Does it surprise you that 1 in 4 American women are on anti-depressants?

[Rosie_0801]

First - anti-anxiety and anti-depressants do not make you lack feelings and emotions.

 

Unless they are being taken for the wrong condition, perhaps. :glare: My mother tried every anti-depressant out there, I think, and some of them really did snuff out her emotions. I don't know if that is a common reaction when bipolar people are diagnosed as having depression. :(

 

 

Rosie

[Joy at Home]

The problem, Mergath - and I do mean this kindly, really - is that it is not comparable. It really is not. There is a HUGE agenda that is being pushed out there which presents psychotropic drugs as any other drugs and psychiatry as any other branch of medicine, drawing paralells with diabetes and drug pressure and whatnot, but it is basically a fallacy.

 

illness and then treated. Many people talk about chemical imbalance, whiThere is no clinical test for mental illness. That is what it comes down to. There is a fundamental, scary lack of scientificity in the process of being diangosed with a mental ch is a theory, but they do not TEST you for chemical imbalance in any tangible clinical way before prescribing you extremely potent stuff based on... basically, impressions. Because there are no clinical tests. That is UNLIKE diabetes, high blood pressure, anemia, etc., where you can pinpoint, measure, compare, look at the tables of normal values, what exactly is wrong, then take a medicine for which you know how it works, compare the results afterwards, get off the medicine right away if needed, and so forth. So you get drugs for something they never clinically tested you for! There is not a vestige of tangible proof that something is physiologically wrong with YOU (not in general how depression works, but with YOU, tests done on YOU), nothing akin to lab results, and yet you get extremely potent stuff which alter the structures of your brain. Just like that. That is the reason why many people need to experiment with meds (because it is essentially about "guessing" what might be a fit - since there is no actual test to see what is wrong and which chemicals exactly you need), and then you get potentially dangerous coctails, and not to even mention that many of the psychotropic drugs have potential side effects which are exactly that which they treat. In fact there are many people who believe their problems were truly created with psychotropics rather than alleviated, and find it extremely hard to get off of them (because they are addictive), and tell that they get so much worse off them than they were before without them, and so forth. There really is another side of the story to psychotropics and that is the reason why they are not to be taken lightly or prescribed automatically. They should be dealt with utmost care and scrutiny, and only a small fraction of people should be consuming them even at that - not a quarter of the population.

 

This is NOT to say that there are not people who might profit from those meds. But then again, *I* might profit from, say, cocaine (really - it raises productivity incredibly, and it is abused from academia to the corporate world plenty) - but the question is, at what cost. The problem is that with many of those drugs, as they are so deeply problematic and risky, the costs (in terms of dependence, not money, and possible side effects and the fact that much of their mechanisms is yet unknown) simply outweight the benefits of a temporary fix to get through a hard period in life. And yet physicians prescribe them all the time, erring on the wrong side. One should be extremely careful and stringent when judging that such and such person really has reached the point at which a potential benefit outweights the risk, most physicians are not. I know people who got prescribed extremely potent stuff after a twenty minute chat, with no clinical tests or a deep look into what might be wrong on a physiological level that is treatable, whatsoever. And that is what is wrong, not the fact itself that some people, in the end, do get prescribed them as that is the optimal choice for them. Not necessarily a good choice, good per se, but optimal as to the options. The whole thing is that this number in a general population ought to be much, much smaller. Not everyone who warns at the problems associated with this does so out of malice, ignorance or lack of sympathy. And many of those who warn might do so exactly because they went through an experience for which typically psychotropics are prescribed - and proved that, at least in some cases, it IS possible to cope, and even heal :), without psychotropics.

 

But, Ester, of course it is different. They are two different fields of medicine. Psychiatry is not internal medicine . . . one cannot get inside the human mind, cannot accumulate OBJECTIVE data, in diagnosing mental illness. Diagnosis is made in large part by patient's reported symtpoms. I agree it's not an exact science, but it's a starting point. Because there is no objective way to diagnose via labs or what not does mean the illness is not there.

 

Of course, as with anything, benefit should outweigh risk for the patient. And I fully realize that the ideal of having a mental health professional perform a thorough assessment before diagnosing depression and suggesting psychotropics is not realized for some. For some, it is the front line of the family doctor who prescribes them. I agree one should research before making the decision to see if, in fact, the risk is worth the benefit. For many who have shared their stories here, it clearly is.

 

Lisa

[Impish]

Chalk me up as another that's been on AD.

 

My pain specialist uses Cymbalta to treat nerve pain. And, let's face it, losing 80%+ use of your dominant hand/arm, plus constant pain would depress anyone, so either way, it's not a bad idea.

 

That being said, I've seen a psychologist on and off since my injury. I hit the wall and fall apart after a while. All the coping skills on the planet get eroded by pain and exhaustion, and some psych sessions help put me back together for a while.

[Tigger]

Not at all surprised because anti-depressants are used for many things other than depression. My dd is on them for the joint reasons of migraine prevention and PMDD. At a previous time in life, I was on them for nerve pain relief. Others are on them to stop smoking. Now I have never heard them being prescribed for stomach pain but thinking about that, it may be helpful for irritable bowel syndrome.

 

 

My MIL just had a procedure on her pancreas that will take some time to recover from since the outcome leaves her stomach and GI tract in spasms now that her pancreatic enzymes are flowing again - the doc prescribed an antidepressant not for depression, but specifically because the one he prescribed also reduces the spasms - he let her know not to freak out if she looked the drug up online, he'd prescribed for that, not depression!

[simka2]

Not at all surprised because anti-depressants are used for many things other than depression. My dd is on them for the joint reasons of migraine prevention and PMDD. At a previous time in life, I was on them for nerve pain relief. Others are on them to stop smoking. Now I have never heard them being prescribed for stomach pain but thinking about that, it may be helpful for irritable bowel syndrome.

 

No, I don't think they are over-prescribed. Antidepressants work on either seratonin or dopamine levels or receptors in the body. Those are very important chemicals that influence many systems in our body. Now why we have so many people with chemical imbalances is puzzling but I do think we do have that problem. I don't know why my two girls are significantly more troubled with health problems than I was at their ages. They had a more varied diet than I did, more exercise, and I don't know what caused their issues. I suspect some of them may have been that I definitely was chronically ill by the time I was pregnant with both of them. Some of them might be issues that would have arose in my dh's family except that he came from an all male background and there weren't many females in the previous generation either.

 

 

 

I have had to go on them with 2 pregnancies, because of a heart condition. They are prescribed for so many other medical conditions that I am not surprised in the least.

[Parrothead]

Chalk me up as another that's been on AD.

