F
Final Escape
I’ve been here too long
- Jul 8, 2018
- 4,348
This was pretty deep, I like this post.Drug companies are indeed terrible.
https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/biggest-pharmaceutical-lawsuits/
But so are a lot of large companies, as the dominant ethos is one of profit, not people, environment, or even a social conscience for the very communities that are the source of those very profits.
Anyway, they have also spun the chemical imbalance hypothesis to be presented like it is a fact. When it isn't. That more came out of marketing and misrepresenting findings on serotonin and the convenience of downplaying stigma. Also, everyone likes a quick fix to complicated problems.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f670/37b3c2ae7e17f211d399a18349fd6ae70a2b.pdf
If you don't have the energy to read much of that. It comes down this. If you are depressed and I give you chocolate and you report your mood is lifted. That is not proof that your depression is caused by a lack of chocolate or even cured by chocolate. Only that chocolate seemed to lift your mood.
SSRI's work on the same principle. Since depression is not at all understood in an objective manner like a disease may well be. Then the focus is on the reduction of symptomatology. This is not a great deal different to physical illness which is objectively understood but has no current cure. So the focus is on the reduction of symptomology to provide a better quality of life and functionality until a cure is discovered one day...
Sticking with the chocolate example. If you consistently eat chocolate at some point there are going to be ramifications. Maybe significant weight gain, even onset diabetes further down the line.
SSRI's are the same and the ramifications can be far more serious. Does that make them bad though? Well, only you can decide if rolling the dice on if a reduction in symptomology in the now vs potentially lasting consequences is worth it? Since biologically we are all different and comorbid conditions create even more variability. There is no certainty it will work for you, even if it works for someone else. Medicine is reliant on you being a guinea pig and simply seeing what happens. Then dealing with the outcome.
Where I have significant contention. Is to make an informed decision is to be informed of risks. To be provided truthful information even if that information is, "We don't know how or why it works for some but this is its efficacy versus placebo. This is the worst known potential outcome. Are you wanting to take that risk?" if even the physician is being lied to by not having all the data then how can anyone make an informed decision? Professional or otherwise?
What usually happens is you present with depression. They sip from their branded Zoloft mug aware they have a heavy caseload, and write you a prescription for Zoloft and tell you to come back in two weeks. Not even bothering to rule out physical issues. This behaviour increasingly seems to be becoming more common due to time constraints. Which is of major concern if you have a developing thyroid issue, onset diabetes or a tumour in the brain that is growing with every day wasted. Or a myriad of other potential issues that produce depressive symptoms as one of the first warning signs. This may well then get lost amidst the side effects now altering brain chemistry.
My other contention is that applying a purely biological reductionist approach to everyone as a first response. Is pretty dismissive of environmental factors that may be ruining your life. Taking an SSRI is not going to help you if you are still being molested by your uncle, or live in a toxic environment that is constantly tearing down your self-esteem. Or being bullied at school. Or job stress makes you want to stab your own eyes out on a regular basis. Or a host of other things that are logically damaging to well being.
Another contention is that leaving people to languish on things because if you are a zombie, you are not technically in distress or making a nuisance of yourself; even if your life is slipping you by one year at a time. Is both wrong and not a meaningful quality of life outcome at that point.
I think the problem is we are dealing with broken systems content to make us collateral if it serves the bottom line. That bottom line is best served by keeping people uninformed in the first place.