I am very tempted to add my personal anecdote to the pile, but let me make a humble request instead...
If you are not a medical professional, please stop spreading unscientific memes and try to keep your opinion on mental diseases to yourself. The question of whether the drugs work is better left to the actual scientists and not be allowed to cloud the basic fact that one should always seek medical attention if they feel they have a problem. Unlike most physical diseases, the mental ones often impair your judgement and all this tinfoil hat bullshit really isn't helping. So please, just don't.
I don't think anyone sharing their anecdotes (myself included) are asserting any kind of medical expertise or suggesting that a comment section generally reserved for relatively obscure debates about technology should replace a qualified physician/psychologist.
Discouraging the general dissemination of experience seems generally counterproductive unless of course someone is making claims that would discourage sound medical advice.
The route out of depression is simple - go to see a doctor. At first they will try to improve your state with talking sessions. If this doesn't work they should prescribe antidepressant. Can somebody offer better way?
I agree that personal anecdotes are best left untold unless they illustrate documented effects that you can back with evidence. But I strongly disagree that only professional doctors and scientists should discuss any form of science. That is anathema to an Enlightened world.
How does someone use the word 'Quack' in their title and then focus entirely on anecdote and pointing out that fringe wackjobs like Scientologists are spewing nonsense (no shit). Using the rhetorical style of quacks against them?
Here's an idea, focus on the actual evidence. It seems it's because the evidence is murkier than the stance the author wanted to take, which makes for a garbage article and yet more nonsense spewed into a debate that affects a lot of people.
I've been on antidepressants from time to time. For the most part they did very little for me and, on occasion, caused awful physical addiction (Effexor, I'm looking at you) and this made me want to avoid them. But... newer medications are much better than they've ever been and I recently needed to start them up again so down the medical rabbit hole I went. I have to say that the current generation of meds are nothing short of life altering, for me. After a lifetime of varying degrees of depression I am finally finding relief that lasts and seems to have no down side (specifically with a medication called mirtazapine).
Meh. Some people like it, some people don't. Works for some people, doesn't for others. To each his/her own.
But every drug has side effects and you're not actually changing anything permanently - the minute you're off the drug you're right back where you started. Psychotherapy actually changes the brain, and there are no negative side effects. That's why I prefer the later and not the former (for any issue).
> you're not actually changing anything permanently
Antidepressants can cause real and permanent changes to the human body. Like any drug, some of the side effects cannot always be reversed when you come off them. For example, there is thought to be a link between some antidepressants and an increased risk of type 2 diabetes.
And if you stop taking some anti-depressants without weaning down the dose you can have severe psychological side effects that can result in self harm, suicide, etc.
It is good that psychotherapy is working for you, but it doesn't work for all. The same is true of the drugs: some people respond very well, others not so much. One of the issues, particularly in the UK where I come from, is that the former (drugs) are both cheaper and more readily available than the latter. Ideally people should be able to choose the treatment that works best for them. This sadly isn't always possible.
I write as someone who would easily have been prescribed (at several points in his life) various antidepressants. I never felt the need for them truly but they had been suggested for me basically with the same level of consideration as most docs hand out ADHD drugs. My girlfriend whom I love takes anti-depressants and they help her tremendously, so I do acknowledge that they are not without merit.
That said, I have seen people put on meds that were pretty clearly not needed (both anti-depressant and ADHD/ADD meds). These meds were added as either a form of insurance policy against some form of academic failure, or generally in high school, a way to dampen off-median behavior.
The big issue I have is the scale at which these medicines are distributed, as well as the early age of the target audience. It does seem odd that there are more than 1/10 over the age of 12 in the US (2011 numbers, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/19/us-usa-antidepress...) taking antidepressants.
I have no religious or economic reasons to discourage adoption of any medication (if it works it works).
My primary objection to any given medication is based on my consideration of how I might have turned out differently had I been put on every med suggested.
People are strange screwy creatures. I know some people really need help, and to them: get it, it really does help. My fear is that an 8 year old version of me (or you) somewhere is being told that something is wrong with them because they're a bit spazzy in class and that they need to be medicated because of it.
I was given anti-depressants and ADD medication when I was in college. I went to a cognitive psychologist who gave me a barrage of tests and told me I was off the charts ADD and had really bad anxiety and depression. I was definitely anxious and at times I can get pretty down. I turned in less homework than anyone in my whole high school and generally didn't care about most things people wanted me to (I did pretty well in community college and university though).