 

My pain specialist uses Cymbalta to treat nerve pain. And, let's face it, losing 80%+ use of your dominant hand/arm, plus constant pain would depress anyone, so either way, it's not a bad idea.

 

That being said, I've seen a psychologist on and off since my injury. I hit the wall and fall apart after a while. All the coping skills on the planet get eroded by pain and exhaustion, and some psych sessions help put me back together for a while.

I'd be surprised if you hadn't been on something/seen someone.

[Renee in NC]

Maybe it is because they took the cocaine out of coke? :lol:

 

:lol: It isn't that medicating life away is new, it's just that most of the legal, non-prescription ones from the past are no longer legal and available!!!!

 

Seriously - why does anyone care what other people do?

[Renee in NC]

I wasn't going to post bc I think this thread is simply inflammatory. I think it's sad to take "one" medical issue and ask the question if medicine is being over prescribed to treat it. Let's ask these questions, shall we?

Are medications for high blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and cholesterol over prescribed? I bet you they are! Have the thousands of ppl that are taking a pill to treat these medical issues considered changing their diets and incorporating exercise into their days? Hmmmm I wonder! Do we ever stop and ask ourselves these questions when we read the statistics in the paper? I think it's such a shame to pick on women for treating mental health. How sad to have this thread on the boards. Women have the hardest road in life, in my opinion. Most of us rarely get the support we need to handle the daily stresses we deal with. Most of us give selflessly, especially if we are homeschooling, and never stop to take time out for ourselves. There often isn't time.

 

Am I shocked at the stats? No. Women have had the same types of struggles forever. However, most of us were a different type of statistic. Think about what happens to untreated mental illness like depression, panic, and anxiety? Our bodies are constantly reinventing themselves because of our hormone changes and chemical changes. It's hard. Throw our modern, fast-paced life styles into the mix and it's crazy and a recipe for disaster.

 

Why is it so hard to simply be compassionate for women. To love one another and share 'her' burdens. If you have a friend that suffers, try listening to her and being a 'good friend'. There is no need for judgment. I can promise you that whatever you think you know and want to say to her; she probably has said to herself a thousand times before. I don't know many women that are taking anti depressants that want to be on them. Why would they? I just don't understand the concept of someone abusing these medicines. I guess there are ppl out there that would, but I think that's the exception.

 

Lets show some compassion and think less about the 'awww' of how many women are on these medicines. The only difference that we can make is how we look at and treat other women. Let's lift each other up instead of tearing each other down bc one can do something without the 'aid' of help. At some point, we all need a helping hand. It might come in a different form, but it's help.

 

Sisters...lets love one another for the beautiful women we are. We have a hard road....lift each other up!

 

Blessings!

 

:iagree: If women want to medicate themselves because they *want* them, there are way better prescription drugs out there than ADs.:tongue_smilie:

[justamouse]

 

Also, comparing SSRIs to cocaine is a little harsh. There are serious side effects, but that's true with almost any medication.

 

Not really. As a person with familial experience with both, nope, they're too much a like. This person, having lived through a coke addiction that was life altering and fiction novel worthy, took themselves off anti depressants because they were too much alike.

Edited December 7, 2011 by justamouse
commas, I put them in, I take them out

[TravelingChris]

Anit depressants and drugs like cociane are very different. And it isn't just my opinion, it is the DEA's. Medications in the USA are classified it categories based on how likely they are to be abused. SSRI's are not likely to be abused and aren't schedule drugs. On the other hand, cocaine is very likely to be abused and is on the highest schedule drug that can still be used in very select occasions and still be legal. Drugs like heroin can never be used.

 

I would also like to argue with Ester Maria's statement about how mental illness has no conclusive tests- many do but the tests are very expensive and not easy to get- tests like PET scans of the brain, MRIs, etc. The brains of schizophrenics, for example, have holes in them. We used to know this by examining brains of deceased patients. I think with MRI's, the same holes can be seen. However, there is no real reason to use that because schizophrenia can usually be diagnosed by behavior and reports of behavior. Furthermore, not all diseases that are strictly physical are so easy to diagnose too. Many of the autoimmune diseases are very hard to diagnose because there are no one diagnostic test. Rheumatoid arthritis, for example, has 20% of the patients having seronegative form of the disease. They still have the disease, the medications work the same, the arthritis symptoms are the same. They just don't have a certain factor that the other 80% do and also, they tend to have a somewhat milder course. One of my diseases, Sjogren Syndrome, is so difficult to diagnose that the average time a patient has to wait for diagnosis is 11 years. With me, I have very slowly shown some markers for disease in my blood but it took years for some of them to finally start showing up. No one thinks I didn't have the disease much earlier since I had the symptoms earlier. In fact, doctors treated me before I had any markers for either RA or Sjogren;s or Lupus. But they knew I had a disease. And no, I wasn't ever offered anti-depressants as a cure or treatment for these problems.

[shanvan]

Furthermore, not all diseases that are strictly physical are so easy to diagnose too. Many of the autoimmune diseases are very hard to diagnose because there are no one diagnostic test. Rheumatoid arthritis, for example, has 20% of the patients having seronegative form of the disease. They still have the disease, the medications work the same, the arthritis symptoms are the same. They just don't have a certain factor that the other 80% do and also, they tend to have a somewhat milder course. One of my diseases, Sjogren Syndrome, is so difficult to diagnose that the average time a patient has to wait for diagnosis is 11 years. With me, I have very slowly shown some markers for disease in my blood but it took years for some of them to finally start showing up. No one thinks I didn't have the disease much earlier since I had the symptoms earlier. In fact, doctors treated me before I had any markers for either RA or Sjogren;s or Lupus. But they knew I had a disease. And no, I wasn't ever offered anti-depressants as a cure or treatment for these problems.

 

Thanks for sharing this. This is where I am now. There is something (auto-immune) wrong yet testing reveals nothing. I have been offered antidepressants repeatedly,and, as I posted earlier, taking them was a disaster for me.

 

I still sometimes get suggestions for Ads from specialists my doctor sends me to. She (my doctor) apologized to me for the latest specialists' comments. I was being checked for Sjogren's and even went through with the very painful lip biopsy. Again, nothing shows up wrong. Of course, I still may have it. Anyway, the specialist told me there couldn't be anything much wrong with me b/c I looked too good. Also said it couldn't be fibromyalgia b/c people with fibro never sleep and it really disrupts their lives. He has no clue how hard I've worked at achieving some sort of normalcy with sleep. Also no clue how poorly I function now compared to before whatever I have hit.

 

He mentioned anti-depressants (even though he had decided there was nothing wrong with me) and Dh and I shot that idea down immediately. I'm glad I was able to tell him my family doctor recommends I do not use them b/c of past experiences. He then told Dh and I that actually there is no such thing as fibromyalgia. All the people with that diagnosis have something else, he said. The fibro symptoms are a result of whatever other disease they have. At any rate he thought stress reduction would be a good start for me since I don't have any of the things that cause fibro and he was convinced I don't have fibro.

