Psycho-Babble Medication Thread 63214

Shown: posts 49 to 73 of 73. Go back in thread:

 

Re: $20 a month ???? Any amount is worth it ???? stjames

Posted by dougb on May 24, 2001, at 15:29:03

In reply to Re: It doesn't get any better than this?, posted by stjames on May 23, 2001, at 12:42:49

>
> Any amount is worth it
--- That sounds like and advertisment for the drug companies

>, but $20 X 12 months X 18 yrs = $4320. There are free programs for those who cannot afford meds.
$20 a month? $20 a month? What are you taking? At one time my meds were running $12 a DAY - and crap that it was, was still not working


db

 

Re: Naltrexone and cutting Elizabeth

Posted by Fred Potter on May 24, 2001, at 16:33:51

In reply to Naltrexone and cutting shelliR, posted by Elizabeth on May 24, 2001, at 12:34:26

I have anxiety, depression and fatigue but no cutting. Naltrexone 25mg daily + 20mg Prozac works for me, although I strongly suspect Alpha Lipoic Acid supplementation may be helping
Fred

 

Re: Naltrexone and cutting

Posted by SLS on May 24, 2001, at 17:31:50

In reply to Naltrexone and cutting shelliR, posted by Elizabeth on May 24, 2001, at 12:34:26

> > > It could be that when they take naltrexone, these people no longer experience relief when they cut, so they stop doing it. Another possibility is that naltrexone prevents dissociation, which may be associated with or lead to cutting. ...
> >
> > Elizabeth, I think your first thought was the correct one, based on the view of my friend's therapist who is an expert on dissociation and drug abuse. He gave her naltrexone because cutting actually can create a high.
>
> Yes. Cutting often seems to have the quality of an addiction -- people have almost irresistable urges to do it.
>
> Your experience with naltrexone does not surprise me. Naltrexone is a full opioid antagonist, and from what I've heard, people with straight depression usually feel worse on it, not better (although there are stories of augmentation here and there).
>
> -elizabeth


Do you think there is some sort of adrenaline rush going on in addition to the endorphin/enkephalin stuff?


- Scott

 

Re: Naltrexone and cutting

Posted by Elizabeth on May 24, 2001, at 21:45:49

In reply to Re: Naltrexone and cutting, posted by SLS on May 24, 2001, at 17:31:50

My question about naltrexone is whether it works immediately or takes a few weeks (like regular ADs). Long-term use might lead to increased opioid receptor sensitivity.

 

Re: Cam: Bandage Theory Peter S

Posted by JahL on May 25, 2001, at 11:30:50

In reply to Cam: Bandage Theory, posted by Peter S on May 23, 2001, at 13:36:51

Peter. Thank you for expressing so well what I am too angry to put into words right now. I don't take Cam's words personally; he knows nothing about me or my struggles (this much is obvious). To be quite frank tho' it's an insult to all the hard work I've put in over the years. Like coming top of the year @ a school already biased towards intelligent pupils. Like being only the 3rd pupil *ever* to score perfect grades @ my college. Like earning a place @ a top 5 uni. All this required hard work & amounts to some achievement bearing in mind I was seriously ill (ADD a component) thru' all of it.

[ "What's that? Right. Burying my head in books to avoid confronting my emotional demons. OKaaaay. Actually, tried working, heavy socialising, girlfriends.You name it. Still v. depressed. So what gives???" ]

Therapy wasted over 2 years of my life & $10,000 I didn't have. I was more depressed at the end of it. Not for lack of effort. Tried group, interpersonal, cognitive, behavioural etc. And you know what? The only people I saw get 'better' were those who had a clear case of 'enviromental' depression (ie recent loss of a loved one), and a girl whose speed-induced psychoses gradually faded with time (she no longer used). Of course the therapists were only too happy to claim the credit for that one. She wasn't cured; she just gained acces to a caring, supportive group who encouraged her to stay away from the drugs, allowing the psychosis to resolve (no bad thing of course). At best the majority of patients were cajoled into a grudging acceptance of their condition, & perhaps gained a little self-knowledge.

The fact is psychoanalytic theory looks great on paper but has little real-world application. The main problem? Mixed up causality. I have **nothing** to be depressed about so why do these individuals continue to invent obscure & frankly bizarre explanations as to why I am? Also it's seen as politically correct (ie virtuous, 'natural', involves taking 'responsibility'; or more accurately, *the blame*) & so is protected from criticism.

