QtM do you see medication as being “drugs”? Would you prescribe an anti-depressent to a suicidal patient, knowing that they can lead to increased thoughts of suicide?
Stephen King had major addiction problems, made worst when he got fame and fortune. His family and friends staged an intervention and he finally got clean and sober. Then he was hit by a van and suffered serious injuries. He wrote in On Writing that he “now takes about 200 pills a day.”
I’m sorry, but I cannot believe anyone would need to take 200 pills a day for anything and still be alive. Is that humanly possible?
I would, and I have, prescribed anti-depressants for carefully selected patients with suicidal ideation, and I believe at times it’s been life-saving.
I avoid prescribing drugs which are primary mood-altering in function (benzos, opiates, barbiturates, muscle relaxers, alcohol, pot, stimulants) to recovering patients unless there’s a clear and present medical need which outweighs the risks (which means usually I end up prescribing opiates for significant acute or malignant pain). Of course I tend to avoid prescribing them for normies unless those criteria are met too.
And when I was active in my addiction, over two decades ago, I could scarf 200 pills a day!
And any medication has the risk of being a ‘drug’, or having unforseen consequences, troublesome interactions, problematic outcomes. Which is why the responsibility for prescribing them needs to be taken seriously.
Not all pills are equal. Just because some things you get addicted to come in pill form doesn’t mean anything that comes in pill form will be addictive for you.
I mean, I could squish some bread into a little ball and have you swallow it like a pill, but I doubt you’d become addicted to bread-pills. However, since it contains carbohydrates and therefore affects your blood sugar in some non-zero fashion, bread-pills could technically be called a “drug.” Would you still have a horror of them if I called squashed bread “pills?”
I’m at a pretty good place right now (I’m more anxiety-prone than depression-prone) but this looks like a good way to keep up some good mental exercises.
A great model that I’ve heard about is that stresses can occur on one of three levels: Organic, psychological, and environmental. And that the cure for the stress should take place on the same level. You wouldn’t treat a broken leg with talk therapy, for instance. Antidepressants are on the organic level. Isn’t situational depression on either the psychological or environmental level?
That’s a nice model, but I don’t think it represents the reality of the mind, much less the mind under stress. I speculate there are more levels in play than those 3, and much more dynamic interactions between all levels of the nervous system. I don’t think one can separate the psychological from the organic or the environment, frankly.
The brain and its function may be more complex than we presently can understand.
For real. Just make sure the pills don’t contain too much acetaminophen. That tends to be the OD that knocks off more addicts. Too many vicodins, each one with a measly 5 mg of hydrocodone (measly for an opiate junkie who has built up a tolerance), but 500 mg of acetaminophen! 20 or 30 of those could knock your liver right out! And you can’t live without your liver…
Good points. It’s amazing how our environments can get into our bodies and wreak all sorts of havoc, and how consciousness can be intertwined with all of it.
Was this really necessary? Yeah, mookie’s schtick is annoying, but there’s a difference between a “here’s a kick in the ass, now get it together” and PALATR.
Which is why I think man-made psychiatric medications are like using a blunt instrument for surgery. Yes, they are effective for many people, but not a magic elixir that restores outawhack brain chemistry, which seems to be what big pharma wants us to believe.
I believe the meds should be a tool in regaining health, but not an treatment end in themselves.
I think I can see where Annie is coming from, though, where she mentions in the first place that her current therapist diagnosed “situational depression” and wants to throw a prescription at it. I would have a problem with that. It seems to me that talking things out in therapy is just what situational depression might be called for, not taking a prescription medication to “get you through.”
One of my aunts was put on antidepressants to “get her through” her son’s death and the depression she suffered because of it. That was 8 years ago and she’s still a mess. I truly believe the antidepressants made her specifically NOT deal with the intense emotions of pain and loss that were NORMAL for someone who had just lost a son. I think she got so used to the “better” feelings she had with the prescriptions, that she chooses now to continue not dealing with her intense emotions, and continues the need to be on antidepressants. I really think she would have been better off, and would be far, far, closer to normal now if she had not gone the pharmaceutical route and had dealt with her emotions over the course they took to run, even if that was over a couple of years.
Well, naturally. I went through depression my first year of college (which was caused by my OCD – that was when I was finally diagnosed). I take meds, yes. But I also went through therapy and learned how to cope, and methods to deal. They’re not “happy pills.”
