"A Brave New World: The Farce of the Chemical Imbalance"

[Magrus]

I'm involved with a community, which this was posted in, and figured I would share it. It was written by one of the members, and here's the link to where I found it. http://www.livejournal.com/community...709243#t709243

The author-
Bryan Nelson
M.A. Philosophy; University of Houston

Quote:

A Brave New World: The Farce of the Chemical Imbalance I thought this might be of some interest to this community. X-posted from my own journal. Introduction There seems to be a disturbing general consensus in our culture that mental 'illness' can be defined and caused in terms of a 'chemical imbalance' within our biochemistry. The problem is that this notion of a 'chemical imbalance' is only a hypothesis; one which has been substantially falsified as an actual phenomenon on its own terms, but also one which, by its own design, is utterly unscientific. In other words, it doesn't even have the chance to be a viable scientific theory. The fact of the matter is that the theory of the 'Chemical Imbalance' is a complete and utter farce. The intent of this entry is to list a number of substantial philosophical and scientific shortcomings of its unjustified applicaton. The Problem of Definition The most alarming concern with the 'Chemical Imbalance Hypothesis' (CIH) is not just that it is an incorrect theory, but its not even clear exactly what it means to have a chemical imbalance. For instance, in order to define what gets to count as an imbalance we need to understand exactly what counts as a balance. We need to have a model which describes and depicts what a proper balance looks like so that we have something to compare and contrast a deviant model against. But no such models exist. In fact, its not even clear what such models would look like. Moreover, any attempt at identifying an 'objective' chemical balance, such that it would apply to individuals and their individual cases, seems futile and misconceived. As a statement of fact, no two individuals are alike, and the needs and balances of each individual's system are unique. Any proposal to map out a universal model which depicts a 'proper balance' would have to be abstract; At best it could only represent an 'average' or 'median' across the population, one which almost every individual would deviate from in one way or another. If defined in this way, the logic of the issue would have to become pretty fuzzy. Where exactly should the line be drawn? How far from the average model would one have to deviate from to be considered for having an 'illness'? Since just about everyone would be deviants, the ambiguity of this strategy at definition has the obvious problem that just about everyone could be defined as having an illness, one way or another. Thus, defining a 'chemical imbalance' in this way seems hopeless. Ask yourself: What is this mythical chemical balance which allows us to label people as 'imbalanced'? Quite simply, there is no standard 'chemical balance' which we can compare individuals against. There have been a number of failed attempts at overcoming this problem, and we'll explore those in the following sections. Normal vs. Abnormal: A Common Attempt at Definition Often people talk of 'balances' as if they are normalities, and 'imbalances' as if they are abnormalities. Furthermore, people tend to refer to normalities as good and abnormalities as bad. This common way of categorizing is probably where the problem of definition mostly gets overlooked, and this is probably the root culprit in confusing and popularizing CIH and giving it the illusion of palpability. First of all, being normal or abnormal is simply not the same thing as having a balance or imbalance. Being 'normal' just means that you fit within a specified majority. For instance, if you take the population in general, it is 'normal' to have non-blonde hair. It is likewise 'abnormal' to have blonde hair; being blonde is a deviant trait in the population at large compared to being non-blonde. It should now be obvious why it is not definitional to associate abnormality with being imbalanced; It could possibly be the case that it is 'normal' to have an imbalance, if most individuals happen to have it. Thus, there is no reason a priori why we should look to what is 'normal' as a model for what is 'balanced'. Any such association would be ambiguous if it were made, and so the problem of definition cannot be fixed by such an association. The Problem of Bigotry: Descriptive vs. Normative Some more needs to be said regarding the common association that normalities are good and abnormalities are bad. The absurdity of this association can be easily revealed. To say that it is good to be normal and bad to be abnormal