Psycho-Babble Medication Thread 221657

Shown: posts 60 to 84 of 84. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Zoloft withdrawal McPac

Posted by Larry Hoover on April 27, 2003, at 20:42:07

In reply to Larry Hoover/Anybody, Re: about the , posted by McPac on April 27, 2003, at 1:43:44

> Anybody here know of something I could take during Zoloft withdrawal to ease the withdrawal symptoms...got to be something? (CAN'T do the Prozac idea! terrible reaction to Prozac) Any over-the-counter or natural ideas? I'll bet there's something that could at least help those crazy withdrawal symptoms.

Dr. Healey, perhaps the world's expert in withdrawal from antidepressants, does recommend liquid Prozac as the best way to proceed, due to fluoxetine's long half-life, but, he also suggest that St. John's wort will work, in the alternative.

Good luck,
Lar

 

Lar, Re: Zoloft withdrawal

Posted by McPac on April 27, 2003, at 20:56:49

In reply to Re: Zoloft withdrawal McPac, posted by Larry Hoover on April 27, 2003, at 20:42:07

"but, he also suggest that St. John's wort will work, in the alternative".

So, according to Dr. Healey, it is okay to take St. John's Wort simultaneously with the Zoloft during the Zoloft withdrawal purpose? (I've always heard not to mix the two). Could someone take the FULL, normally recommended dose of SJW or would they need to take a smaller amt. due to the Zoloft? Lastly, Zoloft withdrawal for me could take a LONG time, as I'd like to go SLOWLY...is it safe to take the SJW w/ the Zoloft for an extended withdrawal process? Thanks!

 

Re: please be civil Dr. Bob

Posted by fayeroe on April 27, 2003, at 22:13:51

In reply to Re: please be civil Simon Sobo, M.D., posted by Dr. Bob on April 27, 2003, at 19:45:56

> > The patient who found cocaine helpful for his OCD lost his symptoms completely when he became a Jehovah's Witness. This cure disappeared after about 6 months when he became disillusioned with the cult...
>
> Thanks for participating, but one goal here is support, so please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down, thanks.
>
> Bob
>
> PS: Follow-ups regarding posting policies, or complaints about posts, should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration.

how was this person uncivil or putting someone down? i'm confused. thanks

 

Re: Lar, Re: Zoloft withdrawal

Posted by Larry Hoover on April 27, 2003, at 22:43:56

In reply to Lar, Re: Zoloft withdrawal, posted by McPac on April 27, 2003, at 20:56:49

> "but, he also suggest that St. John's wort will work, in the alternative".
>
> So, according to Dr. Healey, it is okay to take St. John's Wort simultaneously with the Zoloft during the Zoloft withdrawal purpose? (I've always heard not to mix the two). Could someone take the FULL, normally recommended dose of SJW or would they need to take a smaller amt. due to the Zoloft? Lastly, Zoloft withdrawal for me could take a LONG time, as I'd like to go SLOWLY...is it safe to take the SJW w/ the Zoloft for an extended withdrawal process? Thanks!

The idea is given as almost an afterthought, but it's looks to me like an all-out substitution. An alternative would be to proportionately substitute SJW for the Zoloft, then reduce the dose thereafter.

"There is anecdotal evidence and some theoretical grounds to believe that another option is to substitute St John's Wort for the SSRI. If a dose of 3 tablets of St John's Wort is tolerated instead of the SSRI, this can then be reduced slowly - by one pill per fortnight or even per month."

From:
http://www.benzo.org.uk/healy.htm

Lar


 

Re: Article Simon Sobo, M.D.

Posted by Questionmark on April 28, 2003, at 0:49:26

In reply to Re: Larry, Re: about the chemical imbalance concept, posted by Simon Sobo, M.D. on April 26, 2003, at 6:51:22

i just want to mention that i read your article and i think you make some brilliant points in there. i'm glad i had the oppurtunity to read it.
i'm convinced that any strict biochemical explanation for OCD is probably a major oversimplification. This is unfortunate, however, because it means there is no simple cure either. Damn.