The psychologist didn't want to even start treatment til the meds kicked in so I, being naive and trusting, said OK, went to the croaker he recommended I go to and started taking them.
The anxiety went away as did the depression. So did any semblance of self-control I had. I can definitely see how someone could fly off the handle on these things kill a bunch of people if s/he had even the remotest inclination to do so beforehand. I started dressing crazy. I started basically talking at people, trying to blow their minds and confuse them and play with them. I lost any desire to really connect with anybody, any empathy or sympathy. My ability to introspect totally disappeared so I was unable to see what was happening to me. Maybe the idea was that depression or anxiety is related to overthinking/over-introspection or something like. Maybe I had an anomalous experience but I'm pretty sure if I continued with them I'd be in prison or suffering in some other way for the unanalyzed extremes I let myself get to.
I have other friends who have taken them or are still on them and I see/saw the same thing with them, a complete inability to self-judge causing them to make the same mistakes over and over and over and a tendency towards unfulfilling behavior. The pill they take to be happy hijacks the ability to ever create the circumstances to be happy without it.
I was unable to see what had happened to me when I was on them. I had to be told by someone who I hadn't seen in a long time how much I'd changed. It was a person I deeply respected. She told me in no uncertain terms that I wasn't the same person I had been and that I had changed for the worse. I finally tried looking inward and I realized she was right. Then I had to deal with the hallucinations and electric shock sensations of withdrawal but I'm glad I did
I may not be happy all the time, or even most of the time. I may be full of irrational fears but I believe I am becoming less so.
For certain psychiatric disorders (and I believe for people who don't really have depression) SSRIs can cause mania, which sounds a lot like what you went through.
Members of my immediate family have had, and still have, anti-depressants as part of what is making them worse than what was ailing them in the first place. By far.
Everyone is entitle to their own opinions and has their own experiences, and that's mine. So to me, the quacks are many of the ones prescribing the meds.
I know a prominent psychiatrist who believes that antidepressants are largely useless. He still prescribes them all the time because his patients expect him too.
After being on just about everything that can be prescribed, I can safely say that they all make you into somebody you're not. Yes, it might make some people happier. But, you know what? So does heroin.
In the end, the only thing that can fix you is you.
Advice and warnings like this kept me from seeking pharmacological help for my anxiety issues for over ten years. I missed out on a whole lot during my 20s because of it, and therapy alone was never enough. Now that I have started a therapeutic dose of an SNRI, I feel like myself again, the self I was in high school and college before my anxiety spiral started. My anxiety made me somebody I was not, and anti-depressants brought me back.
It's exciting to hear that your personal subjective experience with "everything that can be prescribed" generalizes perfectly to the other 7 billion humans on the planet. This should save a ton of time and money on medical research.
It is more authentic, the question is whether that means anything. Having invasive surgery without sedatives or anesthetics is more authentic, but we don't do it.
I disagree. I think you've only pointed out that depression and surgery with anesthetics require less intervention, but I don't think less intervention = more authentic.
Flourishing with other humans, whether in a tribe or NYC, is more authentic than starving to death in the wilderness.
Of course they'll change one's self, that's the point. Also talk therapy (hopefully) changes one's self. More specifically changing from depressed to not depressed. But that completely different from your original statement of "make you into somebody you're not".
By the same technical semantics parsing, it is either impossible or trivial for anything to "make you somebody you're not", depending on how you parse it.
If it means that you aren't the person that you are after taking it, then that's obviously contradictory. You are always the person you are.
If it means that you aren't the person you were before taking it, then the medication is not necessary for that. At any given moment, you are always a different person than you were in the previous moment.
And even if you (erroneously) reject the latter, you would still have to concede that you are not the same person, after "fixing" yourself through non-pharmacological means, as you were when you were depressed.