 

So, here's the real kicker....drumroll.....he handed me a script for music and art therapy in the biggest city near me, which would require hours of driving and a parking garage, plus babysitters. I told him any benefit I might derive from the hospital's therapy would be undone by the drive home and added stress of spending the day in the city! Oh, and the script read Dx: fibromyalgia! I almost laughed out loud when I read it. My husband was there and was left absolutely speechless.

 

Sorry for hijacking as this is a bit off track, but I had to share. I still laugh when I think about that doctor. Thank you for sharing your experience. It helps to know I'm not alone.

[Impish]

Not really. As a person with familial experience with both, nope, they're too much a like. This person, having lived through a coke addiction that was life altering and fiction novel worthy, took themselves off anti depressants because they were too much alike.

One person's opinion does not make anything fact.

[justamouse]

Anit depressants and drugs like cociane are very different. And it isn't just my opinion, it is the DEA's. Medications in the USA are classified it categories based on how likely they are to be abused. SSRI's are not likely to be abused and aren't schedule drugs. On the other hand, cocaine is very likely to be abused and is on the highest schedule drug that can still be used in very select occasions and still be legal. Drugs like heroin can never be used.

 

.

Edited December 7, 2011 by justamouse

[justamouse]

One person's opinion does not make anything fact.

 

.

Edited December 7, 2011 by justamouse

[Mergath]

Not really. As a person with familial experience with both, nope, they're too much a like. This person, having lived through a coke addiction that was life altering and fiction novel worthy, took themselves off anti depressants because they were too much alike.

 

My dh is on Celexa and used to do a lot of drugs in his younger years. (He's 41 now.) Including coke. When I asked him if his Celexa was anything like doing cocaine, he looked at me like I was insane and started laughing.

 

I guess it's different for everyone.

[justamouse]

My dh is on Celexa and used to do a lot of drugs in his younger years. (He's 41 now.) Including coke. When I asked him if his Celexa was anything like doing cocaine, he looked at me like I was insane and started laughing.

 

I guess it's different for everyone.

 

It's different for everyone, but, it's still numbing.

 

I am NOT saying that there aren't people that need them-at all. But they are way over prescribed and thrown around like candy.

[pdalley]

Not really. As a person with familial experience with both, nope, they're too much a like. This person, having lived through a coke addiction that was life altering and fiction novel worthy, took themselves off anti depressants because they were too much alike.

 

And that is one person's experience. That does not make it true for all.

 

All medications affect people in different ways. A very small amount of an antidepressant keeps one of my kids from tearing his hair out and allows the other to actually speak to people. It keeps me - their mother - from being the raging banshee that her mother was. And we don't just take anti depressants - we also go to therapy as well as exercise and diet. And no - they do not numb me. I know what numbness feels like.

 

We are autistic. We are wired differently. Period. What works for us may not work for others. But to compare antidepressants to illegal drugs is really a reach IMO.

[kalanamak]

Not really. As a person with familial experience with both, nope, they're too much a like. This person, having lived through a coke addiction that was life altering and fiction novel worthy, took themselves off anti depressants because they were too much alike.

 

But, oddly, no one is doing home invasions to get money to buy Celexa.

[Renee in NC]

But, oddly, no one is doing home invasions to get money to buy Celexa.

 

:lol::lol::lol:

 

I know two people that were heavy users in the past who both are on ADs and they would tell you it isn't anywhere the same!;)

[enviromommy]

:lol::lol::lol:

 

I know two people that were heavy users in the past who both are on ADs and they would tell you it isn't anywhere the same!;)

 

Actually, I think the illegal drug argument is more of an argument FOR using anti-depressants. Many people drink or do drugs as a way of self-medicating for a condition that could be treated better and less self-destructively with prescription anti-depressants.

[Mergath]

Actually, I think the illegal drug argument is more of an argument FOR using anti-depressants. Many people drink or do drugs as a way of self-medicating for a condition that could be treated better and less self-destructively with prescription anti-depressants.

 

:iagree: My dh, as I said earlier, self-medicated for his bipolar disorder with drugs for a long time when he was younger, then switched to alcohol. He drank heavily up until a couple years ago. He was finally diagnosed, and the drinking tapered off as he found the right med combination. Once he got on the lithium/celexa combo, he never touched alcohol again. Said he doesn't even think about it anymore.

[Lady Florida.]

Actually, I think the illegal drug argument is more of an argument FOR using anti-depressants. Many people drink or do drugs as a way of self-medicating for a condition that could be treated better and less self-destructively with prescription anti-depressants.

 

:iagree: My dh, as I said earlier, self-medicated for his bipolar disorder with drugs for a long time when he was younger, then switched to alcohol.

 

This is often the case with undiagnosed ADHD as well. Self medication is far more dangerous than prescribed medications if the latter is used as directed.

[Impish]

I'd be surprised if you hadn't been on something/seen someone.

Funny, I hear that a lot :lol:

[merry gardens]

Click the PDF for New Report: America’s State of Mind.

 

This report made news a couple of weeks ago. Had a hard time swallowing it at first, and mulled it over to conclude that: 1) maybe PMS/PMDD is being better diagnosed, 2) maybe women are having a really hard time keeping up with impossible standards in a highly developed country [yes, every woman except you keeps nothing but fresh flowers and a handsome knife set on the kitchen counter and (in the words of Steve Carell from Date Night), has a physical appearance "so hot it's like looking through a shimmering jet engine" , 3) social networking reduces the need and opportunity for real social interaction in which your friends could obviously see something is wrong and try to help you, and 4) whatever the reason(s) -- 1 in 4 is nothing to be glad about.

 

There were other surprising stats about anti-d usage in children too.

 

Anyway, would you have believed 1 in 4 women ... or higher?

 

 

 

I missed that news report and the number stuns me. I had no idea it was this high. The high numbers of people using them seems to point to a greater societal problem (or problems.)

[enviromommy]

This is often the case with undiagnosed ADHD as well. Self medication is far more dangerous than prescribed medications if the latter is used as directed.

 

I medicate my ADD with COFFEE. Dear, lovely, wonderful ambrosia: coffee.

 

Unfortunately, doesn't do much for my anxiety. :tongue_smilie:

[Ester Maria]

But the fact that one can't diagnose OCD or bipolar disorder with the same methods or degree of certainty as, say, cancer or diabetes doesn't negate the fact that those suffering still require treatment. Just because a doctor can't draw some blood and run a test to tell me what I have doesn't mean I'm not mentally ill.