would be like saying (given our previous example): it is good to be non-blonde and bad to be blonde. In other words, such an association is bigoted. The best way to identify bigotry is to understand the difference between a descriptive classification and a normative one. For instance, classifying things by whether they deviate from what is normal is just a descriptive classification; I am making no value judgments based upon it. It is just a descriptive observation to claim that it is normal to be non-blonde. By making such a claim, I am just mentioning the fact that when you count people up, most of them are non-blonde. On the other hand, it is a normative observation when I take it a step further and make a value judgment upon an observation. Bigotry happens when a normative statement is supposed to be evidenced by a descriptive statement. In other words, it is one thing to recognize differences, and it is another thing to say that some differences are better than others. And it is bigoted if you base your value judgment solely on the fact of the differences. Having made these distinctions, it should be clearer why a chemical balance shouldn't be defined in terms of what is normal. Making such an association would lead to bigotry regarding how mental illness is identified. It would be akin to suggesting that it is an 'illness' to be abnormal. There are lots of people who are abnormally exceptional as artists, leaders, atheletes, etc. Being abnormal in-and-of-itself is not bad. Can you imagine the social concerns if we really identified such abnormality as an 'illness'? There is no reason why mental states should be any different. Despite these problems, many people still make these associations anyway without realizing it. Being social animals, humans have the propensity for desiring to 'fit in' by being 'normal', and so it is possible that these basic desires manifest themselves into these unfortunate associations. Nevertheless, they cannot be the basis for a definition for chemical balance without also being bigoted. Balance as Functionality: A More Practical Attempt at Definition Despite the elusive nature of trying to define a chemical balance abstractly, there are coherant definitions for 'balances' or 'equilibriums' which we have not yet considered. Before now, we have attempted to define 'balance' as if it were a label which was consistent across all individual systems, such that we can just compare individuals against the abstract model and measure whether they are balanced or imbalanced. This led to ambiguity, which led to bigotry. But what about just taking each individual system on a separate basis? A 'balance' or 'equilibrium' could then be defined as whichever state is necessary to maintain the order of the system. This way each individual may have a different 'chemical balance' compared to every other individual, and we don't need to make judgments across the differences. Thus, we can say that an individual is 'balanced' if they happen to be self-maintaining. In other words, 'balance' is defined as functionality while 'imbalance' is defined as malfunctionality. Unfortunately this strategy at definition also fails. Can Illness be Functional? The first thing that we need to specify regarding our new definition for chemical imbalance is that it may not coincide with our notions of mental illness. Remember: we need to do more than just find a definition for a 'chemical imbalance'; we also need to test whether or not CIH makes a good theory for mental illness. That's what it is a hypothesis about, after all. If we commit to malfunctionality as our definition for a chemical imbalance, then we disallow ourselves from calling any condition an 'illness' if it is self-maintaining. On the other hand, if we want to continue calling any particular condition an 'illness' despite its being self-maintaining, then we'd have to give up on this definition. Therefore, it is a relevant question: Can illness be functional? If there are things we still want to call an 'illness' despite their functionality, then CIH under this definition cannot be a good theory for explaining them. As it turns out, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that any illness listed in the DSM-IV-TR is dysfunctional on a chemical level. There is not even any reason to believe that there would be an objective chemical dysfunction. Take for instance 'illnesses' such as depression or schizophrenia. While these are not necessarily desirable conditions, they nevertheless are self-maintaining. Being depressed does not degenerate the order and functionality of the chemical system in your brain and body; Rather, it is a perfectly sustainable state. Let's examine this problem closer. (to be continued)