Many years ago it made sense to believe the earth was flat. We'd all fall off the edge of the world if it wasn't. "Surely". Then some brave individuals posited that actually the world is round. Of course they were condemned & ridiculed for their views but gradually science caught up with theory & Einstein 'discovered' gravity. Case closed. I believe there are still many 'flat-earth' believers in relation to psychiatry.

I reckon I could quite easily discredit psychotherapy (or more accurately, its bold claims) in its entirety, but the severe mental retardation & agitation I suffer from (due to my *biological* illness, & I think I wld know) would prevent me doing so in either a lucid or civil manner. And perhaps this isn't the board for it anyway.

Anyway, (more than) enough said.
Thanks also to those who posted along similar lines. We must continue to educate those who'd have it that we are in some way responsible for our mental illness. Yes, hard work & endeavour are rec'd but this is so for all people, whether mentally ill or not. It's certainly no answer for serious mental illness.

"Walk away Jah."
"Okay I will. This is doing my stress levels no good. Thanks & Goodbye. J."

========================================================================
> I would be very careful about your use of metaphors and of judging others for not trying to change.

> Back in the 50s some bright psychoanalyst thought up the notion of a "schizophrenogenic mother": the idea that mothers cause schizophrenia by sending their children mixed messages. This notion has since been discredited, but it has caused a great deal of damage to many well meaning and loving parents. You seem to be implying that those who continue to be depressed are too lazy to put in the work to rid themselves of their "aberrant thinking and dysfunctional coping mechanisms". I don't think this kind of thinking is constructive to finding real solutions to what is a very complicated phenomenon.

> My point is that it is extremely easy for psychologists and wannabe psychologists to sit in their arm chairs and think of explanations for mental illness. Some of these ideas may have a degree of validity in certain cases and some may be pure hogwash. Many times the ideas that tend to be accepted depend on the promotional abilities of the theorist, or what is trendy at that moment in history.

> The psychodynamic idea that depression is caused by intrapsychic conflict and the cognitive idea it is based on cognitive distortions both may be true to a lesser or greater extent in certain cases. However depression and mental illness are too complicated to be reduced to simplistic theories. The idea that anti-depressants are only bandages that cover over "real" issues sounds nice- but do you have any actual evidence to support your "bandage" theory?

> I personally have spend thousands of dollars on therapy and huge quantities of time and effort working with my thoughts and feelings and have seen very little actual results from my work. The only thing that worked were anti-depressants- unfortunately they pooped-out.

 

Re: It doesn't get any better than this? CAM

Posted by SLS on May 25, 2001, at 12:43:20

In reply to Re: It doesn't get any better than this? CAM, posted by Lorraine on May 24, 2001, at 9:35:38

> Well, thinking it over, I think that even if you have worked like a dog to overcome this disease, meds are a bandaid. And, the reason is just as CAM said, they aren't intended to cure just ameliorate the symptoms. They are an anuity check for the drug companies. I'm not going to go into conspiracy theories on drug companies, but I am wonder what incentives there are for drug companies to work on cures as opposed to annuity checks? I don't think we put the carrots in the right place.


Much of what I wrote below is nothing more than conjecture.

I don't have very much say, but I do have a set of beliefs regarding biological versus psychological variables in the evolution of some mental illnesses (please note the word "some"). It can be one or the other or both. I believe that for each individual, there is a unique psychobiological terrain. Like so many other facets of life, there exists a phenomenological spectrum within which lies a great variation in the genesis of mental illness.

It is difficult for me to affirm that there are unresolved psychological issues responsible for the perpetuation of an individual's presentation of schizophrenia. I suspect that there are many cases of bipolar disorder and schizoid disorders that emerge in the absence of psychosocial pathology. Although it can be argued that the striking morphological changes seen in the brains of great percentage of cases of schizophrenia are the indirect result of an illness for which is necessary a psychosocial inducer, I have not encountered any evidence that these changes can be reversed, regardless of the treatment approach. In other words, psychotherapy cannot spawn the regrowth of brain tissue formally occupying the enlarged ventricles within the brain. Clearly, there are biological differences here between the healthy versus the pathological brain. These changes cannot be not reversed, despite a successful resolution of psychological issues, had there been any before the onset of illness. Nor do these changes seem to be reversed upon treatment with antipsychotics or other somatic treatments. If, during an extended period of remission produced by pharmacotherapy, the application of psychotherapy yields a mind without pathology (I don't see why this would be any less possible than can be produced in an individual without schizophrenia), I doubt the rate of occurrence of schizophrenic symptoms for these individuals is no higher than that seen in the general population. Once induced, schizophrenia often remains recurrent or chronic, despite psychosocial influences. Schizophrenia is thus biological de facto. Hard work does not make it less so.