Absolutely, with this I agree. :)

Mental illness *can* be accurately diagnosed.

...it is with this part that I have problems with.

 

Conditions that can be accurately medically diagnosed have to be backed up with physical evidence - otherwise, what we are talking about is not science. It may be an experimental method of trying to help people, but it is not scientific in the strictest sense of the word. The problem is that without "real" evidence (as in, physical evidence) people are given very "real" treatments (as in, medicines which alter something on the physiological level).

Furthermore, there are many cases in which experts disagree on diagnoses - happens with "regular" medicine as well - BUT, psychiatry still operating with labels without clinical tests, and psychology taking it from them, it is a whole new level of disagreement since there is no actual data do disagree on.

Also, comparing SSRIs to cocaine is a little harsh. There are serious side effects, but that's true with almost any medication.

The source of comparison is actually my husband, but the point of comparison is not so much the similarity in mechanism itself, but in the cost - benefit ratio. While cocaine can be used to boost up productivity and mental energy, it is used at a very serious price. For what is known about many psychotropics, from what I understand, it may as well be the case although the mechanism of dependence differs in intensivity. Although I could certainly tell you many stories of people having SERIOUS issues trying to get off psychotropics. Based on what my husband explained to me in layman's terms, what happens is that the "side effects" of trying to get off many of those drugs are NOT an illness itself, but the reaction to withdrawl, i.e. the drug's mechanism (IOW: many people getting suicidal after they stop psychotropics are suicidal not because they have a mental illness, but because it is a side effect of the drug itself and their situation after an experience with medicaments may be worse than before an experience with them).

But, Ester, of course it is different. They are two different fields of medicine. Psychiatry is not internal medicine . . . one cannot get inside the human mind, cannot accumulate OBJECTIVE data, in diagnosing mental illness. Diagnosis is made in large part by patient's reported symtpoms. I agree it's not an exact science, but it's a starting point. Because there is no objective way to diagnose via labs or what not does mean the illness is not there.

There is only one medicine, if we define medicine in terms of science. I absolutely agree with you that there are phenomena which escape the scientific treatment, for now (or are "only" insanely expensive and thus not mainstream). What I am arguing is against the common perception of psychiatry as a fully fledged science where doctors know what they are doing on the level on which they know what they are doing with other fields of medicine (which was originally one of the arguments in this thread).

 

Something definitely exists, but there is a huge "leap" between acknowledging that and attempting to treat it chemically, without proper clinical tests first. My only argument here is really that I think many people are not being stringent enough as to when it is justified to make that leap, and I know from talking to people who supposedly know what they are doing that quite often it is essentially a gamble.

 

I wish for people what is best for them, and if medicaments are the best so be it; but sometimes, the best thing on the long run is not to medicate, even if it would be a temporarily relief, especially if we are talking about situational crises as opposed to a very long term pattern of something. I am generally of an opinion that medicaments ought to be the last choice in therapy with the vast majority of people.

I would also like to argue with Ester Maria's statement about how mental illness has no conclusive tests- many do but the tests are very expensive and not easy to get- tests like PET scans of the brain, MRIs, etc. The brains of schizophrenics, for example, have holes in them. We used to know this by examining brains of deceased patients. I think with MRI's, the same holes can be seen. However, there is no real reason to use that because schizophrenia can usually be diagnosed by behavior and reports of behavior.

MRI and alike are exactly what I meant by alluding to the most stringent diagnostic criteria, with at least some level of scientificity, as opposed to simply behavioral observations or self-reported symptoms. :tongue_smilie:

Although - again, too much for a layperson like me, this is DH speaking - there are problems with MRI too in that the physical structures of the brain are not necessarily the only determing factor of the mind and we are effectively talking about the latter when we talk about psychiatry. DH says, for example, that there are people who have the "brain structures" common in psychopaths, but are extremely well-adjusted to the world and their "psychopathy" is latent, i.e. not every 'same' brain wiring will bring about the same results in terms of mental reality, because there are other factors in the game too, which only emphasises the point that the environmental factors and what can one do except for chemically altering the brain via medicaments is often downplayed. This, if I understand things correctly, is a HUGE problem because it also poses the question whether brain structures ought to be chemically treated in the first place as an automatic prescription. IOW, because of the complexity of the human mind, the brain wiring in terms of physical structures may or may not be fully indicative since we do not understand exactly the relationship between the brain and the mind. However, it is the best we have at present and I am willing to acquiesce to that, as a part of the most stringent possible neurological evaluation - but NOT to self-reported symptoms or behavioral impressions as the criteria for medication. Whenever medication is involved, in my view, there HAS to be a physical background that can be demonstrated, compared to the effect of the medication and so forth; and if that objective background is absent, it better be a dire case where "gambling" with medication can be excused as in the absolute immediate interest of the patient. So, my problem is not with THAT, with very difficult and more "obvious" cases where one has to react quickly or something very bad will happen - but with the fact that is quite often the standard treatment in other cases as well, especially milder ones. Like somebody confirmed what I have heard in multiple occasions two - a twenty minute chat and a prescription. If that is a stringent, careful, medically responsible attitude... then we just have to agree to have very different ideas of what constitutes medical responsibility.

 

And then there is a typical question of what constitutes an illness and what constitutes a normal human variety of temperament. Not all people are cheerful - but does it mean they are ill? The criteria of "normalcy" are typically quoted as either statistic criteria (the "norm" = the most prevailing, statistically most common behavior) or fuzzy "wellbeing" criteria, which are as subjective as it gets (the "healthy" being a point where the patient "can function well", whatever that means, as there is no test for functioning well). The latter is fuzzy, but the former is difficult to apply given the abundance of variety in something as complex and as difficult to pinpoint as mental reality. I know at least several cases in which people are medicated for what are essentially temperament issues, not serious pathology, rather than helped in approaching life and organizing it in a way to cope better. Just like some people are not as intellectually strong as others - but you do not suggest them or condone medicating themselves to boost their productivity (although drug use in that purpose is rampant among competitive university students, from what I hear), because being less intelligent or productive than somebody else is not an illness, it is just a human variety. Likewise, I have a rather pessimistic general outlook on life, but it does not mean my thinking needs to be "fixed" or that something is "wrong" with me for that - it only means that I had a little bit more difficulty than a typical person in setting some thing straight with myself and adapting myself in non-chemical ways the way to help myself. Not every situation in which the person wishes they were somebody else mentally, or where are having a hard time, is a call for medicaments, only SOME of those situations, after a very careful consideration. What are witnessing today though is the mainstreaming of chemical options of coping, as a standard procedure, and that is what I have an issue with, especially with such an absence of hard data.