[Magrus]

Quote:

Avoiding the 'Functional Fallacy' I'm uncertain whether this fallacy of critical thinking has been identified with a more accepted name or whether I am baptizing it here; but I call the following mistake in thinking: 'The Functional Fallacy', and we need to be wary of it in trying to define CIH in regards to dysfunctionality. Here's an example to portray exactly how this fallacy works: Imagine that you are a car mechanic and a customer arrives with their car and implores to you, "There is something wrong with my car! Can you fix it? There's this carcinogenic fume that comes pouring out of the muffler when it is running. It smells aweful and it pollutes the air. I really need this problem fixed!" Of course you'd quickly identify that what the customer is concerned with is just the exhaust. While you might agree with the customer that the exhaust is an unfortunate side effect of how motor vehicles are presently designed, it would be crazy to call the exhaust a dysfunction of the car. Rather, it is a necessary function of the car! Anyone with even a remote understanding of how most motor vehicles run would see the error in the customer's thinking instantly. In fact, it's such an obvious error that you'd probably think of the customer as pretty naive. The problem, stated plainly, is a category error regarding the level of functionality which is at stake. In this case, the dysfunction is not with the operation of the car, but rather the dysfunction is with the design of the car compared to a particular ecological ethic, or some other ethic regarding healthy emmissions or the smell of fumes, etc. This is the same error that proponents of CIH make when they define it in terms of functionality. In the same sense that the customer is naive above, so is the notion that 'mental illnesses' (such as those listed in the DSM) are necessarily dysfunctional at the level of chemistry. And yet, this seems to be precisely the assumption being made by proponents of this version of CIH; an assumption which is extremely unwarrented. Whatever we call 'mental illness' is not called an illness because it is dysfunctional, disorderly, or lacks self-maintenence; Rather, what we call 'mental illness' is called an illness because it does not jive with some particular ethic of mental wellness. There is no evidence that mental illness is dysfunctional chemically, i.e, there is nothing in our brain chemistry which causes a degredational reaction to the maintenence of systemization. Looking for chemical dysfunction is analogous to looking at exhaust as a dysfunction in the running of cars. That is, there is more to the error in CIH than merely being incorrect; it is also naive insofar as it does not distinguish itself from the pitfall of the 'Functional Fallacy'. Cause vs. Effect: More on the Functional Fallacy Even if it was shown that some chemical dysfunction was associated with mental illness, the question would remain whether this is a cause or an effect of the condition. That is, the chemical dysfunction may not have been triggered by any problem with the functioning of the chemistry in-and-of-itself, but rather the cause of some external source. This is another way of making the 'Functional Fallacy'; confusing the effect with the cause. In other words, CIH requires more than evidence that chemical dysfunction is associated with mental illness; but it also requires a demonstration that chemical dysfunction is the cause of mental illness, rather than just the effect. In other words, on a particular level of analysis 'chemical dysfunction' may even be seen as functional; functional as a logical effect of some other ultimate cause. This makes it clearer that the functional fallacy is ultimately just some species of confusing the normative with the descriptive. Whether or not anything is seen as functional or dysfunctional depends upon your level of analysis. This makes it difficult to understand how CIH could ever gain descritive legitimacy, in the sense that it assumes that the level of chemistry is the ultimate level of functional analysis. Quite simply, that is a normative judgment-- it is just assuming the level of functionality-- when really there can never be a scientific observation which could support this claim without being inherently theory-laden. Functionality, therefore, makes for an unsophisticated definition in-and-of-itself for what would constitute a chemical imbalance. It begs the question: Where is the Dysfunction? At what level? Since this is such a convoluted mess, it is easy to see how