I chose schizophrenia as an example because the biological pathology is so easily recognized. Another striking example of a mental illness that's biological phenomenology is easily recognizable is bipolar disorder. The most stark observation is that of ultra rapid-cyclicity or ultra dian (ultra-ultra) rapid-cyclicity. The cycle evidenced by the dramatic switches between severe depression and mania can be so regular as to allow for the prediction of mood states hours, days, weeks, or months in advance. There are people who follow a 48 hour cycle regularly for extended periods of time. It seems unlikely that some psychological dynamic produces such a precise oscillation, especially when, as research patients, they are evaluated several times a day. Hard work performed during one state does not prevent the switch into the other.

I don't think all cases of major (unipolar) depression need have a psychosocial etiology. I wouldn't want to guess at percentages, though. Although not as obvious, some people seem to experience an onset and remission of depression in the absence of psychological pathology or environmental changes. Some very mentally healthy and happy people suffer an abrupt shift into or frequent recurrences of a clinically depressed state. A striking example of this is seasonal affective disorder (SAD). Consider that a half-hour of light a day can be much more effective than one or more hours a week of psychotherapy.

I'm starting to babble now. Obviously, I didn't anticipating writing so much.

I am not terribly attracted to the term "bandage" such that it be applied globally to all cases of depression, although it can apply well to some. I think it depends where along the continuum - the spectrum - the gestalt of contributors lie. I think medication can act to push the physiology of the brain in a direction so as to correct or compensate for some pathology. In so doing, the system is influenced to function in a way reflective of the way it was designed to. For some people, this nominal function is retained once the medication is discontinued. For others, it is not. Sometimes, the abberant biology is such that it becomes the functional ground state, and the only way to maintain remission is to continue to apply compensatory "pressure". However, sometimes the reverse is true. It is the "depressive pressure" produced by a psychosocial pathology that, when applied to a healthy system, produces a dysregulation of brain function. Here, psychotherapies are crucial to bring about remission either with or without medication. It is through the reduction of this depressive pressure through continued psychotherapy that helps maintain nominal function and prevent relapse. The tough part is acknowledging the myriad interactions between the psychological and the biological as they contribute to a single depressive episode.

I definitely have too much free time. :-)

By the way, I may disappear for a little while during my move into a new apartment within the next few weeks. I should reappear shortly thereafter.


- Scott

 

Re: Bandage Theory

Posted by Cam W. on May 25, 2001, at 13:24:56

In reply to Re: Bandage Theory (Peter and Gil) Peter S, posted by Cam W. on May 23, 2001, at 17:26:38

I guess that I wasn't really clear. I did not mean that hard work and insight to change aberrant thinking would "cure" any disease (especially biologically based one's like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and chronic depression), but that the hard work would give one a better quality of life than if one didn't work at understanding their disease. I still think a vast majority of people think that a pill will cure their disorder or that they could just "snap out of it". Obviously these two beliefs are false. If everyone tried to live a better quality of life, despite their illness, there would be a lot more productive people in the world. Again, I do not think that not working is indicative of most who frequent this board. Coming to this board actually shows that one is working to overcome their illness and not try and let it run their life. - Cam

 

Re: spot on SLS

Posted by JahL on May 25, 2001, at 13:28:17

In reply to Re: It doesn't get any better than this? CAM, posted by SLS on May 25, 2001, at 12:43:20

Kind of what I was trying to say, only more considered, more grounded in fact & certainly less 'ranty'. I omitted to say that I do accept the concept of heterogeneity. However, & I'm guessing here, most of the babble participants fall more on the 'biological' side of the spectrum & so I can't see the purpose of Cam's remarks other than to provoke.