[Ester Maria]

Forgot to include a disclaimer. I do not pretend, in any way, shape or form, to give medical advice or "suggest" anything to anybody from this thread or in general. If you are being medicated, you are likely being medicated because somebody with some medical knowledge estimated the "gamble" is worth it in your case, and any issues of medication or non-medication should be discussed with them or other doctors, not random people on the internet (not that anyone is silly enough to actually do it, but I would hate to "suggest" to people things which are potentially harmful for them). What I am talking here are generalties, not "alluding" to anyone's case in particular and while I do know a thing or two about some problems having a husband in a biomedical field, I am far from competent to talk about these issues "seriously" and I recognize my limits there. So take with a gram - or a kilogram - of salt anything you read by me on this topic.

I know these are very difficult topics to discuss being so personal in nature, and I really hope I do not vex somebody (past the reasonable amount of vexing that happens in internet in general) with these thoughts. :grouphug:

[Joanne]

Conditions that can be accurately medically diagnosed have to be backed up with physical evidence - otherwise, what we are talking about is not science. It may be an experimental method of trying to help people, but it is not scientific in the strictest sense of the word. The problem is that without "real" evidence (as in, physical evidence) people are given very "real" treatments (as in, medicines which alter something on the physiological level).

Furthermore, there are many cases in which experts disagree on diagnoses - happens with "regular" medicine as well - BUT, psychiatry still operating with labels without clinical tests, and psychology taking it from them, it is a whole new level of disagreement since there is no actual data do disagree on.

 

My dd has juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. There is not a test for it (not for the JRA). It is a diagnosis of exclusion. It would not meet your criteria.

 

I think your standard of "science" runs the very real risk of setting people back decades in terms of mental illness.

 

There is plenty of science in psychology and psychiatry.

[zaichiki]

Absolutely, with this I agree. :)

 

...it is with this part that I have problems with.

 

Conditions that can be accurately medically diagnosed have to be backed up with physical evidence - otherwise, what we are talking about is not science. It may be an experimental method of trying to help people, but it is not scientific in the strictest sense of the word. The problem is that without "real" evidence (as in, physical evidence) people are given very "real" treatments (as in, medicines which alter something on the physiological level).

Furthermore, there are many cases in which experts disagree on diagnoses - happens with "regular" medicine as well - BUT, psychiatry still operating with labels without clinical tests, and psychology taking it from them, it is a whole new level of disagreement since there is no actual data do disagree on.

 

The source of comparison is actually my husband, but the point of comparison is not so much the similarity in mechanism itself, but in the cost - benefit ratio. While cocaine can be used to boost up productivity and mental energy, it is used at a very serious price. For what is known about many psychotropics, from what I understand, it may as well be the case although the mechanism of dependence differs in intensivity. Although I could certainly tell you many stories of people having SERIOUS issues trying to get off psychotropics. Based on what my husband explained to me in layman's terms, what happens is that the "side effects" of trying to get off many of those drugs are NOT an illness itself, but the reaction to withdrawl, i.e. the drug's mechanism (IOW: many people getting suicidal after they stop psychotropics are suicidal not because they have a mental illness, but because it is a side effect of the drug itself and their situation after an experience with medicaments may be worse than before an experience with them).

 

There is only one medicine, if we define medicine in terms of science. I absolutely agree with you that there are phenomena which escape the scientific treatment, for now (or are "only" insanely expensive and thus not mainstream). What I am arguing is against the common perception of psychiatry as a fully fledged science where doctors know what they are doing on the level on which they know what they are doing with other fields of medicine (which was originally one of the arguments in this thread).

 

Something definitely exists, but there is a huge "leap" between acknowledging that and attempting to treat it chemically, without proper clinical tests first. My only argument here is really that I think many people are not being stringent enough as to when it is justified to make that leap, and I know from talking to people who supposedly know what they are doing that quite often it is essentially a gamble.

 

I wish for people what is best for them, and if medicaments are the best so be it; but sometimes, the best thing on the long run is not to medicate, even if it would be a temporarily relief, especially if we are talking about situational crises as opposed to a very long term pattern of something. I am generally of an opinion that medicaments ought to be the last choice in therapy with the vast majority of people.

 

MRI and alike are exactly what I meant by alluding to the most stringent diagnostic criteria, with at least some level of scientificity, as opposed to simply behavioral observations or self-reported symptoms. :tongue_smilie:

Although - again, too much for a layperson like me, this is DH speaking - there are problems with MRI too in that the physical structures of the brain are not necessarily the only determing factor of the mind and we are effectively talking about the latter when we talk about psychiatry. DH says, for example, that there are people who have the "brain structures" common in psychopaths, but are extremely well-adjusted to the world and their "psychopathy" is latent, i.e. not every 'same' brain wiring will bring about the same results in terms of mental reality, because there are other factors in the game too, which only emphasises the point that the environmental factors and what can one do except for chemically altering the brain via medicaments is often downplayed. This, if I understand things correctly, is a HUGE problem because it also poses the question whether brain structures ought to be chemically treated in the first place as an automatic prescription. IOW, because of the complexity of the human mind, the brain wiring in terms of physical structures may or may not be fully indicative since we do not understand exactly the relationship between the brain and the mind. However, it is the best we have at present and I am willing to acquiesce to that, as a part of the most stringent possible neurological evaluation - but NOT to self-reported symptoms or behavioral impressions as the criteria for medication. Whenever medication is involved, in my view, there HAS to be a physical background that can be demonstrated, compared to the effect of the medication and so forth; and if that objective background is absent, it better be a dire case where "gambling" with medication can be excused as in the absolute immediate interest of the patient. So, my problem is not with THAT, with very difficult and more "obvious" cases where one has to react quickly or something very bad will happen - but with the fact that is quite often the standard treatment in other cases as well, especially milder ones. Like somebody confirmed what I have heard in multiple occasions two - a twenty minute chat and a prescription. If that is a stringent, careful, medically responsible attitude... then we just have to agree to have very different ideas of what constitutes medical responsibility.

 

And then there is a typical question of what constitutes an illness and what constitutes a normal human variety of temperament. Not all people are cheerful - but does it mean they are ill? The criteria of "normalcy" are typically quoted as either statistic criteria (the "norm" = the most prevailing, statistically most common behavior) or fuzzy "wellbeing" criteria, which are as subjective as it gets (the "healthy" being a point where the patient "can function well", whatever that means, as there is no test for functioning well). The latter is fuzzy, but the former is difficult to apply given the abundance of variety in something as complex and as difficult to pinpoint as mental reality. I know at least several cases in which people are medicated for what are essentially temperament issues, not serious pathology, rather than helped in approaching life and organizing it in a way to cope better. Just like some people are not as intellectually strong as others - but you do not suggest them or condone medicating themselves to boost their productivity (although drug use in that purpose is rampant among competitive university students, from what I hear), because being less intelligent or productive than somebody else is not an illness, it is just a human variety. Likewise, I have a rather pessimistic general outlook on life, but it does not mean my thinking needs to be "fixed" or that something is "wrong" with me for that - it only means that I had a little bit more difficulty than a typical person in setting some thing straight with myself and adapting myself in non-chemical ways the way to help myself. Not every situation in which the person wishes they were somebody else mentally, or where are having a hard time, is a call for medicaments, only SOME of those situations, after a very careful consideration. What are witnessing today though is the mainstreaming of chemical options of coping, as a standard procedure, and that is what I have an issue with, especially with such an absence of hard data.