 

Re: please be civil

Posted by stjames on April 28, 2003, at 17:45:27

In reply to Re: please be civil Dr. Bob, posted by fayeroe on April 27, 2003, at 22:13:51

> how was this person uncivil or putting someone down? i'm confused. thanks
>

Here:
"Jehovah's Witness. .... he became disillusioned with the cult...
~~~~


 

Lar, Re: Lar, Re: Zoloft withdrawal

Posted by McPac on April 28, 2003, at 19:38:57

In reply to Re: Lar, Re: Zoloft withdrawal, posted by Larry Hoover on April 27, 2003, at 22:43:56

I read that link, thanks Lar. Wow, still can't imagine FULLY stopping Zoloft cold turkey while substituting SJW. Those withdrawal symptoms are HELL, just can't see SJW offsetting that.

 

Re: Pstims for OCD?? Really? Not!

Posted by Simon Sobo, M.D. on July 20, 2003, at 18:50:16

In reply to Re: Pstims for OCD?? Really? Not!, posted by Larry Hoover on April 25, 2003, at 12:12:38

I have a program that tells me who is reading my article so I have again found discussion of my article on your board. Although I cited the article that found dextroamphetamines helpful for OCD, the real purpose of that citation and the other citation, (which mentions morphine is also helpful) is to make the point that the equation between serotonin and OCD is nonsense. Enhancing sertonin seems to create a psychological state which I describe as "well whatever" This is extremely helpful with OCD and a heck of a lot of other psychiatric difficulties, and I will use it without hesitation, but it does not mean that people with OCD necessarily have a serotonin deficency. OCD is the result of very specific psychological conflicts not a chemical imbalance. That isn't to say that SSRIs morphine, alcohol, (one of my patients told me cocaine) and possibly dextroamphetamine can't help with the symptoms. Anything that gives a feeling of "all is well" may work. I am not suggesting that people try illegal remedies just that this whole way of approaching treatment with chemicals and drugs has a significant downside. The chemical imblance model has turned out to be very flawed
Simon Sobo, MD

 

Re: Pstims for OCD?? Really? Not! Simon Sobo, M.D.

Posted by ace on July 20, 2003, at 23:41:36

In reply to Re: Pstims for OCD?? Really? Not!, posted by Simon Sobo, M.D. on July 20, 2003, at 18:50:16

the equation between serotonin and OCD is nonsense.


I tend to aggree. I believe it may have a role in some but not others. But the SSRI hype is absurd. What about all the other neurotransmitters!

Ace.

 

Re: Pstims for OCD?? Really? Not!

Posted by fredxx on September 25, 2003, at 4:59:55

In reply to Re: Pstims for OCD?? Really? Not!, posted by Simon Sobo, M.D. on July 20, 2003, at 18:50:16

> OCD is the result of very specific psychological conflicts not a chemical imbalance

hi, just wanted to say i've enjoyed reading the thoughtful and informative posts on this board

as someone who has suffered from OCD for 40+ years i have given much thought to the subject

i guess we always get back to the nature nurture arguments, my current thinking is that the central issues of ocd are about punishment and harm (in my case anyway)

we live in a world of which we have but a little understanding, where we are all vulnerable, where there are a myriad of things that can and do go wrong, often catastrophically

and where blame and punishment are dished out to all and sundry on a daily basis in an attempt to control chaos

i want to live in a world which never thought of the concepts of blame and punishment as a way of dealing with the things that go wrong in a universe based on entropy

OCD is my FEAR and LOATHING of THIS brutal world

for me it's a miracle that ANYONE is "sane" on this planet
(and i'm not sure ANYONE truly is) ;)

regards to all
fredxx

 

Redirect: psychological conflicts

Posted by Dr. Bob on September 25, 2003, at 7:57:16

In reply to Re: Pstims for OCD?? Really? Not!, posted by fredxx on September 25, 2003, at 4:59:55

> i guess we always get back to the nature nurture arguments...

Since it's not really about medication, I'd like to redirect this aspect of this discussion to Psycho-Social-Babble. Here's a link:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20030913/msgs/263140.html

Thanks,

Bob

 

Re: Fish Oil Product EPA/DHA Content?}}Larry

Posted by petroranger on December 2, 2003, at 19:57:46

In reply to Re: On-line Fish Oil Product EPA/DHA Content?, posted by Larry Hoover on April 26, 2003, at 8:41:17

i'm working on my project about enrichment of PUFAs in fish oil.If this is of interest to you, I'd love to hear of anything you come across.Actually, i've a little bit problem come out in this work...

 

Redirect: Fish Oil Product EPA/DHA Content?

Posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 2003, at 6:30:45

In reply to Re: Fish Oil Product EPA/DHA Content?}}Larry, posted by petroranger on December 2, 2003, at 19:57:46