Reading Cam's remarks was kinda like finding out yr wife of 10 yrs has been cheating on you all this time. Altruistic chap, good psychopharmacologist, & his presence used to define this board, but his take on the origins & cure for depression....well, sad to say, the guy loses pretty much all credibility in my eyes. I realise that Cam's something of a sacred cow rnd here so I'll butt out. J.

> > Clearly, there are biological differences here between the healthy versus the pathological brain. These changes cannot be not reversed, despite a successful resolution of psychological issues, had there been any before the onset of illness.

Preee-cisely.

 

The Cow Speaks JahL

Posted by Cam W. on May 25, 2001, at 13:54:47

In reply to Re: spot on SLS, posted by JahL on May 25, 2001, at 13:28:17

Jah - I do not see anywhere in this thread where I said anything about a "cure". I do not believe that depression (or other chronic illness) can be cured, but that doesn't mean one can sit idly by and let a drug, which alleviates some of the symptoms, but the cognitive therapy, social skills training, etc., improves the quality of life by teaching one to "live", rather than "exist". I don't believe that one with a chronic illness cannot improve themselves; having a chronic illness is not an excuse for not working hard to improve oneself.

As for my opinions on the origins of depression, check the archives for "HPA axis" and nature v. nurture issues (pretty much any long debate with Scott).

Please, what don't you understand in what I have written in this thread. Perhaps you should read my posts a little closer to see what they say, not what you think they mean. - Cam

 

Re: Moo. Cam W.

Posted by JahL on May 25, 2001, at 14:30:58

In reply to The Cow Speaks JahL, posted by Cam W. on May 25, 2001, at 13:54:47

> Jah - I do not see anywhere in this thread where I said anything about a "cure".

Of course no cure exists. By 'cure' I mean 100% remission. I have achieved this by pills alone in the past.

> Please, what don't you understand in what I have written in this thread.

I understand what you are saying perfectly. Please don't imply I don't understand plain English (tired ploy). I don't like yr judgemental tone, that's all (& others have accused you of this above).

> Perhaps you should read my posts a little closer to see what they say, not what you think they mean.

In yr above post you admit you didn't express y'self clearly. Is it my fault I read yr post straight? You posted something similar a while back & I pulled you up on it. You backtracked somewhat & apologised for being unclear. History repeating itself? Perhaps you shld express y'self more clearly.

It's never been in dispute that you gotta work at life. So why point out the obvious to a sensitive (as you can see) bunch?

> I find it funny (and ironic) that people expect a pill to make them "normal"

I felt 100% 'normal', well-adjusted, functional on a pill alone. Why do you find this to be funny (& ironic)? In fact 'why' is this ironic? Isn't yr sense of comedy misplaced here?

These are rhetorical questions of course; as I said previously, I'm walking away. Don't take it personally (as yr seething tone implies you do); the sacred cow comparison is actually a favourable one.

Sincerely & finally,
J.

 

ps Cam W.

Posted by JahL on May 25, 2001, at 14:40:08

In reply to The Cow Speaks JahL, posted by Cam W. on May 25, 2001, at 13:54:47

> Jah - I do not see anywhere in this thread where I said anything about a "cure".

Yr 1st post:

> >Antidepressants (and all medications) are only bandages. They do not "cure" anything.

Will that do ya? ;-)

J.

 

give Cam a break

Posted by gilbert on May 25, 2001, at 15:01:55

In reply to ps Cam W., posted by JahL on May 25, 2001, at 14:40:08

I beleive I started this whole mess on this thread and would hope it is taken in the spirit of good willed debate. I have read this board for 2 years without participating and respect Cam's posts and his knowledge is better than most pdocs. I would hope that people should realize this guy is entitled to an opinion that is different from ours and he should be respected for having the strength and fortitude for stating things that might not win a popularity contest. He seems to be willing to answer so many questions on so many days I just hope before the posse rounds up to run him off into a corner we realize what an asset he is to these discusssions.

Gil

 

Re: give Cam a break gilbert

Posted by JahL on May 25, 2001, at 15:09:24

In reply to give Cam a break, posted by gilbert on May 25, 2001, at 15:01:55

No mess, Gil. Finished.

I regret my 2nd post. Written in a fit of pique.

However I've just reread Cam's first post & it definitely suggests that the majority of depressives are lazy.

I believe I've stated what an asset Cam is on more than 1 occasion (Admin brd).