 

Thank you SO much Ester Maria (and husband) for saying all of that and explaining some of the big issues with diagnosing mental illness.

 

My mother has been labeled with SO many different types of mental illness (during my lifetime) that any person with half a brain paying attention would be appalled at the type of inconsistencies there can be with diagnosing mental illness. Ester Maria (or your dh) mentioned the problem with diagnosing based on self-reported symptoms and behavioral impressions. This is spot on for my mother. Things get interesting because she has Munchausen syndrome. So how on earth they can take her symptoms and behavioral impressions into consideration is beyond me! It is just mind boggling! She's been on a huge variety of medicines for the various mental illnesses... they keep changing everything... overdoses... she doesn't keep track well... she lies to the doctors... They have poisoned her. (She has poisoned herself, too, I guess.) She has been in a coma. Her body is falling apart. How much of that is caused by the medications? Probably a lot of it. It's so very sad. If only they had *real* science and tests they could use...

Edited December 8, 2011 by zaichiki

[pdalley]

 

Conditions that can be accurately medically diagnosed have to be backed up with physical evidence - otherwise, what we are talking about is not science. It may be an experimental method of trying to help people, but it is not scientific in the strictest sense of the word. The problem is that without "real" evidence (as in, physical evidence) people are given very "real" treatments (as in, medicines which alter something on the physiological level).

Furthermore, there are many cases in which experts disagree on diagnoses - happens with "regular" medicine as well - BUT, psychiatry still operating with labels without clinical tests, and psychology taking it from them, it is a whole new level of disagreement since there is no actual data do disagree on.

 

 

 

So autism doesn't exist then? There are no medical tests for it, after all. So autism isn't a scientific diagnosis?

 

Interesting.

[Ester Maria]

So autism doesn't exist then? There are no medical tests for it, after all. So autism isn't a scientific diagnosis?

 

Interesting.

I thought the brains of autistic people do show anomalities, i.e. a different wiring as to where the brain activity is located on some tasks - on MRI? And that there are other technically testable anomalities as to the understanding of language, symbolic language, etc.?

 

Strictly scientifically speaking, whenever you take a look at something and jump to a conclusion based on what "seems" without any data, it is not a proper diagnosis - it is at best a syndrom, i.e. a mix of symptoms lumped together because it was observed that in some cases where something is odd, you have this set of symptoms.

 

The problem is in how applicable even thinking in terms of syndroms is in mental health. Can you at least observe the symptoms, or it is all based on what the person tells you? Can they lie, can what they tell be mood-based? Most patients are not visibly different in some way from other people, the diagnosis is made exlusively on their self-reported mental reality. Where the things ARE more "obvious" in terms of great aberration from the behavioral "norm", I am okay with admitting that something IS there, we may not have a proper theoretical apparatus to explain it yet or a proper mechanism of solving it, and it is at the edge of the scientific and non-scientific treatment, but we are a work in progress to the best of the current research.

It is the automatic application of less-than-scientific treatment on marginal cases, or cases where there is nothing observably wrong, that creeps me out. In many cases people simply need help in coping with life and situational problems - help in terms of non-chemical therapy, community support, lifestyle change - rather than experimentation with medicines, as a first assumption. Sort of, "I do not assume you need medicines until you convince me otherwise [over a period of time when I get to know you and observe you better]", rather than "When you come to me with a self-reported mental reality problem, I assume you need medication and give it before seriously ruling out other options".

[Perry]

 

Conditions that can be accurately medically diagnosed have to be backed up with physical evidence - otherwise, what we are talking about is not science. It may be an experimental method of trying to help people, but it is not scientific in the strictest sense of the word. The problem is that without "real" evidence (as in, physical evidence) people are given very "real" treatments (as in, medicines which alter something on the physiological level).

 

 

MRI and alike are exactly what I meant by alluding to the most stringent diagnostic criteria, with at least some level of scientificity, as opposed to simply behavioral observations or self-reported symptoms.

 

 

But much of medicine is like this.

 

There are many conditions that are treated symptomatically and depending on self report. Migraines. Reflux. Pain. Angina. If symptoms get better with treatment, then you're on the right track, and don't necessarily need any other tests. Treating mental illness is no different. If the treatment relieves the symptoms, that's still science.

[Ester Maria]

But much of medicine is like this.

 

There are many conditions that are treated symptomatically and depending on self report. Migraines. Reflux. Pain. Angina. If symptoms get better with treatment, then you're on the right track, and don't necessarily need any other tests. Treating mental illness is no different. If the treatment relieves the symptoms, that's still science.

I was never given a medicine without a test.

 

A niece has migraines problems, when it turned out NOT to be a situational thing, they sent her for brain scans and brain activity tests to figure out that something is odd in the wave frequency. Definitely not treated in any way before that.

When I had joint pain, the first thing they did was a scan, the second thing they did was a thorough blood/urine test, the third thing they did was a check of the bone regularity with a specialist (i.e. whether it is due to possible scoliosis of a kind or something), and the fourth thing was an experintal testing whether the pain is position-based. Nobody prescribed me anything meanwhile, and even if the final diagnosis was a result of elimination (similar to what Joanne said earlier), NOBODY even toyed with the idea of prescribing me anything after a chat about what are my issues, without any kind of testing involved. :confused:

 

The equivalent in mental health would pretty much be: step 1, a thorough check up whether the problem is nutritional and lifestyle-based; step 2, may it be a situational thing and not a continuous pattern?; step 3, even if it is a continuous pattern, can it be dealt with without medication; step 4, a discussion about risks and benefits of medication; step 5, medication. Many people would not even get to step 5 because the problem would be solved on levels 1-3, but many psychiatrists will prescribe something right away and THAT is what I rave against here.

[Joanne]

The equivalent in mental health would pretty much be: step 1, a thorough check up whether the problem is nutritional and lifestyle-based; step 2, may it be a situational thing and not a continuous pattern?; step 3, even if it is a continuous pattern, can it be dealt with without medication; step 4, a discussion about risks and benefits of medication; step 5, medication. Many people would not even get to step 5 because the problem would be solved on levels 1-3, but many psychiatrists will prescribe something right away and THAT is what I rave against here.

