Both drugs have mechanisms of action that we don’t fully understand and both affect the brains homeostasis.
If it’s irresponsible to prescribe LSD for depression it’s irresponsible to prescribe SSRI’s as well
Except that's not how it works.
How it works is that SSRIs have been tested in trials, and are approved.
LSD isn't. When someone says "try LSD" (or psilocybin which seems the newest rage these days) it means they'd illegally acquire the drug (who know for sure what drug they bought? [EDIT: and who knows the dosage/strength of active substance(s)?]), and administer it recreationally without the aid of a professional.
SSRIs, in contrast, are clinically tested, legally acquired, and administered under the guidance of a professional.
> Antidepressants can also cause psychotic episodes, panic attacks, suicide, etc.
Yes, but these side effects are widely documented. There are more common side effects, btw. These are the extreme ones you mentioned, and also the most rare ones. Many side effects are temporary. And if you are suicidal, it is unlikely you get SSRIs prescribed. Unless you lie about that, of course, but if you lie to your MD you're on your own.
My recommendation is simple: seek professional help. If you don't want to take SSRIs, fair enough; your MD won't force you. Heck, they might even be reluctant to prescribe them. But professional help is much more than drugs. Think about CBT, mindfulness, under the guidance of professionals; not self-medicating new age hippies.
The professionals that without any evidence promoted the low-serotonin theory of depression. Who, after over a decade of prescribing SSRI's finally admitted that low serotonin doesn't cause depression. Yeah, those professionals. They don't know what causes depression yet they're happy to keep prescribing drugs. But it's the "self-medicating new age hippies" that are irresponsible?
Also, those professionals aren't necessarily the same people. Do you fault Linus Torvalds for a bug in the Windows NT kernel because he's a software developer? Science is constantly in motion and questioning itself. The drug usage in the past before drugs were illegal (pre-2nd part of 20th century) was more irresponsible, and its thanks to science and law this has reduced. And specifically, SSRIs are more safe than antidepressants used before SSRIs such as TCAs and MAOIs.
Lots of professionals with great titles and affiliations steer people down a totally incorrect path.
An easy example of this is Harvard study published in the New England Journal of Medicine promoting dietary fat reduction, shaping what every credentialed person would advise for diet for the next 50 years: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
Drug companies shoulder the rep of being cold evil capitalists. Psychiatrists also become extremely wealthy as part of this medical complex, and get to keep a positive reputation. It reminds me of ticketmaster essentially being paid to shoulder negative PR for excessive ticket fees which are often largely passed on to performers.
Not knowingly, and they're expert on the field. There's a few exceptions, but those people are not 100% in the head. Diederik Stapel [1] being a recent example in social psychology.
The chance that you have a sitter without a clue is much higher. Especially because those are usually "friendz". The chance a professional knows better than a self-proclaimed expert is simply too high to discount all professionals.
> Drug companies shoulder the rep of being cold evil capitalists. Psychiatrists also become extremely wealthy as part of this medical complex, and get to keep a positive reputation. It reminds me of ticketmaster essentially being paid to shoulder negative PR for excessive ticket fees which are often largely passed on to performers.
In The Netherlands, you first try the drugs which are most likely to solve your problem but also you need to consider what gets reimbursed by insurance. Insurance also wants you to go for cheapest generic brand if possible (if patents expired, and the drug is known to work for your ailment). Example: something like Concerta doesn't get reimbursed because Ritalin exists and is considered the generic form. Even though the yo-yo effect is more severe with Ritalin.
Another example, I had the option of going for a SSRI or a SSRI plus antipsychotics. The former has a good track record for people with autism; the latter combo better but it also has more impact. Regular blood checks, and basic insurance doesn't cover the antipsychotics.
As for the positive reputation, when I went for my autism diagnosis I had an anamnesis from an asshole of a psychiatrist. He was working there temporary because they fired their regular psychiatrist very recently. I don't know exactly why, but I do know it was directly related to his functioning as a psychiatrist.
Ticketmaster problem is different (and offtopic though I don't mind analogies). It can be solved by putting a cap by law on how much percentage profit (e.g. 25%) second hand market may earn. That does require political willpower and enforcement of such regulation.
Western medicine is famously puritanical toward hallucinogenic drugs. Human social history is long and hallucinogenics being illegal is comparatively recent. It's an insult to the study of science that such an interesting and powerful drug is taboo to even study. Thankfully this seems to be reversing in my lifetime.
That's not the case (currently) for LSD, which will be of unknown quantity and unknown purity. It might not even be LSD.
LSD may be great, but telling people with a potentially fatal illness to just go try it is fantastically irresponsible.