Andrew87

For SSRI's, it's all about whether or not you think they will work.

Depression - Antidepressants are No Better than Sugar Pills? Well...

I won't argue with you that certain other types of drugs work, because in fact, they sometimes work TOO well. See below.

They do worse. They can potentially cause irreversible damage to the brain. Google "Tardive Dyskinesia".

The 'chemical imbalance' crap is for the most part a manufactured business tactic. The only "chemical imbalance" that doctors know for sure exists is the one created by psychiatric drugs. Advocates of bio-psychiatry will often show PET scans of two brains - one schizophrenic, and one "normal", and then point out that they are different. What they fail to mention is that the reason they look different is due to debilitating anti-psychotic drugs prescribed to schizophrenics.

Psychiatrists take advantage of negative proof - although it has yet to be proven that any sort of naturally-occuring 'chemical imbalance' actually exists, they are able to proceed under this presumption because no one is able to prove that it doesn't exist.

I recommend taking a look at some of Dr. Breggin's or Dr. Thomas Szasz's writings - it will really open your eyes to the aspects of mainstream psychiatry which are conveniently "buried."

__________________
The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants. -- Albert Camus

Pompo

Better suited for the Medicinal Marijuana forum, moving thread

__________________
---------------------
---------------------

Doc Mitch

i dont really think it should be prescribed for depression. ive heard from a hand full of psychologists/psychiatrists that doing drugs while you are depressed will only make it worse in the long run. you need to deal with the problem, not just use drugs to forget about the problem.

goosehead

I was depressed when I got a cast on my leg and couldnt do much, and smoking really helped me cope. I dont know about more serious depression though.

mindbender

i'm a new member, just got my medical mj card in Montana. I'm also a licensed/professional psychotherapist and specialist. (this is not professional advice)

Depression is very, very complicated and can be tied with anxiety much of the time. There are some good and bad meds but none cause a defined "high". Using any drug that causes a "high" to cope with clinical depression could be very dangerous...whats important with clinical depression is getting the brain balanced so that work can be done. Good meds can do that and are necessary at times...can also be over prescribed.

That said, recreational use of mj may or may not be an issue..very individualized....but if someone is depressed and suicidal???? Theres a difference between being depressed and being 'bummed out'.

Andrew87

Prove that any sort of naturally-occuring biochemical imbalance is the precursor to clinical depression. Oh - that's right, you can't, even after decades upon decades of research.

Biopsychiatry is a crock of shit.

mindbender

kinda could be... but if you were to read a few recent journals you would have a better understanding of how the term 'imbalance' makes some sense...it's also used by us non medical caregivers more as an example of what may be going on in the production, delivery and re-uptake of neurotransmitters...the whole synaptic cleft activity etc. there are breakthroughs in neuropsychology that you must be unaware of that would all but negate your comment...but there is still much to learn.

I would not argue that psychiatry isn't abused and that many docs are applying meds like bandaids but i ask you this...would it not be a bit hypocritical to bask in the medical wonders of mj (whin it's all in the brain)and then deny that a psychotropic has value based on it being man-made? If a pill makes someone feel much better...maybe to the point of even wanting to live and i were to say it helps to balance the neurotransmitter operation in the brain...it makes sense on a real basic level and is not a false statement.

I was a clinical director of an adolescent facility that took kids from out-of-state psychiatric units and put them on a campus with homes and lots of well trained staff. They came in on an average of 3.5 psychotropic meds and within 6 months were on an average of .7 meds. Meds were overused in the psych hospitals based on the environment and with the help of a 'healthy' psychiatrist and a solid environment we helped them out.

Now, should we have denied the kids the meds that were absolutely necessary for them to make it because biopsychiatry is a crock of shit? O am i misunderstanding your point?

is it a philosophical, political or religious complaint that you have?

my complaint against psychiatry is that it has become a beast that overlooks the environment and applies bandaids that sometimes harm folks.

btw i'm not a psychiatrist and not a neuropsych... i work with people.

peace

mb

Andrew87

After re-reading my post, I realize I may've come off a little strong - sorry for that. This is one of the issues which I am truly passionate about.

There are several problems I have with the chemical imbalance theory (and yes, you and I both know it is just a theory, at this point - it is by no means 'fact').

Even if it were empirically proven that there was a naturally-occuring chemical imbalance in the brain (as in, not the ones caused by psychiatric drugs), any sort of proof that this were caused naturally and not as the result of emotion is not even foreseeable in the near future given the current state of neuro-psychiatry.

It's a true chicken-or-egg scenario - which is why I am skeptical of a chemical-imbalance theory EVER being proven as fact, pragmatically speaking.