Nowadays, it really doesn’t bother me as much as it did when I was younger (and trust me, it was BAD. Obsessions are like demons, I’ve always said). It’s mostly sorting out M&Ms by color anytime I eat them. But it’s not just because I take Paxil. Any doctor who just tosses a bottle of pills at you and says, “here you go” isn’t really helping you, IMHO. Annie-Xmas – some people have to take “drugs”. Most likely I’ll be on anti-convulsants for the rest of my life. (Although in some cases, people stop having seizures after a certain age – epilepsy is weird that way). I’m taking about seven pills a day to stop them. It beats the hell out of the alternative.
(Note: I know situational depression is a different animal.)
Here’s how I see it: If the world didn’t suck, why would it even matter what chemicals our brains were bathed in? You wouldn’t need a chemical to make you think life is wonderful, or bias you into thinking that. You could just take an objective look at the world around you and arrive at that conclusion rationally. I’ve always been depressed, but I don’t feel like I am unhappy for no reason… I see overwhelming evidence in the way the world works to support the conclusion that life is cruel and pointless. It’s not a matter of my emotional state, it’s a matter of undeniable facts that are beyond my control. Non-depressed people seem to be deluding themselves.
It’s obvious to me why so many people are not depressed: Such people are favoured by natural selection. Once people became intelligent enough to realize how pointless nature’s rat race was, surely some of them just couldn’t be bothered to survive. A few belonged to a mutant strain whose brains produced their own mind-altering drugs, altering the consciousness in a way that increased ambition and will to live, while clouding the ability to recognize what life really is. So these people chose to remain alive, force life upon their many children, and dominate the gene pool today.
Perhaps I would be a lot happier if I took anti-depressants, but I do think I would be at all the same person, and I really do not want to become delusional or ignorant of reality. So, better off to just accept what is, find some comfort in the exceptions (not everything in life is worthless, there are some people and things that make me happy).
If the world wasn’t great, why would it even matter what chemicals our brains were bathed in? You wouldn’t need a chemical to make you think life is terrible, or bias you into thinking that. You could just take an objective look at the world around you and arrive at that conclusion rationally. I’ve always been happy, but I don’t feel like I am happy for no reason… I see overwhelming evidence in the way the world works to support the conclusion that life is wonderful and beautiful. It’s not a matter of my emotional state, it’s a matter of undeniable facts that are beyond my control. Depressed people seem to be deluding themselves.
This doesn’t really make sense. In order for you to decide that the world sucks, it needs to suck according to some criterion, and such a criterion is not in itself present in the world. You’ve chosen one, more or less arbitrarily—except that you have chosen something that must be doomed to fail—and are running with that. Objectively speaking, the world simply exists, and you are putting a very clear, biased face on it.
Are you sure you’re being rational? Are you in control of the emotional reaction you have when you think about your life?
If I ask a girl out and she tells me I’m a fat asshole, what is the correct emotional response to that event?
I’m a worthless loser and I should kill myself.
Life is pointless and I should go home and order a pizza.
I’m a worthless loser and I should create a thread on the SDMB so that I can get some sympathy and feel better.
That’s just one person’s opinion. It doesn’t hold any merit. Even if I am fat, there are girls who will go out with fat guys. I shouldn’t disrupt my life just because one person who doesn’t really know me has a negative opinion about me.
I think that four is correct because that is the response that won’t prevent you from asking out more girls in the future. And it won’t kill you or make you fatter.
You think that feeling bad because a girl called you an asshole is the correct way to feel. But in reality, you have no control over that feeling. If you did, you wouldn’t choose to feel bad. What would be the point?
Feeling bad isn’t good for you. If you can avoid it, you should. If you think you can’t, you might be wrong, see a therapist to make sure. If you really can’t, then that’s what the drugs are for.
@jsgoddess- It’s my impression that depression tends to arise more from deficiencies of serotonin or whatever, so a depressed person would be less “under the influence” so to speak. But I am not a neurochemist and could be way off here, so what I posted is really just a sketchy hypothesis that makes sense to me right now (hey, it is a MPSIMS thread).
@Lakai- I am not mookieblaylock, it looks like your reply might be directed to him. I don’t really care about personal rejection issues any more, girls should have the freedom to reject guys they aren’t interested in.
But it’s not just because I take Paxil. Any doctor who just tosses a bottle of pills at you and says, “here you go” isn’t really helping you, IMHO.