I agree with the principal sentiment. Except for schizophrenia and other illnesses involving acute psychosis, drugs shouldnt be the permanent solution.
But this requires access to proper psychotherapy, which needs to be part of a consistent concept of slowly reducing the drugs as the condition gets better.
Also this requires a society, where people have enough agency to remove the causes of psychological distress from their life. People getting anxieties is perfectly normal, if they are in constant fear to not be able to pay their bills. People getting depressed is perfectly normal, if they are expected to work a dead end job for the rest of their lifes, etc.
I see none of that coming from the direction of any politician.
EDIT: Wow. People get offended by the idea not to pump people full of drugs for the rest of their lifes, when therapy is a viable alternative. Seriously why do you want people to suffer instead of providing proper healthcare including proper access to therapy and creating life conditions that aren’t designed to make people sick? I never thought this to be controversial.
No, not just for “schizophrenia and other illnesses involving acute psychosis”.
My brain literally does not properly process dopamine. Adderall, Ritalin, Strattera, etc help this. No matter how much my stress in life is reduced, I still need meds like these to function properly.
Yeah, without psychiatric grade stimulants I simply cannot function properly. Not just in a “industrialized society” way, but also in a “cooking, cleaning, regulating my emotions, regulating my behavior…” way. Without these meds I would need disability support, with them I’m able to support my household
Ah, but you make an exception for one of the most harmful kinds of perscription drugs that comes with severe side effects often far worse than the symptoms they’re meant to treat. It’s different because psychotic people scaaaaryyy I suppose?
There’s no alternative to reliably treat many other psychiatric issues. And antipsychotics are often not worth the extremely debilitating side effects.
Again nowhere did i say that. The precondition is always that therapy is available and working. But therapy is expensive and requires individual therapists. Making and selling psychiatric drugs can be done as an efficient business. And the companies doing so are such great benevolent entities that they have paid record sums in compensations for victims of them pushing the drugs. This includes often families where the drugs lead to psychosis, suicide, homicide, adverse health problems…
The very fact that psychiatric drugs can be advertised on TV in the US is complete madness. But i guess if you are a dealer or addict, nuance is easy to ignore.
Therapy is great. For some of us it’s necessary but not sufficient. If a medication can help me, it should be my right to decide if I want it as a permanent part of my treatment plan for as long as it helps.
I really wonder why you get offended by “We should try to minimize the use of psychatric drugs, where therapy is a viable alternative”?
Do you prefer taking drugs with potentially severe side effects for the rest of your life? Do you want people to die, because some life event outside their control prevents them from accessing drugs like SSRIs or Benzodiazepines that can be deadly if quit cold turkey?
Nothing of that has to do with maga nutjobs. On the contrary it should be basic human decency to find and provide the least harmful treatment.
I really wonder why you get offended by “We should try to minimize the use of psychatric drugs, where therapy is a viable alternative”?
What you said here wouldn’t ruffle nearly as many feathers, because IMHO in your other post you buried the lede.
It’s definitely good to say that we need better access to therapy, and to improve societal conditions, since many people would be healthier with those instead of drugs. We’d all benefit!
Then there’s proposals by hardcore wingnuts like RFK that…are unreasonable to the point of doing outright harm. You just got confused for the latter, I guess. I wasn’t sure about your first comment, either.
I agree with the principal sentiment. Except for schizophrenia and other illnesses involving acute psychosis, drugs shouldnt be the permanent solution.
But this requires access to proper psychotherapy, which needs to be part of a consistent concept of slowly reducing the drugs as the condition gets better.
Also this requires a society, where people have enough agency to remove the causes of psychological distress from their life. People getting anxieties is perfectly normal, if they are in constant fear to not be able to pay their bills. People getting depressed is perfectly normal, if they are expected to work a dead end job for the rest of their lifes, etc.
I see none of that coming from the direction of any politician.
EDIT: Wow. People get offended by the idea not to pump people full of drugs for the rest of their lifes, when therapy is a viable alternative. Seriously why do you want people to suffer instead of providing proper healthcare including proper access to therapy and creating life conditions that aren’t designed to make people sick? I never thought this to be controversial.
No, not just for “schizophrenia and other illnesses involving acute psychosis”.
My brain literally does not properly process dopamine. Adderall, Ritalin, Strattera, etc help this. No matter how much my stress in life is reduced, I still need meds like these to function properly.
Yeah, without psychiatric grade stimulants I simply cannot function properly. Not just in a “industrialized society” way, but also in a “cooking, cleaning, regulating my emotions, regulating my behavior…” way. Without these meds I would need disability support, with them I’m able to support my household
Ah, but you make an exception for one of the most harmful kinds of perscription drugs that comes with severe side effects often far worse than the symptoms they’re meant to treat. It’s different because psychotic people scaaaaryyy I suppose?
It is different because there is no alternative to reliably prevent psychosis afaik.
Why the hell do you get offended by the idea to minimize use of psychatric drugs where possible and to continue use where necessary?
There’s no alternative to reliably treat many other psychiatric issues. And antipsychotics are often not worth the extremely debilitating side effects.
If someone has a liver, heart, or kidney problem, and need drugs to fix a deficiency - no problem.
But if it’s the brain you suggest not using drugs?
“Hey, person with a heart arrhythmia. Just get over it!”
Again nowhere did i say that. The precondition is always that therapy is available and working. But therapy is expensive and requires individual therapists. Making and selling psychiatric drugs can be done as an efficient business. And the companies doing so are such great benevolent entities that they have paid record sums in compensations for victims of them pushing the drugs. This includes often families where the drugs lead to psychosis, suicide, homicide, adverse health problems…
The very fact that psychiatric drugs can be advertised on TV in the US is complete madness. But i guess if you are a dealer or addict, nuance is easy to ignore.
Therapy is great. For some of us it’s necessary but not sufficient. If a medication can help me, it should be my right to decide if I want it as a permanent part of my treatment plan for as long as it helps.
You just agree because it comes from a maga nutjobs mouth.
“You’re just depressed because life sucks, get over it”
I really wonder why you get offended by “We should try to minimize the use of psychatric drugs, where therapy is a viable alternative”?
Do you prefer taking drugs with potentially severe side effects for the rest of your life? Do you want people to die, because some life event outside their control prevents them from accessing drugs like SSRIs or Benzodiazepines that can be deadly if quit cold turkey?
Nothing of that has to do with maga nutjobs. On the contrary it should be basic human decency to find and provide the least harmful treatment.
What you said here wouldn’t ruffle nearly as many feathers, because IMHO in your other post you buried the lede.
It’s definitely good to say that we need better access to therapy, and to improve societal conditions, since many people would be healthier with those instead of drugs. We’d all benefit!
Then there’s proposals by hardcore wingnuts like RFK that…are unreasonable to the point of doing outright harm. You just got confused for the latter, I guess. I wasn’t sure about your first comment, either.