> i'm working on my project about enrichment of PUFAs in fish oil...

Sorry if it's confusing, but there are a number of boards here, and Psycho-Babble Alternative is the one for discussion of alternative treatments. Here's a link:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20031204/msgs/286766.html

Thanks,

Bob

 

about the chemical imbalance concept

Posted by RH on August 19, 2004, at 15:03:59

In reply to Re: Larry, Re: about the chemical imbalance concept, posted by Simon Sobo, M.D. on April 26, 2003, at 6:51:22

Dr. Bob:

That's great info about the effects of "recreational" drugs and alcohol on OCD. I have been researching the "chemical imbalance" theory (fraud?) and have come to the preliminary conclusion that the various "happy pills" are just europhorics of one type or another.

I am still looking for the evidence that unipolar depression or bipolar do not have underlying psycho dynamic causes. All the unipolar and bipolars I know, a small sample group of about 5, all have issues that are evident to me, but of course, not to them.

I am quite experienced with the use of marijuana. It is definately a stress reducer or masker, and it helps relieve situational depression---so then why wouldn't it relieve clinical depression? I have read in posts at "Walkers In Darkness" that some of those there, who are unipolar depressed or bipolar, claim that pot works as well as any of the happy pills they have tried and that it's side affects are more preferable. Of course, many will not want to try pot because it is against the law and it may not be socially acceptable to them.

I know a woman, my neighbor, who is unipolar depressed, although she has never to my knowledge seen a pdoc. She doses herself with marijuana daily, and has anxiety as her little baggie gets low. But like a good patient, she "refills" her "presecription" with perfect regularity every Saturday morning. I don't think she has been without pot for more than 2 or 3 days per year for the last 20 years.

I don't recommend anyone treat their issues with pot. The point is that it seems to some of us who have not tried any happy pills that they are no more than that, happy pills. The underlying issues are still there.

For the chemical imalance theory to be valid, the following study would have to have been done. Do you know if it has and can you direct me to it. Namely, a large sample group of people with no signs of unipolar or bipolar depression would have to be followed for many years, starting perhaps as teenagers, and then when some presented symptoms of depression or mania, they would have to be screened for underlying psychodynamic issues. Only those that had none could be considered as possible evidence of the brain chemical imbalance being the cause, and not the effect.

But it may be difficult to establish underlying psychodynamic issues, as moral judgements have to be made, and many in the psych community go out of their way not to do that, thus I believe confusing the issue. For instance, I found a post at "Walkers in Darkness" where a woman on meds claimed that she also benifitted from dancing nude in front of men at a strip joint. Some pdocs would say good to that. But I would say that is an expression of her problem.

In a world of therapy that avoids making moral judgements of some kind, then many underlying causes will be overlooked, and in that case there would be no recourse except to take meds.

What do you think?

RH

 

Re: about the chemical imbalance concept

Posted by Jasmineneroli on August 20, 2004, at 17:17:26

In reply to about the chemical imbalance concept, posted by RH on August 19, 2004, at 15:03:59

RH:
I'm not sure what you mean by "happy" pills, because none of the drugs I've ever taken for my Generalized Anxiety Disorder (with occasional depression) have ever made me "happy". Rather, they relieve the stress/anxiety/sadness/tiredness.I think that term, as a simplistic euphemism for very complex drugs, may be taken as a bit upsetting by some of the posters here.
As to the psycho-dynamic theory vs. bio-chemical theory of mental health disorders, I can't point you to any studies.However, from my own personal experience, and from my experience working with "At-Risk" adolescents, both can cause mental health issues.
My husband suffers from Dysthymia ( a chronic form of depression) and has all his life. There is nothing in his background to indicate an external cause and an SSRI med. has completely changed his life. Seems to me that he simply has Serotonin imbalances or low Serotonin, that is corrected by a drug. In a similar way to a diabetic with insulin insufficiency. I, on the other hand, have a driven, controlling type personality, and have been subject to a lot of stressful events and hormonal changes in the past 5 years. The combination of the two has definitely caused me to "live-on adrenalin", which itself has caused chemical imbalances in my brain. Many of the kids I worked with have backgrounds, or environments, that have primed their stress responses to react constantly and they've developed OCD, PTSD, depression or anxiety from resulting neurotransmitter changes.