Have you read any critical psychiatry books? (Breggin, Laing, Szasz, etc.?) I think that, being a psychotherapist, you (as well as your patients!) might benefit greatly from these authors' propositions (all of whom are well-respected psychiatrists - not just laypeople criticizing something they may not know much about).

I voted the third option in the poll - the answer is therapy, not drugs. In my first post I stated that NO drug is the solution to mental health issues.

My point was that there are extremely few instances where it actually is 'absolutely necessary.'

Most psychiatrists nowadays would rather just put a permanent band-aid* (*drugs - which in many instances, are completely ineffective, or even make patients worse) on peoples' problems, rather than actually work through the problem - because it is easier, and ultimately more profitable for them to "drug" the person's problems away. And yes, it has been demonstrated to be possible to 'work through' problems with talk therapy in even the worst of cases, including schizophrenic episodes.

My issue with psychiatric drugs is primarily with neuroleptics. There are absolutely NO circumstances where someone should be given anti-psychotics against their will, or without being fully informed (I'm sure I don't need to explain - I'm confident you already know what I'm talking about) of the potential dangers of these drugs.

I also take issue to how grossly over-prescribed ALL psychiatric drugs are, but you apparently agree with me on this point.

Yes, for the most part.

To a lesser extent. I do believe that there needs to be a solid wall between psychiatry and the state, however, and that any form of involuntary treatment/commitment should be abolished.

Believe me, I am NOT a scientologist! (or actually, religious at all, for that matter) Many advocates for the reform of psychaitry are lumped in with scientolgists, and it is truly embarrassing.

mindbender

Szasz is a favorite of mine... (i would hope that anyone who is nationally licensed has been educated in the different views of psychiatry in a manner that causes questioning of basic paradigns. I was more anti psychiatry than most and almost lost my job when i told our psychiatrist they should all be required to log 500 hours of therapy a year to remain licensed. Most are nothing more than pill pushers who spend 5 minutes reviewing and 10 talking to the guy who is getting the pills.

btw emotions that cause imbalance would be natural occurance would it not...in my experience over time highways are built in the brain as a natural way of functioning tha can be dysfunctional and very difficult to overcome...if meds help w/o unreasonable harm then why not?

When it comes to antipsychotics and lithium etc the whole game changes... and i'm currently woking with an inmate (i'm a consultant 1 day a week at the prison in addition to private practice) who came to me a year ago and was experiencing breaks in reality that were significant and dangerous...he is a good candidate for being forced to take meds if he want to be free...he should not be in prison but thats a statement on our govt. He is much better now and motivated to work on issues that may be behind his need to break...i'm interested in finding out more about him.

you sound educated on the issues and it is a very emotional topic as the balnace is somewhere between giving out happy pills and forcing people to live in agony without the help that is a pill away.

To say therapy is always the answer is not feasable and hurts folks.

Andrew87

The point is that said imbalance wouldn't just have happened spontaneously - there would be a clear cause for it. Biopsych asserts that so-called chemical imbalances are results of pure biology, with no emotion whatsoever involved. *(A running joke in the field is that psychiatrists hope to prove this theory so that they can finally be considered "real" doctors. )

It would seem that, in a case like this, a better solution would be to work through the patient's problems through therapy rather than take the easy way out and prescribe them artificial happiness in the form of Prozac, etc.(or worse - lock them up in a psychiatric facility).

Drugs (psychiatric, illegal, and others) do nothing but mask the problem, and in some cases, they don't even do that, yet still come with all of the negative side effects. My belief is that therapy is clearly better for the patients long-term health and is more encompassing as a whole in regards to their problems.

Let's put it into perspective: Say you break your arm. You would go to a general practicioner who would set it, put it in a cast, and tell you that it will heal in six to eight weeks. S/he doesn't just prescribe you morphine for long periods of time to dull the pain - I'm sure you agree that this would be absolutely foolish. However, this is akin to what psychiatrists do to their patients. They simply try to push the problem out of sight with drugs - rather than work to actually solve it/them, which is clearly an idiotic and overly simplistic standpoint - and I haven't even gotten into the problems that they often create with inpatient hospitalization.

To say that drugs, involuntary hospitalization, and ECT is ever the answer tends to hurt folks much worse, often irrepairably.

If someone decides on their own free will (as in, strictly voluntarily) to try psych. drugs, be hopitalized, or get shocked, I'm no one to tell them (or force them) to do otherwise, because just as people should have the right to refuse psych. treatment, they should also have the right to accept it. I would just like to see that the potential dangers are entirely understood prior to treatment rather than minimized by professionals as rare, unimportant "side effects" - which I'm sure you can attest to seeing disgustingly frequently amongst your colleagues.