========================================================================
> I beleive I started this whole mess on this thread and would hope it is taken in the spirit of good willed debate. I have read this board for 2 years without participating and respect Cam's posts and his knowledge is better than most pdocs. I would hope that people should realize this guy is entitled to an opinion that is different from ours and he should be respected for having the strength and fortitude for stating things that might not win a popularity contest. He seems to be willing to answer so many questions on so many days I just hope before the posse rounds up to run him off into a corner we realize what an asset he is to these discusssions.
>
> Gil

 

Mad Cow Disease

Posted by Peter S on May 25, 2001, at 15:24:10

In reply to give Cam a break, posted by gilbert on May 25, 2001, at 15:01:55

I respect Cam's opinion and I think he raises some issues that are controversial but are well worth discussing. I disagree with the blanket or black and white view of depression as either a organic brain disorder, or the idea that it is just a matter of going to therapy and "pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps". As I said in my post- depression is complex. Theories that borrow metaphors such as bandages to explain the action of anti-depressants are extremely over-simplified.

That being said it is good to dialog about these issues- let's not get our udders in a bunch! (Poor humor I know)

 

Re: spot on

Posted by SLS on May 25, 2001, at 16:39:40

In reply to Re: spot on SLS, posted by JahL on May 25, 2001, at 13:28:17

> Kind of what I was trying to say, only more considered, more grounded in fact & certainly less 'ranty'. I omitted to say that I do accept the concept of heterogeneity. However, & I'm guessing here, most of the babble participants fall more on the 'biological' side of the spectrum & so I can't see the purpose of Cam's remarks other than to provoke.
>
> Reading Cam's remarks was kinda like finding out yr wife of 10 yrs has been cheating on you all this time. Altruistic chap, good psychopharmacologist, & his presence used to define this board, but his take on the origins & cure for depression....well, sad to say, the guy loses pretty much all credibility in my eyes. I realise that Cam's something of a sacred cow rnd here so I'll butt out. J.
>
> > > Clearly, there are biological differences here between the healthy versus the pathological brain. These changes cannot be not reversed, despite a successful resolution of psychological issues, had there been any before the onset of illness.
>
> Preee-cisely.


Just to be even more preee-cise :-), I was speaking specifically about certain changes in brain morphology seen in schizophrenia. Although enlarged ventricles may not be contributory to the expression of the illness, I use it as an example of a physiological difference that exists and is associated with it. There are other differences that are almost certainly contributory. This would include the architecture of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and the increases in neural density seen in certain regions. I think Cam has a better handle on the latter as it is my guess that it involves neuronal pruning.

Perhaps one day, with the help of things like the human genome project, gene therapy, the use of stem-cells, and the strategic application of neurotrophins (nerve growth factors), we will be able to restructure those regions of the brain necessary to produce healthy mental function. I don't see why not.

Schizophrenia is not unique among the mental illnesses with respect to changes in the morphology of certain brain structures. They can be observed and measured in both major depression and bipolar disorder. The one that is most publicized is the atrophy (shrinkage) of the hippocampus, a structure involved in memory and mood, seen in major depression. This seems to be reversible. The longer an individual is stabilized in a state of remission, the greater the return to its original volume grows the hippocampus. I recall coming across other examples of the restoration of neural structures and function, but they escape me.

We were born too early to be insured mental health and too late not to have hope to. I don't know how to feel about that.


- Scott

 

Re: Moo.

Posted by SLS on May 25, 2001, at 17:10:43

In reply to Re: Moo. Cam W., posted by JahL on May 25, 2001, at 14:30:58

> Of course no cure exists.

None that I know of. YET.

> By 'cure' I mean 100% remission. I have achieved this by pills alone in the past.

I know the feeling. Shit.

I doubt I'll get too involved here, and I do not favor one debater over another, but I must strenuously disagree with the notion that drugs work only on the symptoms (expression) of depression rather than on the underlying illness itself. I believe that it does work on the underlying pathophysiology of the illness, either directly or indirectly. I have found that one pill can make all of the many symptoms of depression (bipolar in my case), both psychological and physical, disappear all at once.

There may be a misunderstanding of semantics going on here. I consider a runny-nose as a "symptom" of a bacterial infection. I consider the infection as the illness itself. Decongestants treat the symptom. Antibiotics treat the illness.

2 cents? A nickel ain't worth a dime anymore.