 

You wrote off mental health professionals, across the board and without exception as non scientific. You dismissed the existence of science in the field. In so doing, you ALSO called into question a great deal of medical science.

 

Diagnosing a mental health illness *requires* intake, assessment, and often testing.

[Perry]

I thought the brains of autistic people do show anomalities, i.e. a different wiring as to where the brain activity is located on some tasks - on MRI?

The brains of people with mental illness also have pathology, but lab and radiology tests aren't yet well developed. Hundreds of years ago, there wasn't a test for diabetes, or hypertension, or duodenal ulcers, or hypothyroidism. But those things still existed.

 

We don't have a test for Alzheimer's, but it clearly exists. Even if we don't have a good objective test for anxiety disorders, we DO have some very effective treatments. It would be inhumane to withhold treatment because we don't yet have a good lab test.

[Ester Maria]

Diagnosing a mental health illness *requires* intake, assessment, and often testing.

The difference is in the type of testing. It is one thing to isolate a demonstrable physical structure (a blood test, a brain scan, etc.). Are you claiming that mental health professionals, as a mainstream standard procedure, are doing something comparable? If so, I am :bigear: because that would be a truly unknown information to me. Based on what I know, they do not have testing of the kind.

[Perry]

I was never given a medicine without a test.

NOBODY even toyed with the idea of prescribing me anything after a chat about what are my issues, without any kind of testing involved. :confused:

Well, it depends on the symptoms and the possible causes. Most people with a very clear migraine description are not going to get neuroimaging or lab tests. There's no need. Instead, a diagnosis is made based on history and they are treated empirically. If symptoms change, or they have an abnormal exam, or if they don't get better with treatment, that's a different story. Then, a good workup is indicated. But not for a straightforward migraine.

 

Same with reflux. Indigestion and burning after eating? Take some Pepcid. You certainly don't need an endoscopy for that. That would be an enormous waste of resources and is unnecessarily risky.

 

There are many, many conditions like this in medicine. Of course, there are many things that DO need lab tests and xrays, but there are plenty of things that can be and should be treated empirically.

[Joanne]

The difference is in the type of testing. It is one thing to isolate a demonstrable physical structure (a blood test, a brain scan, etc.). Are you claiming that mental health professionals, as a mainstream standard procedure, are doing something comparable? If so, I am :bigear: because that would be a truly unknown information to me. Based on what I know, they do not have testing of the kind.

 

Ester Maria,

 

You do not value, and perhaps do not understand mental health diagnosis and professionals. Several people have offered you, from "medical science" exceptions to your claim, but you don't address them.

 

I would call a lot of mental health diagnosis comparable, but, based on your seemingly arbitrary standard, you would not agree.

 

Mental health practitioners, based on researched and standardized criteria, diagnose:

 

Mental retardation

Spectrum disorders

Eating disorders

Addiction

Schizophrenia

Personality disorders

Learning disorders

 

And a bunch of other types of things.

 

Your posts on the topic are truly under-informed, even dangerous.

[zaichiki]

Your posts on the topic are truly under-informed, even dangerous.

 

Joanne,

 

Don't you think a test with measurable results would be invaluable in diagnosing mental illnesse? We can't get there unless people are willing to identify the need for them -- identify the problems there are currently with diagnosing (and reliably treating) mental illnesses.

[Joanne]

Joanne,

 

Don't you think a test with measurable results would be invaluable in diagnosing mental illnesse? We can't get there unless people are willing to identify the need for them -- identify the problems there are currently with diagnosing (and reliably treating) mental illnesses.

 

There are literally hundreds of psychometric tests. I've been administering a few each week since May.

 

The powers that be in Psychology practice, support, and endorse empirically based science. Most Ph. D. programs expect research as a component.

[Mergath]

But much of medicine is like this.

 

There are many conditions that are treated symptomatically and depending on self report. Migraines. Reflux. Pain. Angina. If symptoms get better with treatment, then you're on the right track, and don't necessarily need any other tests. Treating mental illness is no different. If the treatment relieves the symptoms, that's still science.

 

Epilepsy, too. There are many, many epileptics in which no physical cause is ever found, and so the symptoms- seizures- are treated with medication. And yet, no one would ever claim that the diagnostic processes for epilepsy aren't scientific enough. There are many different kinds of seizures though, experienced by each person a little differently. And I don't think anyone would ever say we shouldn't attempt to treat epilepsy if we can't identify a physical cause for the symptoms.

[Ester Maria]

Joanne, comparable in what aspect?

 

I have no problems admitting being wrong if I am convinced otherwise. But my observations too come from contact with medical professionals, who deal with many medical things on a fundamental level. There is a real subset of people, medically educated (unlike me), who seriously question the scientificity of psychiatry (not to speak of psychology) and consider the "leap" between the observable and testable on one hand, and chemical treatment on the other hand, to be simply too big to be justified as such a common practice as it is today. And it is not because they are undereducated - *I* may not understand the biochemistry of those practices, but they presumably do.

 

Likewise, there are serious issues with the validity of many of the psychological tests as diagnostic tools, although the ones dealing with learning impairment are comparatively well-developed to be of diagnostic use. I have been psychologically tested and I simply do not see the equivalence with the medical testing at all.

[zaichiki]

I don't think anyone would ever say we shouldn't attempt to treat epilepsy if we can't identify a physical cause for the symptoms.

 

No one is saying we shouldn't attempt to treat mental illness.

If I read Ester Maria correctly, she's saying there should be more steps before the doctors jump to medication.

In my family's experience, there are doctors who jump.

More family experiences -- they're experimenting: they don't really know what the h*ll they're doing. (Sorry. Emotion.)

[3browneyedboys4me]

Just for the record...I want to add that there are plenty of doctors (psychiatrist) that do NOT write out prescriptions without extensive therapy sessions.

 

I think what appears to be the biggest problem that some have with the topic of women and medication is that it is too readily available? I had a general MD explain to me that she was learning how to treat mental health patients b/c patients could not afford, or did not have insurance for psychiatric therapy. It was extremely expensive. So, she said that a lot of ppl were coming to her and getting their medicines b/c they couldn't afford other options. So, its seems to me that the system is more broken than anything. I think that MD's are trying to diagnose mental health issues that they have no business diagnosing. And, therefore, they are guessing as to the medications for treatment. I do believe psychiatry is a science. I believe it has taught us much about human behaviors. And, I guess I could go so far as to add that a scientific study, or data of any kind, doesn't make me feel any more valid or comfortable with treating illness. I am a devout skeptic when it comes to most anything that comes from the scientific community. You can't simply go to any doctor and trust that the info you are getting is correct. You have to research and take control of your own health.