fallacies of thinking can be made, and easy to understand how this conceptual environment is prone to sophistry and rhetoric which spin the issue. Merely blaming a 'chemical imbalance' as the cause of mental illness seems like it can make sense, especially when it preys upon people who feel imbalanced or out of place. Placing the importance on the chemical level, however, is misleading, and can ultimately only gain credit by blurring the line between the normative and descriptive. But this is still just a blur, regardless; The chemical imbalance theory is an unsophistcated blur which attempts to hide these difficulties with its oversimplification of the causes and effects inherent in any functional analysis. A Summary of the Problems of Defining CIH as Functionality: Isn't Everything a Balance? To explore these problems further, let's revisit what 'balance' means in its common sense, as we do when we think of the metaphor of a weighing scale. With a weighing scale, there is always a balance found between two counterweights, and the particular balance found depends upon what you use as the counterweights. For instance, if you put a feather on one side, and an iron bar on the other, the scale will tip heavily to the side with the iron bar. On the other hand, two items of a more equal weight would balance out evenly. But no matter what you put on either side of the scale, the two items will find a balance. In other words, everything is a balance. Certainly, different items weighed against one another will dip to more extreme levels than others, but they all will still find a balance. 'Balance' is just what occurs when the scale becomes self-maintaining, and is just a measure in the difference of weight between the two items. But there is another sense by which we use the word 'balance' relative to this metaphor. If you compare two different weighing scales, one which has two even counterweights and one which has two uneven counterweights, there is a sense by which we might say that the former scale is more 'balanced' than the latter. When we use the word 'balance' in this way, we are just saying that the two counterweights are more alike in regards to their weight. But this is not to be confused with saying that the latter uneven scale does not itself have its own balance. The uneven scale has a balance too, even if the two weights in it are not as evenly balanced as the other scale. We must not confuse these two different notions of what it means to be 'balanced'! And yet, confusing these two notions seems to be exactly what CIH does. If we want to define 'balance' in terms of functionality, then all mental states are balanced in the same sense that all counterweights find a balance when put on a weighing scale. Some mental states have different 'counterweights' than others; some have uneven levels of different chemicals associated with them compared to others. Even if 'depression' is shown to have different levels of chemicals than, say, 'joy', these are just differences. But they are still all balanced. They are still all self-maintaining. They are still all functional. We might compare different chemical states and see how they balance themselves out differently, but in no sense could it ever be prudent to jump from doing this, to labeling some states as 'ill' and some states 'healthy'. What would be the basis of such a judgment? It could certainly not be from the recognition of differences in chemical states alone. Thus, it is difficult to see how CIH could ever make for a good theory of mental illness. It seems, at its very basis, to be founded on layers of fallacy. The analogy with the weighing scale would go like this: It would be like saying, when comparing the even scale with the uneven scale, that the uneven one is 'ill'. How absurd would making such a characterization be? It is about as naive as the customer worried about the exhaust from his car. All of this aside, the issue is almost moot anyway. There is no reason to believe that 'healthy' mental states are more evenly balanced chemically than states of 'illness' regardless. For all anyone knows (and it would hardly be a surprise or concern), mental states we often consider 'healthy' could have more uneven distributions of brain chemicals than states we consider 'ill'. This way of talking about 'balance' is essentially irrelevant regarding the problem of mental illness. Though it is easy to see how our different ways of talking about 'balance' can feed into misconceptions generated by the rhetoric of how a theory like CIH is phrased.