:-)


- Scott

 

Re: sides SLS

Posted by JahL on May 25, 2001, at 17:55:49

In reply to Re: spot on, posted by SLS on May 25, 2001, at 16:39:40


> Just to be even more preee-cise :-), I was speaking specifically about certain changes in brain morphology seen in schizophrenia.

Hi Scott.

I purposely misquoted you b/c yr well-written words suited my point! :-) Thanks!

I guess I over-reacted @ Cam because his "pills=normal=laughable' opening gambit directly (barring Gil's) followed my post describing my desire to feel 'normal'. All the self-understanding in the world can't change a subjective feeling of 'not feeling right', the consistency of which (in my case @ least) is suggestive of biological disturbance.

No sides to take: *my* side (England) have just gone 3-0 up! :-)

Thanks,
J.

 

Re: sides JahL

Posted by SLS on May 25, 2001, at 19:33:55

In reply to Re: sides SLS, posted by JahL on May 25, 2001, at 17:55:49

> All the self-understanding in the world can't change a subjective feeling of 'not feeling right', the consistency of which (in my case @ least) is suggestive of biological disturbance.


I guess we are both disturbed in the same way.

:-(


- Scott

 

Relying on meds

Posted by Jane D on May 25, 2001, at 19:57:57

In reply to The Cow Speaks JahL, posted by Cam W. on May 25, 2001, at 13:54:47

>but the cognitive therapy, social skills training, etc., improves the quality of life by teaching one to "live", rather than "exist". I don't believe that one with a chronic illness cannot improve themselves; having a chronic illness is not an excuse for not working hard to improve oneself.
>
>
I'm another long time lurker - over a year - who recently decided to crawl out into the light. (I guess I can say no to that diagnostic question about impulsiveness :-) I've been reading and enjoying (and mentally arguing with) postings by many of the people on this thread for a long time.

I think I'd better say now that I'm pretty firmly on the med side of the divide. For me, meds were a miracle and I doubt I will ever do without them. Like Marie I suddenly did feel "normal" (at least for a while). Suddenly after medication I found that not only did my efforts to change my life no longer always fail but they weren't even that much of an effort.

That experience has changed how I react to the world and I'm not sure those changes are all good. I worry that I don't try as hard anymore because I've learned that it's a waste of effort. And, of course, for years it really was.

I know that everybody has bad days that they just need to wait out and bad relationships that they need to end. Unhappiness is one of the clues to use in realizing this. I worry that when these things happen to me my first thought will be that I need to adjust the meds. It's tricky because, for me, much of the time that is probably exactly what needs to be done - but not always -and I don't think I'll know which is which. And of course if I get it wrong I risk the abyss again.

Or, as another example, I'm supposed to meet a friend who needs support. I'm in the middle of a med change and afraid to leave the house. I can do it but it will cost me. Thanks to the medication, I now know that it just doesn't cost other people this much. I also know it will be easier for me next month when the meds start to work again. If I don't go am I being realistic about being sick or just a selfish jerk.

Or, I used to struggle through every social encounter thinking it would someday get easier. Never did until the meds. When the meds work it is easy and enjoyable. When they aren't working I no longer force myself to go out. Is this a loss or just sensible?

I'm curious about whether any of the other people who've had success with meds have felt like this. I also hope I haven't alienated those people who haven't been so lucky yet. These complaints must seem very trivial. I do know that I am extremely lucky to be able to worry about the little things and I hope that everybody has that much luck soon.

Jane

 

Drug Company disincentives Lorraine

Posted by Jane D on May 25, 2001, at 20:17:05

In reply to Re: It doesn't get any better than this? CAM, posted by Lorraine on May 24, 2001, at 9:35:38

> ... meds ... are an anuity check for the drug companies. I'm not going to go into conspiracy theories on drug companies, but I am wonder what incentives there are for drug companies to work on cures as opposed to annuity checks? I don't think we put the carrots in the right place.

I agree and it's a scary thought. Interesting that prozac weekly comes out just as the original goes off patent. I wonder if they could have released it sooner (just speculation, no facts here). No company that already has a profitable drug has any incentive to develop new ones for the life of their patent. Any market edge they could get from producing a better mousetrap can be obtained more easily by just buying more advertising. Further, if this industry consolidates the way others have, there will be less and less intercompany rivalry to depend on.

I don't know what can be done. Shorten patent life? Extra taxes on drug company profits earmarked to finance independant or government research and development? Tax incentives?

