they'll be forever- me too, But I think that for most of us, therapy itself is the most powerful influence in our lives. For lots of us, that will be a lot of years- but I think it's OK to take the medications along with the therapy, You-and I- never know- but therapy may help us heal enough that we won't need medication forever. We don't know, but I hope so. I guess the main thing to do is not to think of the need for medication as a personal failure. I must say that that thought doesn't come naturally, but I do think that seeking therapy, and accepting medication, as needed, are both acts of immense courage for us all. I think that we can count on that, as we go day to day.
Posted by Phillipa on November 29, 2005, at 23:55:33
In reply to Re: Forever meds » antigua, posted by Pfinstegg on November 29, 2005, at 18:58:27
Agree with the above. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Bryco on November 30, 2005, at 5:13:08
In reply to Re: Forever meds » Pfinstegg, posted by Phillipa on November 29, 2005, at 23:55:33
> Agree with the above. Fondly, Phillipa
I don't really agree with the above.
Let's say I'm more of a behaviorist, i think that my problem and probably many other people's problem's are mainly biologically situated.
And i don't think therapy can adjust the biology (at least not profoundly).ALTOUGH therapy is probably indispensible for many people, agreed.
Posted by Squiggles on November 30, 2005, at 6:54:22
In reply to Re: Forever meds, posted by Bryco on November 30, 2005, at 5:13:08
If therapy (and I think you mean talk-therapy
and cognitive behaviour therapy) could help
people in distress (e.g.domestic abuse, war trauma,
mental illness) to explain what their situation
was and have a doctor take that information and
use it, then I could see its use. But if
talk-therapy is a substitute for a "buddy", then
that "buddy" would have to be there for life -
a pretty expensive proposition, though not as
expensive as a lawyer, e.g. in the case of child
abuse.If on the other hand therapy is used to
change people's perspective in the throes
of mental illness, I would say that such
social scientists are very optimistic. If
a mentally ill person could understand and
modify his/her situation, they would not be
mentally ill.I *do* see the benefit of therapy in situations
where practical assistance is necessary from
a therapist or social worker - in cases where
an immigrant needs help to understand a new
culture in the midst of his mental illness,
or needs assistance with resources in his
community, or a translator.The rest is palliative; indeed, it may
even be confusing and perplexing.Squiggles
Posted by jclint on November 30, 2005, at 15:58:14
In reply to Re: Forever meds, posted by Squiggles on November 30, 2005, at 6:54:22
The thought of being on a medicine that would carry on working for the rest of my life is a greatly inspiring thought, actually! After trying so many drugs I have really lost any of my original stigma towards taking them. I can't imagine living without some 'chemical help' really. Its always a bit scary when you first think about it - but if you have minimal side effects, and the drug is not dangerous in the long term, then I can't see a reason to be depressed by the thought of staying on them for life.
Although having said that, you need to find something that suits you - I am on Cymbalta at the moment and would not like to be on it for life as I feel it has something of an emotional numbing effect. But my other drug, Lamictal, I would have no trouble taking indefinately, if it kept working.
Posted by Squiggles on November 30, 2005, at 16:05:25
In reply to Re: Forever meds, posted by jclint on November 30, 2005, at 15:58:14
jclint,
You do have to find the right drug for
your illness. That's the hard part for
the majority of people I have seen posting
and spoken to. Having found it, staying
on it for the rest of your life can be
seen as similar to taking insulin for a
diabetic disorder for the rest of your life,
or, to make it closer to a neurological/psychiatric disorder--
an epileptic condition.Experimenting at first is crucial and
hopefully you are still quite young.Best of luck.
Squiggles
Posted by jclint on November 30, 2005, at 17:13:02
In reply to Re: Forever meds, posted by Squiggles on November 30, 2005, at 16:05:25
Squiggles, you have hit the nail on the head with your insulin analogy :) That's exactly how I view psych drugs in relation to my life. I view my illness as I would any illness, such as diabetes.