Again, to be continued...

[Magrus]

Quote:

Bigotry Revisited: The Problem of Diagnosis It should now be clear that our redefinition of CIH as malfunctionality does not escape the problem of bigotry. The labeling of some mental states as 'ill' as opposed to others based upon chemical balances cannot be a descriptive enterprise. Even if differences in balances between different mental states can be identified, recognizing these descriptive differences as 'dysfunctional' can only make sense relative to some particular normative ethic of mental wellness. There is simply no way of collecting evidence that chemical states would be 'dysfunctional' qua chemical changes alone. It is simply bigoted to base a theory about a normative ethic (i.e., in this case a theory about 'mental illness') upon what can only be a descriptive enterprise (i.e., our descriptions of how different chemical balances are associated with different mental states). CIH, it would appear, is inherantly bigoted as a theory of mental illness. This leads us to our next problem with CIH: the problem of diagnosis. There is a gap between how 'mental illness' is diagnosed with how it is treated under CIH. Since proponents of this hypothesis think mental illness is caused by chemical imbalances in the brain and body, so likewise their patients are treated chemically for their condition. However there is no known reliable chemical test for any mental illness listed in the DSM. For example, the most common diagnosis of mental illness is Clinical Depression; but despite being the most frequently diagnosed, there is still no evidence whatsoever of a chemical association with the condition. A few theories have been tested, and all have failed. For instance one of the leading theories for chemical depression was that it is associated with neuroendocrine imbalances, which could be tested by taking measurements of cortisol in the blood. The test for this is called the dexamethasone-suppression test or DST. Unfortunately this test has been significantly falsified, and it has been known to be falsified for a long time; since the early 80's at least. According to the 1984 Harvard Medical School Health Letter: "For every three office patients with an abnormal DST, only one is likely to have true depression. ... [And] a large fraction of people who are depressed by other criteria will still have normal results on the DST". Another chemical theory popular these days is that depression is caused by lowered levels of serotonin. But a panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment reported in 1992 that "Prominent hypotheses concerning depression have focused on altered function of the group of neurotransmitters called monoamines (i.e., norepinephrine, epinephrine, serotonin, dopamine), particularly norepinephrine (NE) and serotonin. ... studies of the NE [norepinephrine] autoreceptor in depression have found no specific evidence of an abnormality to date. Currently, no clear evidence links abnormal serotonin receptor activity in the brain to depression. ... the data currently available do not provide consistent evidence either for altered neurotransmitter levels or for disruption of normal receptor activity" (The Biology of Mental Disorders, U.S. Gov't Printing Office). That was 1992. And the theory continues to be proliferated today even though it has not fared any better since then. For instance, Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, in his book Prozac Backlash (2000), admits, "A serotonin deficiency for depression has not been found. ... Still, patients are often given the impression that a definitive serotonin deficiency in depression is firmly established. ... The result is an undue inflation of the drug market, as well as an unfortunate downplaying of the need for psychological treatments for many patients." In other words, mental illness is treated chemically despite the fact that there is no way to diagnose mental illness chemically. This is a profoundly unscientific enterprise, and any medical field based upon it can only be called pseudoscientific at best; but more likely a complete farce. Conclusions The point of this entry is not to conclude that brain chemistry has no link with mental conditions. Surely, chemical treatments of mental patients have effects on their mentality and mood; but these are just effects in the same sense that alcohol or cocaine can make you feel better or worse by effecting your chemistry. My problem, moreover, is the bigotry associated with confusing the issue of mental wellness with mental functionality. What we call 'mental wellness' cannot be defined descriptively in terms of what we call 'mental functionality'. Any coherant interpretation of CIH, therefore, cannot be an adequate theory for defining mental illness. Chemical treatment, it turns out, does not offer any sort of a cure to an 'illness', but rather is more involved in manufacturing a particular type of person. The problem is that the 'particular type of person' it seeks to manufacture is really just an unsubstantiated hypothesis, an ethic, about the particular type of person you ought to be, a theory which thus far has no justification or qualification, and which by all indications is non-scientific and simply bigoted. CIH is a normative theory, not a descriptive one. Science is, by its own design and definition, a descriptive enterprise, and so there is not even a remote hope that the chemical imbalance hypothesis can ever be scientifically validated. In fact, it's not even clear that the hypothesis is coherant. There is still no sufficient definition for what would even constitute a chemical imbalance. Rather, the hypothesis seems to be built upon layers of rhetoric that twist and mangle our common associations and uses for terms like 'balance' or 'normal', and associations between 'good' and 'bad', and simplifies what is necessary for being descriptively honest about what is at stake in any functional analysis. Not only is CIH falsified, but it is practically meaningless. This raises some further questions for another time. For instance: Why does CIH continue to be proliferated as an adequate theory despite being such a lanky failure? In asking ourselves questions like these, it may be helpful to recognize that CIH has been proliferated mostly in advertising and consumer literature for the pharmaceutical companies, mostly since such advertising was deregulated in the U.S. It is unlikely that the common expositions of CIH in commercials for drugs like Prozac and Zoloft would ever have been allowed if standards of regulation were enforced from the unbiased scientific community at large. Lastly we should also ask ourselves to what extent our theorizing and labeling of mental illness falls along with the failure of CIH. If chemical imbalances cannot define 'mental illness' for us, by what standards do we call any condition a mental illness? That is, CIH has become bound up and twisted so much with the notion of mental illness that it may not be enough for us to simply reject CIH as an adequate theory of mental illness, but perhaps we ought to also reconsider how it is that we label mental illness itself; whether there is any non-bigoted way to do it. For further insight down this path of thought, I recommend Foucault's Maddness and Civilization. The 'Chemical Imbalance Hypothesis' is a farce and we should revolt against its application and agenda with scientific honesty, healthy skepticism, and outrage.

Now, this was not done by a doctor, or a scientist. Yet, it was done in an intelligent manner, and does stress some very important points. I have my own, personal interest in this, however I felt that certain points involved might be interesting to discuss beyond the basis of the article. I am curious as to the thoughts of those who would read this on the subject. Even going beyond the "CIH" thing, to go into the fact that many, many people really do act in a bigoted manner towards those who are different. Another point, the mentioning of how everyone is different, and that these differences are not necessarily a bad thing.

Also the mentioning of the pushing of a theory as fact to the general public in order to sell a product, much like the old "wonder tonic's" which were sold in the past.

Thoughts?

[Lasher]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magrus Also the mentioning of the pushing of a theory as fact to the general public in order to sell a product, much like the old "wonder tonic's" which were sold in the past. Thoughts?

I think a reason these theories are pushed so much is because they are what the people want to hear. People naturaly have problems, and because today's society stresses heavily the need to be the same as others of the same social status, people want a way to excuse these problems, or blame them on someone else.

[Lestat]

Concerning this CIH, the essay is well worded on this and I think it makes a convincing case for this hypothesis to be unscientific.