For some reason I find the prospect of being dependant on this industry for the rest of my life very frightening.

 

Re: Relying on meds Jane D

Posted by JahL on May 25, 2001, at 20:26:48

In reply to Relying on meds, posted by Jane D on May 25, 2001, at 19:57:57


> Or, as another example, I'm supposed to meet a friend who needs support. I'm in the middle of a med change and afraid to leave the house. I can do it but it will cost me. Thanks to the medication, I now know that it just doesn't cost other people this much. I also know it will be easier for me next month when the meds start to work again. If I don't go am I being realistic about being sick or just a selfish jerk.

Depends. I guess it comes down to what's to be gained. As yr (& my) experience tells you, when v. depressed there is little to be gained from positive action (& of course you're setting yrself up for disappointment). However helping someone else does produce a 'gain' (tho' this won't necessarily help you).

I guess the question is: how much does my friend need me & how bad am I right now? There are things I cannot be bothered to do for myself that I will gladly do for others (b/c for them it makes a difference).

Thinking about it, unless you've experienced this 'miracle' euthymia, it's probably v. difficult to appreciate. Things just become (became) so easy...

J.

 

Re: Relying on meds

Posted by Jane D on May 25, 2001, at 21:57:34

In reply to Re: Relying on meds Jane D, posted by JahL on May 25, 2001, at 20:26:48


> I guess the question is: how much does my friend need me & how bad am I right now?

But in the long run I am better off with friends and if I stand them up too often....

> Thinking about it, unless you've experienced this 'miracle' euthymia, it's probably v. difficult to appreciate. Things just become (became) so easy...
>

Yes. They do. And its not true that it's always the result of hard work (unfair isn't it). But because it can be so easy, sometimes, to get to 100% and so miraculous once it has happened it's tempting to believe that anything less, or more difficult, isn't worth bothering with. In the meantime 50% can still be a huge improvement. If you can get there only by putting in extra effort so what. It's STILL miraculous.

 

Redirect: Relying on meds

Posted by Dr. Bob on May 25, 2001, at 23:56:53

In reply to Re: Relying on meds, posted by Jane D on May 25, 2001, at 21:57:34

> > I guess the question is: how much does my friend need me & how bad am I right now?

I'd like to redirect this thread to Psycho-Social-Babble:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20010511/msgs/6181.html

Thanks,

Bob

 

Re: spot on

Posted by Lorraine on May 30, 2001, at 13:47:12

In reply to Re: spot on, posted by SLS on May 25, 2001, at 16:39:40

> > > We were born too early to be insured mental health and too late not to have hope to. I don't know how to feel about that.
>
>
> - Scott

My exact feelings. Made me cry.

 

Re: Disease incomprehensible except to ill-SLS

Posted by AMenz on June 4, 2001, at 15:05:01

In reply to Re: spot on SLS, posted by JahL on May 25, 2001, at 13:28:17

It is true that in the last analysis only those suffering from this disease can understand that no amount of willpower, hygene, psychotherapy will erase was is essentially a biological illness.

Granted that there may be triggers in some conditions, specially the anxiety disorders that can be modified. The underlying illness remains.

I think this is baffling to the "normals" because they have emotions like ours but through the use of behavioral, and psychological tools or sometimes even conditioning, their emotions do not get completely out of control.

Or maybe even that is biological. Maybe normals are like cats, they have a righting instinct that we lack. Their brains "regulate" back to some stasis that is beyond us.

> Kind of what I was trying to say, only more considered, more grounded in fact & certainly less 'ranty'. I omitted to say that I do accept the concept of heterogeneity. However, & I'm guessing here, most of the babble participants fall more on the 'biological' side of the spectrum & so I can't see the purpose of Cam's remarks other than to provoke.
>
> Reading Cam's remarks was kinda like finding out yr wife of 10 yrs has been cheating on you all this time. Altruistic chap, good psychopharmacologist, & his presence used to define this board, but his take on the origins & cure for depression....well, sad to say, the guy loses pretty much all credibility in my eyes. I realise that Cam's something of a sacred cow rnd here so I'll butt out. J.
>
> > > Clearly, there are biological differences here between the healthy versus the pathological brain. These changes cannot be not reversed, despite a successful resolution of psychological issues, had there been any before the onset of illness.
>
> Preee-cisely.


This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.