 

 

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that there seems to be just waaaay too much scrutiny over this particular health issue. You could take just about anything that has been said on this thread and apply it toward any illness.

 

Also, there seems to be a lot of ppl that have strong opinions based on negative experiences. I understand that too. I just think that you should guard your harsh judgments and criticisms and keep them in line with your experience. You might also consider that if you had taken different steps you quite possibly could have avoided your experience all together.

 

Lastly, I am just amazed at the condescending tone many of these posts share. It seems that there are several on this board that really, truly think that the women on these medicines do not have the intellect to actually make this decision for themselves. I find that extremely offensive. I cant imagine taking anything more serious than the treatment of mental health! I will agree that it's definitely not a 'one size fits all' science, but that doesn't exist for anyone.

 

Ok, I'm done. I don't want to offend. I just want to clarify what I feel is being miscommunicated. It breaks my heart that many people just simply do not understand the complications of mental health. That even though there are those out there that say if you need meeds, by all means take them, just don't quite understand the gravity of what they are saying. So many ppl would be incapable of functioning if they didn't have medicine to help them cope. Think about what i just said... COPE. These women are not walking around doped up and feeling happy about life. Many of them are taking a medicine so that they can get out of bed and be the mother, wife and daughter they need to be.

 

Just think about that...think about if you couldn't get out of bed tomorrow because you were mentally ill. You absolutely. could. not. get up and 'do your life'. Can you imagine? Most women have this hit them after they become a mother. How devastating for them! You cant just say.."oops, made a mistake. I shouldn't have had kids..I can't handle it" No, you have to make the best decision that you can for the situation that you are in. You have to be present, and in the moment. You have to be there.

 

Im just suggesting that some of you think a bit more about what you are actually suggesting. I realize that its difficult to see drug abuse in our society, but I really do think you are looking at the exception, not the norm.

[Perry]

Joanne,

 

Don't you think a test with measurable results would be invaluable in diagnosing mental illnesse? We can't get there unless people are willing to identify the need for them -- identify the problems there are currently with diagnosing (and reliably treating) mental illnesses.

Absolutely. And there is lots of research underway.

 

Concept Clearance

February 13, 2009

Research on Biomarkers for Mental Disorders

 

NAMHC Concept Clearance

Presenter

 

Wayne K. Goodman, M.D.

Director, Division of Adult Translational Research & Treatment Development (DATR)

Goal

 

This initiative will solicit applications proposing novel approaches to the identification, characterization, and validation of biomarkers and/or biosignatures (integrated profiles of biomarkers and behavioral indicators) of major mental disorders.

Rationale

 

One of the greatest challenges for management of mental disorders in the post-genomic era is to “catch up†with the rest of clinical medicine with respect to diagnostic, prognostic, therapeutic, and preventive strategies based on the relevant biology, pathogenesis, and pathophysiology of the disorders of interest. Physicians in many specialties are now able to call upon a vast array of directly relevant biomarkers to accomplish this cardinal task. By contrast, physicians treating mental disorders rely almost exclusively on clinical observation and historical data obtained from patients and other informants.

Numerous biomarkers are available for use in routine medical practice of diagnosis, prevention and treatment. For example, the management of diabetes has been aided by the availability of the serum biomarker hemoglobin A1c. In the case of cardiovascular disease, there are biomarkers which confirm a later stage event (e.g, cardiac enzymes for myocardial infarction) or help predict disease risk or response to treatment (e.g., lipid profile, C-reactive protein). Despite tremendous progress in basic neuroscience, not a single biomarker has been developed with established clinical use in the management of major mental disorders outside the area of substance abuse.

This initiative aims to break this intellectual logjam by reaching well beyond NIMH’s typical applicant pool and encouraging high levels of innovation. Many of the elements necessary for a successful outcome are close at hand. Emerging molecular tools and screening methods relevant to mental disorders are becoming more robust at a logarithmic rate. Efforts to identify and characterize susceptibility genes for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder appear to be bearing fruit. New and promising imaging tools continue to be developed. In all, the scientific landscape appears to offer fertile ground for biomarker/biosignature discovery. Attracting a broader array of innovative scientists to the endeavor may be the missing element. As is the case for diabetes mellitus, it is widely assumed that the current phenotypes of major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, autism spectrum disorders, and obsessive-compulsive disorder reflect “families†of etiologically heterogeneous disorders. Accordingly, biomarkers may not map precisely onto the current nosological system. A biomarker (or biosignature) may be associated with either a subtype or endophenotype of an existing disorder; it may also correspond to a dimension or domain of pathology (e.g., psychosis) that cuts across multiple disorders.

The identification, characterization and validation of biomarkers/biosignatures for the major mental disorders would facilitate accurate prediction of disease risk, course, and therapeutic responses and ultimately lead to knowledge-based treatment and preventive strategies.

 

It's just a matter of time.

[Mergath]

No one is saying we shouldn't attempt to treat mental illness.

If I read Ester Maria correctly, she's saying there should be more steps before the doctors jump to medication.

In my family's experience, there are doctors who jump.

More family experiences -- they're experimenting: they don't really know what the h*ll they're doing. (Sorry. Emotion.)

 

It came across to me more as if she's saying that psychiatry, and especially psychology, are a crock. I may be more sensitive, however, as I fully believe that the field and its practitioners quite literally saved the lives of both myself and my husband.

[Mergath]

Just for the record...I want to add that there are plenty of doctors (psychiatrist) that do NOT write out prescriptions without extensive therapy sessions.

 

I just want to point out that in many cases, the doctor CAN'T wait to see if the therapy works first. If a woman comes in with post-partum psychosis, for example, and is a danger to herself or her children, the doctor can't just recommend a good therapist and see what happens. Therapy can take years to have a noticeable effect. When I had severe PPD, I was at the point of hallucinations. I drove to the ER and got medication right there. If the doctors had given me a list of therapists and sent me home, I might not be here today.

[3browneyedboys4me]

I agree mergath. I just wanted to add that all dr's do not just simply write prescriptions. Though, I think that most women are at that point by the time they get to a doctor.

[Perry]

But my observations too come from contact with medical professionals, who deal with many medical things on a fundamental level. There is a real subset of people, medically educated (unlike me), who seriously question the scientificity of psychiatry (not to speak of psychology)

Ah. There's the problem. Doctors are notorious for being self righteous about their own specialty and bashing the rest. Don't listen to 'em. :D

 

[zaichiki]

I may be more sensitive, however, as I fully believe that the field and its practitioners quite literally saved the lives of both myself and my husband.

 

I can understand, then, why you would be sensitive. However, negative experiences, questions, and complaints also need to have a voice.