Once again, though I'm not that well read on the subject and have only little experience, I'm still left with the impression that this is more of an issue in the US, where apparently pharmaceutical products, and even the more serious ones, are being used both more frequently and at earlier stages in mental health care and psychiatrists have the upper hand over psychologists & therapists when serious mental health problems are concerned. But do correct me if I'm wrong. I only know that when I was diagnosed with depression, the first reaction of the family physician was to refer me to a psychological centre, not proscribe me some 'happy' drugs or refer me to a psychiatrist. And when discussing with the psychologist, he was clear on the matter that if he felt that I might need drugs, he would discuss it with me and the psychiatrist linked to the centre, but it was clearly not seen as the first solution by the people involved in the process (family physician, psy, me). There was no talk about "chemical imbalances".

Though we now that our mental state is linked to chemicals in our brain & blood, the different interactions, feed-back loops etc., are still mostly uncharted territory so I believe the precautionary principle should apply, where psychotropic drugs are concerned, since it is difficult to judge what (side-)effects they will have and the fact that on different people they might have quite different effects. I remember that when I was ordering drugs for the programmes when with MSF narcotics & psychotropics were marked with a little bomb as a warning sign. Not only because often special regulations apply for the importation of these drugs, but because they needed to be handled with care and HQ only allowed us to order these drugs if a clear justification was given for them. Some healthy scepticism should be applied towards these drugs IMO.

Also as I said in another thread, I have the feeling that for all the preaching of tolerance for other cultures, religions and lifestyle in the Western world, there is a certain intolerance for "imperfection". Everyone needs to be bright and shiny, and if not there is a "medical" way to make you "normal" or even "better" (I think this trend is strongest in the US). The misuse of psychotropic drugs to have people conform to some idea of what is "normal" is for me similar to the abuse of plastic surgery, only worse, because you have less of an idea what you're actually doing.

The essay explains much better than I ever could the fallacy of this CIH theory, but I agree with it: it is impossible to have one "norm" for people on a psychological level (or physical level for that matter). There are so many personality types out there and they all have their uses. Someone with some kind of god-complex might be highly irritating at times, but might have just what is needed in terms of self-assurance to be a brain surgeon or a pilot. Interaction & functionality in society is for me what counts. A personality which makes you a top accountant would probably be lousy for a furniture designer etc. etc. And when there is not enough variation of personalities and the way they can express themselves, a society can't adapt and will degenerate.

[Magrus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lasher I think a reason these theories are pushed so much is because they are what the people want to hear. People naturaly have problems, and because today's society stresses heavily the need to be the same as others of the same social status, people want a way to excuse these problems, or blame them on someone else.

*nods* It's a horrible way of looking at things. If everyone were the same, things would break down. If everyone was a baker, we'd have no meat, no furniture, no cars, no houses, no plumbing, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lestat Once again, though I'm not that well read on the subject and have only little experience, I'm still left with the impression that this is more of an issue in the US, where apparently pharmaceutical products, and even the more serious ones, are being used both more frequently and at earlier stages in mental health care and psychiatrists have the upper hand over psychologists & therapists when serious mental health problems are concerned. But do correct me if I'm wrong. I only know that when I was diagnosed with depression, the first reaction of the family physician was to refer me to a psychological centre, not proscribe me some 'happy' drugs or refer me to a psychiatrist. And when discussing with the psychologist, he was clear on the matter that if he felt that I might need drugs, he would discuss it with me and the psychiatrist linked to the centre, but it was clearly not seen as the first solution by the people involved in the process (family physician, psy, me). There was no talk about "chemical imbalances".

*nods* The writer is from Houston, or at least that's where he got his degree. I'll have to edit in my first post the name I got from him, he's liking that I'm spreading this around.

The situation was far different for me. I had a seizure once, when I was young (1-2 years old), the doctors wanted to put me on medication, right away. My parents fought it, and I haven't had problems since. When I went to see whether I would need to go to pre-school or skip it, I did astoundingly well in everything but, they thought I had ADD. I was tested, and at the age of 4, doctors wanted to put me on ritalin. My parents refused, and I've done fairly well without it.

