Posted by gwen on February 1, 2001, at 19:16:26
OK, I'm confused.
Today my pdoc and I were talking about another AD he'd added to my cocktail two weeks ago to see whether I felt anything and to see if the side effects I'd been having were dissipating or were tolerable enough to give the drug awhile longer before giving up on it.
Meanwhile, I've been having problems with my boss at work for some time. But some big things got resolved between us in the last week, so a chunk of anger and resentment and stress has kinda gone away -- just like that.
So within his quizzing me about the drug, this other thing about my boss came up, and he commented that maybe I wouldn't need this third drug after all.
Now I have a friend who was on Prozac for a little while because her marriage was breaking up, but now she's off it and fine. I always thought that my depression (which my pdoc has termed chronic and treatment-resistant) was mostly a chemical imbalance, not so much event-related. I think it was triggered by events, but things have settled down in the last 3 years. Since then, my pdoc has quizzed me regularly to see whether the depression was lifting, but it never has, which is what makes me think it's more chemical. So why would he suggest that it might not be? At another point in the conversation on side effects, he said I've always been sensitive to drugs that help serotonin levels (such as this new one), to which I quipped that maybe I didn't need any serotonin. But he chuckled and said that I did because I've been irritable. In the end, we decided that I'd stay with it a little longer, so now I'm thinking in the chemical imbalance direction again.
I've read Listening to Prozac, and know a little about this debate. I also think this kindling theory is pretty relevant to my situation. But if depression is chronic, can a little less stress make that much difference?
Am I asking the impossible, unanswerable question?
Thanks for any input.