Posted by daisym on December 1, 2005, at 11:28:40
In reply to Re: Forever meds, posted by Squiggles on November 30, 2005, at 6:54:22
Don't you think good therapy would avoid the "buddy" aspects and work, maybe slowly, towards the best functioning a person is capable of? Just like medications can be lifetime, whose to say a support person isn't also necessary.
I think about clergy in this way -- we go to Church or temple or wherever and learn how to pray, and behave and the teachings and history and all the other stuff. But no one ever says, "OK, now do it on your own." It is expected that there is a leader to help you stay on track, to remind you about things and to help you reflect on how you are living your life.
Likewise, even if you learn a ton about medications and symptoms and side effects, you still have someone helping you monitor things. You reflect with this person on how you have been feeling, how you are functioning and you make changes as your body and life changes.
Why is therapy thought of as so different?
Posted by Squiggles on December 1, 2005, at 11:49:36
In reply to Re: Forever meds » Squiggles, posted by daisym on December 1, 2005, at 11:28:40
Basically, because it is very difficult
to change a person's habits. Though I agree
with you that for a particular personal
problem therapy might be very comforting
and may give someone a direction in solving
life problems.As for me, all doctors who have seen me
have been very impressed with my insight.
I do not need a therapist; maybe they can hire
me out as one, heh;Squiggles
Posted by Simcha on December 1, 2005, at 12:44:00
In reply to Forever meds, posted by antigua on November 29, 2005, at 15:33:56
Yes, I've been told the same thing, that I need medication for life, most likely. I've had too many major depressive episodes. Med changes always rock my world. My family of origin exhibits classic signs that mental illness is genetic and organic for us. I did therapy for ten years with some success. But nothing has been like the experience of taking medications AND being in therapy.
Maybe I'm biased because I just graduated with a masters in counseling psychology and I'm in training to be a psychotherapist. And I know from experience that medication and therapy works better for depression than either treatment alone.
To argue that changing a person's behavior and thought patterns is difficult and thus talk therapy doesn't work does not make for a cogent arguement. Cancer is very difficult to treat and most often kills. Yet chemotherapy, radiation, and other treatments halt or even reverse cancer, even if for a short time. Would you not use cancer treatment due to the difficulty of fighting cancer for someone who has cancer?
I compare mental illness to cancer because it can be deadly. Mental illness is often progressive. Talk therapy and medication have both proven effective for arresting and treating mental illness.
Now, as for the arguement that talk therapy does not change brain chemistry, I'd like to add more recent findings that I can find on the Internet if it's wanted. Recently, behaviorists have shown that our brains develop and change due to experience in the world. This means that experience develops the brain. If so, then chemical balance changes with development. We are talking about biological development.
There is a famous study done on Romanian orphans. These orphans were not touched, handled, or given much in the way of stimulation. Upon examination, researchers took note that their brains were underdeveloped and smaller than they should be. Once these orphans were in situations where they received stimuli their brains developed and grew.
It has been shown that adult brains can develop and grow new cells too. And it has been shown that experience can have effects on the structure and chemistry of the adult brain. Thus going to see a therapist is an experience. If it is a positive, corrective, experience then we see positive changes in brain structure and chemistry. So, in actuality, talk-therapy can be seen as a drug. The experience of talk-therapy has been shown to have lasting effects on neurochemistry.
In light of all of this, it is very important to seek well-trained and knowledgeable therapists who have a proven track record. If talk-therapy has the power to change the brain structure and brain chemistry then therapists can cause great harm to a client.
As a therapist, I'm not a "buddy" to my clients. It is a professional relationship. I encourage my clients to have friendships, romances, etc. because intimacy helps end isolation. It gives the client good experiences that can transform their lives. I do have therapeutic relationships with clients. That means that I do work from a relational model. The relationship I have with a client is "corrective." By engaging in a "corrective" relationship with me, I'm conditioning my clients to have better relationships in the world at large.
As a therapist, when I see that talk-therapy alone is not helping a client to be in remission, I will suggest that the client go to a psychiatrist for an evaluation. I have found that when clients who need medicatgion get on medication, it allows them to do the work that is required in a psychotherapeutic context. It's like a veil has been lifted. And for some of these clients, the organic/genetic/biological component is so ingrained that medications and talk-therapy is recommended for the forseeable future.
