Posted by Racer on July 18, 2005, at 14:05:49
In reply to Re: Dr. Breggin on Tom Cruise, ritalin and psychiatry., posted by laurenjb on July 18, 2005, at 5:01:40
>
> First, I think it is true that anti-depressants and other meds are prescribed far too frequently as a panacea, an easy response to consumers who have seen/heard ads that tout happiness as being a pill away, and an ill-advised movement away from psychotherapy (esp. cognitive-behavioral) and toward 5 minute sessions of med management.
>AHA! You just pointed out part of my own amorphous discomfort with a lot of contemporary psychiatry: that the meds are offered IN PLACE OF psychotherapy, rather than as an ADJUNCT TO psychotherapy. I could start banging my shoe on the table, and clamber aboard my soapbox regarding the culture and the HMOs and so on that brought this whole system about, but I think we can just consider that most of us here agree on that matter and skip the fireworks.
Virtually everything I've read says that the optimal treatment for mood disorders includes psychotherapy, whatever the model used. The only thing I've ever read that didn't say that the optimal treatment for depression was a combination of meds and therapy was a study that found that many people with mild depression did just as well with therapy alone as they did with both therapy and meds. I've yet to find a single study showing that meds alone work as well as a combination of meds and therapy -- and I don't expect I ever will.
That said, it kinda feels to me that the anti-psychiatric meds folks are drawing a line in the sand that specifically EXcludes combinations of meds and therapy; arguing against medications as if medications are ALWAYS offered INSTEAD OF therapy, rather than in combination with therapy. Makes a more sensational argument, but not, I think, more believable.
poster:Racer
thread:529095
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050718/msgs/529595.html