For both myself, and these kids, drugs have been necessary to correct the chemical imbalances, and drug therapy maybe long or life time. Then the situation(s) that created these problems, need to be changed or addressed in some way too, to reduce/relieve the stressors. Therapy/counselling may be of assistance in certain cases. For me, as a GAD sufferer, my Pdoc believes therapy to be very unsuccessful, because it just gives us something else to worry about!!!
I hope that helps your quest for an answer. It's certainly an interesting debate.
Jas

 

Re: about the chemical imbalance concept

Posted by Emme on August 21, 2004, at 13:37:49

In reply to about the chemical imbalance concept, posted by RH on August 19, 2004, at 15:03:59

Hello.

First off, I'd like to say that I agree with the above poster about using the term "happy pills". It makes me feel like those of us who take them are being judged as taking the easy way out, which we're not. We take them to get us out of emotional hell to the point where we can do the things we need to do to become happy. I think if you took a poll here, you'd find a lot of people who'd rather not have to take medicine and put up with side effects, etc.

It sounds to me like your're drawing an unnecessarily tight division between biological and psychological causes of mood/anxiety disorders. They're not mutually exclusive and the interplay between them is complex at best. Studies have shown that optimal results are obtained with a combination of therapy and medication. Even if there were someone completely free of major problems in their past, they might need counseling to help cope with the impact of the illness on their life.

The balance between biochemical and psychological issues won't be the same for everyone. Mood/anxiety disorders are heterogeneous. They manifest themselves differently in everyone and the etiology for one person may be different than someone else's. Likewise, different pharmacologic approaches are needed for different people.

You might have:
- a person without major psychodynamic issues who has a mood or anxiety disorder anyway. (Although I suspect it would be tough to find anyone no issues. We all have baggage of some sort.)

- another person who has an inborn vulnerability that is never expressed because they don't experience *enough* psychological distress.

- a third person with an inborn vulnerability that is triggered by distress or trauma. The biologic component of their illness is no less real than for a person with allergies who happens to end up standing in a field of ragweed.

- a fourth person who has undergone psychological stress but doesn't have depression or anxiety because their particular makeup allows them to escape it. And so on....


I think underlying psychodynamic issues needn't be thought about in terms of moral judgments. You don't need to do that in order to be effective. You need to figure out and address what's going on that isn't healthy for the individual or those around them. Isn't that what's going on with your example of the woman who dances nude? Would it make more sense to say "Your nude dancing is immoral." or to find out why she's dancing nude and say "this isn't good for you for these reasons...." Maladaptive behaviors aren't necessarily immoral.

Emme

 

Re: about the chemical imbalance concept

Posted by RH on August 21, 2004, at 22:03:12

In reply to Re: about the chemical imbalance concept, posted by Emme on August 21, 2004, at 13:37:49

Hi folks:

I learned the phrase "happy pill" from two people I know who take them, so as they used the phrase freely I didn't know anyone would be defensive about it. I thought they used the term to avoid saying the exact name of the pill they were using, sort of a privacy issue.

I am still searching for the proof that a chemical imbalance can precede a depression, in the absence of any significant underlying psychodynamic issues.

Perhaps some one can point me to a study that has:

Followed a sample group from teen years on, for dozens of years. The sample group would have to be diagnosis free at the start of the study. Then, as members of the group developed depression over the years, they would have to be given a physical exam to rule out the known causes of depression that originate outside the head, in other parts of the body, like hyper-thyroidism. Those not ruled out would then have to be queried as to what psychodynamic issues may have been the cause of the depression. Their friends and family members would have to be interviewed about this also. Those who were subsequently not ruled out as having psychodynamic causes would be the ones that should be studied, as they may actually have a malfunctioning brain chemical regulating mechanism.