Simcha
Posted by Squiggles on December 1, 2005, at 13:07:47
In reply to Re: Forever meds, posted by Simcha on December 1, 2005, at 12:44:00
> Yes, I've been told the same thing, that I need medication for life, most likely. I've had too many major depressive episodes. Med changes always rock my world. My family of origin exhibits classic signs that mental illness is genetic and organic for us. I did therapy for ten years with some success. But nothing has been like the experience of taking medications AND being in therapy.
...........I did have some therapy myself upon initiation
and diagnosis of bipolar, 25 years ago. It
helped me get into the "shoes" so to speak and
talk. It was very kind of my dr. to provide
both. I do feel that I am a bit resistant
to "staff" though, and would prefer to speak to
a friend, which I do.
.............
>
> Maybe I'm biased because I just graduated with a masters in counseling psychology and I'm in training to be a psychotherapist. And I know from experience that medication and therapy works better for depression than either treatment alone.
...........No, that's not a bias, but experience -- which is
good.
...........
>
> To argue that changing a person's behavior and thought patterns is difficult and thus talk therapy doesn't work does not make for a cogent arguement. Cancer is very difficult to treat and most often kills. Yet chemotherapy, radiation, and other treatments halt or even reverse cancer, even if for a short time. Would you not use cancer treatment due to the difficulty of fighting cancer for someone who has cancer?
..............I don't believe that the analogy is appropriate.
In the case of a personality, it has taken
many years to develop biologically - the habits
have actually ingrained certain responses in the
brain. In the case of other organs of the body,
they may be treated and changed but they will
never be conscious. You may be conscious of
their state through pain, but when you are
conscious of your emotions, you are not connected
to the neurological aspects through your
experience.
................
>
> I compare mental illness to cancer because it can be deadly. Mental illness is often progressive. Talk therapy and medication have both proven effective for arresting and treating mental illness.
................I agree - it is surprisingly serious. And,
I am not entirely against therapy-- it can
be very helpful when you are in a critical
situation. But as I said in my previous message
on this topic, it strikes me as a rather
"cosmetic" help in comparison to the more
pragmatic needs of someone who is mentally ill -
such as where to go for necessities, whom to
speak to about referrals to doctors, how to
get a lawyer, where is there a food bank, stuff
like that.
..............
>
> Now, as for the arguement that talk therapy does not change brain chemistry, I'd like to add more recent findings that I can find on the Internet if it's wanted. Recently, behaviorists have shown that our brains develop and change due to experience in the world. This means that experience develops the brain. If so, then chemical balance changes with development. We are talking about biological development.
..............Most of those changes end by the age of 12.
.................
>
> There is a famous study done on Romanian orphans. These orphans were not touched, handled, or given much in the way of stimulation. Upon examination, researchers took note that their brains were underdeveloped and smaller than they should be. Once these orphans were in situations where they received stimuli their brains developed and grew.
..............Yes, I stuided psychology too - that is early
childhood deprivation and they have done
(**** them) such experiments on animals as well;
the offspring turn out introverted, depressed,
mentally underdeveloped and sometimes even mute,
if not from organic causes, just simply from not
learning to vocalize.
................>
> It has been shown that adult brains can develop and grow new cells too. And it has been shown that experience can have effects on the structure and chemistry of the adult brain. Thus going to see a therapist is an experience. If it is a positive, corrective, experience then we see positive changes in brain structure and chemistry. So, in actuality, talk-therapy can be seen as a drug. The experience of talk-therapy has been shown to have lasting effects on neurochemistry.
................Well, OK -- I agree partly. Maybe you just have to have a really stimulating therapist :-); Hmm,
let me see, if i were to choose one, I think
I would definitely go for someone like Robin Williams or Steven Martin -- alas, they are
comics.
.............Thanks Simcha for your input. If my dr. refers me to a therapist, and our government can afford it
(oops - they're private) I may consider it. It's
not for everyone though.Squiggles
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.