In addition, the worst times in my life were the times when I was taking psychiatric medications.
For the last 2 years, I've been taking 3 medications daily, and after the initial hump of spending a few months trying to find an effective combination, we arrived at one that really works for me, and I can't remember ever feeling better.
Furthermore, my psychiatrist has always treated me with respect, empathy, and genuine interest in my well-being. If he doesn't actually care about me as a person, then he's a damn fine actor. From my point of view, the end results are indistinguishable.
Every other medical revolution -- such as the rise of antibiotics, the pioneering of complex surgeries, and the advancements in medical imaging -- have resulted in a net reduction of people suffering from the ailments those tools are involved in treating.
Not so with psychiatry. The more drugs that are developed, the more illnesses are discovered to use them on.
You'll have to excuse the skepticism of some us who have seen loved ones suffer through debilitating, sometimes permanent side effects from drugs their psychiatrists prescribed. Your profession will get the benefit of the doubt when fewer of us are caring for those loved ones.
What debilitating side effects are those? How does their frequency compare to side effects for non-psychiatric drugs and treatments?
Unfortunately, neither did any of their doctors, it would seem.
You specifically demonized psychiatric medicine. You know people who have had pretty bad experiences with psychiatric medications but none who have had similar with non-psychiatric medications. My point is not to doubt that these side effects exist, but to illustrate that they exist for a host of non-psychiatric medications as well. Many of those are just as over-prescribed as psychiatric medications, and often by the same general practitioners over-prescribing them.
You claim I'm 'demonizing' (i.e., being unfair towards) a subset of the medical profession when in fact I'm only relaying my personal experience and skepticism based on that. I don't doubt that there are a whole host of other medicines whose effictiveness is unknown and whose popularity is primarly due to its availability as free samples in doctor's offices and the U.S.'s notoriously effective prescription drug advertisement industry.
But to make that a point in this discussion seems like a misdirection more than an counter-argument. Two things can be bad at the same time independently.
To answer your questions: I dated someone with night terrors from Chantix, have a relative who is addicted to opoids (but who thinks no one knows when he's high at Christmas dinner), but have thankfully never had to deal with the last two.
Even still -- none of those latter series were prescribed to treat disorders discovered after the invention of the drug itself. This is the primary point of skepticism: horrible side effects for well-advertised drugs for disorders we just recently discovered affecting, what was astutely noted by another commentor, the most complex organ of the body.
Many psychiatric medications are an excellent example of 'when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.'
> You claim I'm 'demonizing' (i.e., being unfair towards) a subset of the medical profession when in fact I'm only relaying my personal experience and skepticism based on that. I don't doubt that there are a whole host of other medicines whose effictiveness is unknown and whose popularity is primarly due to its availability as free samples in doctor's offices and the U.S.'s notoriously effective prescription drug advertisement industry.
Because you singled out and attacked psychiatrists and psychiatry as if there were something inherent to that field of medicine and that class of medications that is not present in other fields and types. You specifically said:
>> Every other medical revolution -- such as the rise of antibiotics, the pioneering of complex surgeries, and the advancements in medical imaging -- have resulted in a net reduction of people suffering from the ailments those tools are involved in treating.
>> Not so with psychiatry. The more drugs that are developed, the more illnesses are discovered to use them on.
That is not merely relating your experience. That is throwing a particular medical specialty under the bus for what are in fact widespread issues with medical practice.
> Even still -- none of those latter series were prescribed to treat disorders discovered after the invention of the drug itself. This is the primary point of skepticism: horrible side effects for well-advertised drugs for disorders we just recently discovered affecting, what was astutely noted by another commentor, the most complex organ of the body.
Are you claiming that there were no mental disorders until the advent of psychiatric drugs? That a subset of disorders are just marketing ploys by a psychiatrist-industrial complex?
Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness
To explain further the unique situation that mental health drugs present. You might benefit especially from the notes section, to which his citations refer.
Am I saying there is a conspiracy between psychiatrists and pharmacuetical companies? Were it only so simple! There are a myriad of complex reasons why we're in the situation we're in -- but claiming that the situation is not unique, that my discussion of my personal experience and the research behind it is somehow a 'demonization' of an otherwise unremarkable industry belies both the thesis of the article and experiences of millions of patients.
...
> claiming that the situation is not unique, that my discussion of my personal experience and the research behind it is somehow a 'demonization' of an otherwise unremarkable industry belies both the thesis of the article and experiences of millions of patients
You are saying it is unique, I am saying it is not. How am I misrepresenting the thesis?
I have many dark, hurtful experiences in my life. And when I share them, the only thing I expect in return is respect. Asking a question about my experience or asking me to provide evidence in support of my broader claims is not disrespectful. It's something I would expect might happen. If I couldn't handle it, I wouldn't bring it up. Or I would end the conversation.
In all honesty, I would be more offended at the implication that I cannot speak for myself.
I suggest you read intopieces' reply to vonmoltke, and have a think about this exchange from a fresh perspective. Remember that when people talk about losing their loved ones, a little tact goes a long way.
Asking so bluntly for research you could look for yourself (that pharma companies would never actually publish) comes across as tactless in this situation, which is why you're being greyed.
Except for that fact that you chose to interject on behalf of the emotions you presumed he would have?
> I suggest you read intopieces' reply to vonmoltke, and have a think about this exchange from a fresh perspective.
I did read it. What you read into it was some kind of assault that isn't necessarily there in the first place. I read it as a challenge to back up his claims (especially now due to subsequent posts), but one could also read it as simply being curious. Perhaps you should try the fresh perspective?
Being challenged on a broad claim that is supported only with anecdote is pretty par for the course on HN. This isn't a support group, it's adult discussion. Should we stop challenging broad claims whenever people bring personal anecdotes to the table? After all, even seemingly innocuous anecdotes could be deeply painful for the people involved.
> Remember that when people talk about losing their loved ones, a little tact goes a long way. Asking so bluntly for research you could look for yourself (that pharma companies would never actually publish) comes across as tactless in this situation...
You've moved the goalposts. You didn't say you had a problem with how he said it (i.e. tact), you said you had a problem with what he said (i.e. "don't do that...") Even so, being "blunt" (your interpretation) isn't being disrespectful. Not everyone wants sugarcoating on their cereal. I'd say your perspective here has quite a lot to do with how you would like to be treated, but that doesn't mean others feel the same way.
> ...which is why you're being greyed.
I've been upvoted, actually. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong? You seem to think this means something...
First, pharmaceutical companies are required to publish study data as part of the approval process. Whether the requirements are sufficient is a tangent all its own.
Second, I can obviously look up research. I have. It indicates debilitating side effects for a host of non-psychiatric medications as well, which intopieces seems to be ignoring because of bad personal experiences.
Third, if you don't want to re-live bad experiences, don't use references to them to score points in a debate.
Tics, liver damage, abnormal thinking are all listed as side effects. So is violent behaviour.
"Antidepressants and ADHD Drugs Top List of Most Violence-Inducing Drugs"
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/0...
HN comment of the day :)