A doctor should do whatever is humanly possible. If treating the symptoms is all they are able to do, why shouldn’t they do that?
There was a time not so long ago, that treating the symptoms was all they could do for someone with cancer. Does that mean they should not have treated a cancer patient?
Sure, jab1, I don’t think anyone would disagree with that. But the problem is, what if the “treatment of symptoms” is worse than the disease? In point of fact, what if the disease isn’t a disease at all – just a misdiagnosis? And the treatment does more to help the doctor than help the patient?
First off, a lot of people in this field would argue that you’re using the wrong metaphor. By comparing “mental illness” to cancer, you’re assuming that the former is a disease. A big chunk of this thread has been devoted to deconstructing that myth. Some emotional problems may be biogenetic, but many are probably psychogenetic, and a few are both – or maybe all of them are both to varying degrees, or maybe all of them are biogenetic, or all of them are psychogenetic…fact is, ain’t nobody knows for sure.
One of the wonders of Hibernal (the first anti-psychotic medication, developed in the 50s) was that it could be used to transform a ward full of screaming maniacs into a ward full of glassy-eyed bean sprouts. It, and most of the medications that have followed in its footsteps, have been dispensed quite unjudiciously – which takes us unfortunately into the side issue of diagnosis. Put it this way: if a psychiatrist diagnoses you as “schizophrenic”, he can then justifiably pump you full of Hibernal (or Zuprexa, if you will, its modern equivalent). However, despite the appearence in the DSM manuals of a distinct syndrome one can call “schizophrenia”, in practice the diagnosis is pretty much used as a kind of grab bag. In other words, the shrink looks at you and says, “Whoa dude, you’re pretty fucked up. I don’t know what’s wrong with you, but lets call it schizophrenia. Here, take these.” (Then you say, “No, thanks, I don’t want to take those.” Then he says, “Take them or my tream of lovely assisstants will strap you down and give it to you in a syringe up the backside.” And so on. I’m assuming this is the basis of AHunter3’s contention that there is no such thing as schizophrenia. I’m inclined to agree).
The end result of this procedure is a ward full of wandering bean sprouts. Very easy to deal with for the warders, but what do the sprouts think about this themselves? It’s not without reason that anti-psychotic medications have been called “a chemical lobotomy.” And so we come full circle to the accusation that in forcefully proscribing anti-psychotic medications, psychiatrists are more interested in keeping the ward quiet (i.e., helping themselves) than actually treating their patients. That’s stating the case a bit harshly, but my in experience there is a certain merit to that point of view.
Sometimes what you and I (or a doctor) might identify as symptom is actually a communication. By using medications to eliminate the “symptom,” the underlying message is lost.
Finally – do not misconstrue this post as a recommendation that people on medication should just up and quit.
DocCathode:
Thanks for the translation services! 
Svinlesha:
Your services as interpreter are also richly appreciated! Right again.
a) There was a time–just a bit longer ago than current living people can recall, perhaps–when treating the symptoms was all they could do for someone with cancer and what they did to treat the symptoms was “bleed” you. We’ve gotten better with cancer, but you could make the case that a time existed–not even archeologically ancient time, just a bit “back when”–when you might have been well advised to avoid the doctors if you had the misfortune of falling sick, because the doctors tended to be worse than the disease.
b) There was a much earlier time–archeologically ancient for this one–when treating the symptoms was all they could do when you were possessed with evil spirits or the Gods had put curses upon you (or however they conceptualized the problem) was to drill holes in your skull in hopes that airing out its contents would improve your outlook. This process was called “trephination”, and some folks apparently even survived it, based on the regrowth of bone tissue at the trephination sites.
With cancer, we’ve made significant progress and have a much better understanding of what the disease itself is all about. With “mental illness”, we haven’t made appreciable progress since the days of trephination when it comes to understanding what’s really going on with those so diagnosed, and statistically speaking our skills at treating symptoms is only marginally better.
Side Note A: In the late 1800s, when the mental health field was new and young, its founding fathers were NOT Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung and their little couches and penis envy theories. Not that I have much appreciation for psychotherapy either but that’s not where the field has its roots. The founding fathers were Emil Kraepelin and Eugen Bleuer.
Side Note B: When the mental health field was new and young, it had some successes with the medical model of mental illness. One mental illness was proven to have its origins in a bacterium passed via sexual intercourse, and we know it today as “syphilis”. Another was described with increasing accuracy and eventually understood with great precision and given the name “epilepsy” long before we had EEG machines that could show rhythmical firing patterns in misbehaving brains in the course of what had long since been identified and called a grand mal seizure. So OF COURSE there was a lot of optimism and enthusiasm about the likelihood of eventually figuring out the physical causes of EVERY disorder of mood and thought! But you may notice that neither of these ailments is now classified as “mental illness”. What happened is that EVERY TIME WE CAME TO UNDERSTAND ITS PHYSICAL CAUSE, a pattern of symptoms or behaviors previously called “mental illness” was reclassified in terms of that physical cause. One hundred and some-odd years later, WHAT’S LEFT IN THE ‘MENTAL HEALTH’ BARREL ARE THE ONES THAT NEVER YIELDED SUCH AN UNDERSTANDING.
No offense to anyone, but I find this entire discussion very irksome. I am aware of the fact that there are serious flaws in the ways psychiatry is practiced today, and I am truly sorry that people have had bad experiences. But it’s not all bad.
The main problems with mental health care, I think, stem largely from the psychologist/psychiatrist distinction. The MD’s prescribe meds but usually refer patients to a Ph.D. (clinical psychologist) for “therapy.” The MD doesn’t talk to the patient about anything–simply diagnoses a disorder based on a short evaluation or, possibly, the referral from a clinical psychologist. If psychologists were able to prescribe meds, or if the MD’s had more training in psychotherapy, the whole situation would be better. Time and time again, studies have shown that a combination of drugs and therapy is the best way to combat disorders like major depression.
Other disorders, like bipolar disorder (manic depression) and schizophrenia, are less well understood. This is because THE BRAIN IS A COMPLICATED THING. Anyone who has studied neuroscience knows this. We are just now understanding the mechanisms of certain very basic processes–high-level ones like memory or language are still pretty much mysteries.
BTW, I highly recommend the book The Eden Express by Mark Vonnegut (Kurt’s son) for anyone interested in schizophrenia. Mark Vonnegut was schizophrenic for a time in his 20s, recovered from the disorder and became a doctor. This book is fascinating.