Then I stopped sleeping, and was put into a situation where my parents and I had no say in what the doctors did. They drugged me within an hour of going from emergency to inpatient in the hospital. This wasn't a low, test dose of tried and true drugs either. Some of those they tried after the first batch failed were experimental drugs which weren't approved by the FDA. The main opinion at large in those psychiatrists that work in hospitals and such are to drug anyone who comes through the door. I believe they may be getting a sum of money from the large drug corporations if they push enough of their drugs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lestat Though we now that our mental state is linked to chemicals in our brain & blood, the different interactions, feed-back loops etc., are still mostly uncharted territory so I believe the precautionary principle should apply, where psychotropic drugs are concerned, since it is difficult to judge what (side-)effects they will have and the fact that on different people they might have quite different effects. I remember that when I was ordering drugs for the programmes when with MSF narcotics & psychotropics were marked with a little bomb as a warning sign. Not only because often special regulations apply for the importation of these drugs, but because they needed to be handled with care and HQ only allowed us to order these drugs if a clear justification was given for them. Some healthy scepticism should be applied towards these drugs IMO.

*nods* Many of the psychotropic drugs in use in the US are not approved as safe to use. Not only that, doctors are using medications made to help with one thing, and saying "well, it helped X person fix depression too, so we'll try it for depression on everyone". I was told that a certain medication would help my "mood" and it was originally an anti-seizure medication. It sedated me and made my metabolism slow to a crawl, AND made my brain tell me I was hungry, no matter how full I was. Obviously, it did nothing for my mood, yet they tried it anyways. Some of those used are very, very dangerous to a large number of the population they are used on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lestat Everyone needs to be bright and shiny, and if not there is a "medical" way to make you "normal" or even "better" (I think this trend is strongest in the US). The misuse of psychotropic drugs to have people conform to some idea of what is "normal" is for me similar to the abuse of plastic surgery, only worse, because you have less of an idea what you're actually doing.

Unfortunately, it is the case. Ironic how the land of freedom of choice has now become the land of "conform or be medicated" hmm?

[Chimaera182]

I don't even think it's all a conformist issue. It's more having to do with the fast-paced lives we tend to live. We get fast cars, we get coffee fast, we get fast food, why don't we get fast pills to patch up our problems? No one wants to wait around forever for extensive tests to find out what's wrong with them: they expect their doctors to know everything--which they invariably do not--and that their doctors will supply a quick fix. We don't have the time to sit around and let life pass us by while we wait for someone to take even days to figure out what would be best for us. One problem, one drug. Then we can take our lovely drugs and get right back to living the American dream: working tirelessly for a company that couldn't give a damn about you and having little to no personal time for yourself. It's no wonder so many people are neurotic and think they need drugs to begin with.

[Magrus]

Very, very good point. Along the lines of the "wonder tonic" thing I mentioned above, these pills are being marketed as a simple and fast fix. Regardless of whether they are approved for such use, they are advertised as being able to fix things, even if it isn't proven they can. The average American citizen has the money to pay a co-pay for a bottle of pills that make them better. People are reacting to them like they would high strength vitamins.

[Lestat]

Quote:

<snip> it may be helpful to recognize that CIH has been proliferated mostly in advertising and consumer literature for the pharmaceutical companies, mostly since such advertising was deregulated in the U.S. <snip>

Hmm isn't one of the problems that this kind of direct marketing to patients by the pharmaceutical industry is allowed? That way you create a pull factor that makes people request these types of drugs.

[Magrus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lestat Hmm isn't one of the problems that this kind of direct marketing to patients by the pharmaceutical industry is allowed? That way you create a pull factor that makes people request these types of drugs.

*nods* They are advertising these drugs so people who feel a bit sad, or with allergies, or high cholesterol can go to their doctor and say "I want paxal!".

[Chimaera182]

I have friends like that. They go to the doctor and say, "I want Xanax!" Well, okay, they word it a little differently, like, "Oh, I don't know, but if you insist on Xanax..." Anyway, I've been thinking of doing this myself one day... just not with Xanax. I had a Xanax Christmas Eve morning, and all I noticed was a very nasty mood later in the day. But I definitely need something to deal with my allergies. Every time I get around a dog, my asthma flares up and I pretty much have to shut down for the rest of the day; and it usually takes me weeks before the asthma clears up.

[Magrus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimaera182 But I definitely need something to deal with my allergies. Every time I get around a dog, my asthma flares up and I pretty much have to shut down for the rest of the day; and it usually takes me weeks before the asthma clears up.

*nods* There's a place for good medicine in your life. However, the doctor should prescribe it, not the pill production company pushing it on tv to people who are oblivious to what it does.