Well that's the kicker isn't it? These drugs do alter who the user is, to an extent. But presumably, the user wasn't entirely happy with how they were doing beforehand. Trying to wade throw a mess of external variables that are impacting your psyche while remaining simultaneously open to the possibility that the problem is within is a special level of hell that those dealing with depression are all too familiar with. There is of course a certain allure to the throes of depression. Nothing does a better job of forcing you up against the limits of your own existence and consciousness, and down into the rabbit hole, than when you start to realize that you're using your brain to analyze your brain to determine if your brain is the problem, all under the explicit assumption that your brain might well already be a problem that you couldn't possibly detect and really it's all just hopeless because how can you use a broken tool to analyze or fix itself and it's all a nonlinear chaotic system that you're at once in control of and trapped by... You get the picture. Sure, such mental exercises are fertile ground for creativity, but they're also fertile ground for slowly losing grip on the tattered remnants of what might be called sanity.
So you look to antidepressants. That's still you trying to fix you. And perhaps the changes it induces to the psyche don't outweigh the benefits of depression, even in the face of its monumental drawbacks that urged you into trying the pills in the first place. Now, I can hardly say I've been on everything that can be prescribed. It's exaggerating to say that I even dabbled in SSRIs. But for the few months I spent on them, I wouldn't say they made me into somebody I wasn't. I'd say that I made me into something different. Of course, I might not have liked that different somebody. I might have pondered whether this was all still in my head and I was swallowing sugar pills and what would that say about me if the mere suggestion that I was taking magic pills made me better but wouldn't that put me back at square one... And so on.
But I can't in good conscience begrudge anyone trying to muddle their way through life. If pills work for them then by all means take them. If they're happier with that different someone then I'd say they've embraced their new identity, not morphed into something they aren't.
I don't really know why I typed all this up. I'm tempted to Ctrl-A/Backspace it. But hey, when's the next time the ramblings of the inner conscience will be topical in HN?
If you must take the pill to become the new you, is it really you you're becoming? I feel that it's the pill, not your self, that becomes the identity.
I suppose we could take this further, for the sake of making a point, and ask if one receives a lobotomy, is one his or her self?
"After severely injuring my leg and being prescribed a cane, I can safely say that prosthetics make you into somebody you're not. Yes, it might make it easier to get around. But, you know what? So does a car."
Well, you'll reach your destination quickly and it's bad for your environment.
In seriousness, the stigmatization of medicating anxiety and depression is very unhealthy. While pills shouldn't be the first or only option, implying someone is weak for using meds is plain wrongheaded.
"No son, I'm not going to give you painkillers while you pass these gallstones. You see, that would change your state of mind and make you a different person. Plus, if you fight through the agony it'll make you a better human. It's natural, y'see."
There's absolutely nothing inherently wrong with heroin if it's used in a reasonable manner for something it can actually help with. It is, in fact, quite useful to deal with some kinds of physical pain. It's been eclipsed in recent decades by other kinds of opioids, but that's a difference of degree, not kind. Heroin isn't magically evil just because it's become a bogeyman 'substance of abuse' over the past few decades.
The point is that drugs are not inherently evil. Some drugs might be more harmful than beneficial, but that can only be determined by trials and evidence. Demonizing the things is the exact opposite of helpful.
In fact, I'll amplify the point: Injecting morality into things without a moral dimension is very harmful. It prevents people from looking at things rationally, by clouding the issue with emotional noise.
I agree and have no qualms with people's use of heroin, and have dabbled, myself. It was only presented as an example.
To amplify, there is nothing morally wrong with anti-depressants either. However morality is not the issue of my concern, the deadening of true self is.
Most descriptions of depression I have read sound like "the deadening of the true self" is what depression does, and any effective treatment would rather be the revival of the true self.
I think you misunderstand what I mean by true self. Yes, our self does change at every moment and is "reborn." However, it is still a true self as it is not artificially modified.
There is no basis for me claiming that artificially modifying one's self is a bad thing, as I never made that claim. I only pointed out an observation.
I find it extremely doubtful that you can actually give a definition of "true self" which meets the following conditions: 1) coherent and non-contradictory, 2) in accordance with reality, and 3) something a person should care about preserving.
I find it even more doubtful that you can give a definition of "artificially modified" which is meaningfully distinct from natural change.
If you are not a medical professional, please stop spreading unscientific memes and try to keep your opinion on mental diseases to yourself. The question of whether the drugs work is better left to the actual scientists and not be allowed to cloud the basic fact that one should always seek medical attention if they feel they have a problem. Unlike most physical diseases, the mental ones often impair your judgement and all this tinfoil hat bullshit really isn't helping. So please, just don't.
Thanks.