I have spent hours searching for this kind of study, and have come up empty handed.

I have found this statement form the APA:
http://www.mindfreedom.org/mindfreedom/hungerstrikeapa2nd.shtml

Which confirms the fact(?) that at present no cause of depression can be identified in the area of the brain chemical imbalance, other than those already known medical issues outside the head or tumors, lesions, etc.

A similar debate surrounds the ADD/AHDD issue:

http://www.house.gov/ed_workforce/hearings/106th/oi/ritalin92900/baughman.htm

http://www.adhdfraud.org/

A friend of mine who was put on Ritalin as a pre-teen and teen, and who later went on to experiment with marijuana, speed, cocaine and mushrooms has told me that he can't tell the difference from being on speed or Ritalin.

I wonder why people accept that they have a brain chemical imbalance that may not be psychodynamic in nature when they are not given any kind of biologic tests to confrim that. With diabetes and allergies, there are biologic tests.

The example I mentioned in my previous post, provided by Dr. Bob, in which a man joined the Jehova Witnesses and was cured of his OCD, and then relapsed when he left their group, shows that the brain, apparently, can instantly correct imbalances. Donna Summer, the disco diva, had a similar experience. After attempting suicide, she was told she had a chemical imbalance, and put on pills. She continued to be depressed and was uncomfortable about the side effects of the pills. When she gave up her music carreer and returned to her Christian faith, she became well. She explains this in her book "Ordinary Girl:The Journey".

And here is a link to Winston Wu's experience of being "cured" of schizophrenia and OCD in a short period of time, I think it was about a year, with only the support of family and some kind of therapy, not sure if it has a particular name.

http://www.successfulschizophrenia.com/stories/wwu.html

Other articles at Successful Schizophrenia may be interesting to those here at Dr. Bob's.

http://www.successfulschizophrenia.com/

You wrote:
"The balance between biochemical and psychological issues won't be the same for everyone. Mood/anxiety disorders are heterogeneous. They manifest themselves differently in everyone and the etiology for one person may be different than someone else's".

Yes, the balance. In other words, a person's psychological makeup could be the cause of the disposition to become depressed.

You wrote:

"Would it make more sense to say "Your nude dancing is immoral." or to find out why she's dancing nude and say "this isn't good for you for these reasons...." Maladaptive behaviors aren't necessarily immoral"

But to say "this isn't good for you for these reasons" is a moral judgement. And "maladaptive" behaviors are immoral, by definition.

You might be confusing religion with morality. A religion is just a moral code that has been elevated to something special, and over the ages it has been forgotten that they started as moral codes. The original moral codes were simply assignment of good or bad to behaviours that the dominant group didn't like, or that were destructive to civilized existence.

So what I meant by moral judgements was just that a determination should be made as to whether one's moral code, or lack thereof, plays a factor in one's depression or other issue.

There is much debate as to whether just any moral code can actually work, that is, lead to happiness. There are time tested codes that work for large numbers of people. Then there are other codes that time has shown to be useless and self-limiting, such as the code Atilla the Hun lived by. Believe it or not, the man had morals. Nazi-ism was also a moral code.

So it is probably a mistake to think that just anyone can be happy. It is probably more accurate to say that those with the right moral code for themselves, one that can in some way be shown to be viable, will most likely be happy. But it is difficult to prove that a code works-- this has been the work of philosophers since antiquity.

If a person does not subscribe to one of the known workable moral codes and decides to go it alone, dim sum, then he/she takes their happiness in their own hands. It is a gamble.

At this point someone usually says, "I know religious people who are depressed". To that I can only answer that perhaps their faith is not that strong, or that they don't fully understand the faith they are attempting to practice. For instance, I'm still waiting for the day I meet a good, strong Christian, and I live here in the United States, where the odds of finding such a person should be good.

Myself, I am not a believer, as I lack the capacity to beleive. But I practice a blend of Christian and Zen philosophy, which I know gives me a measure of insulation against depression. For instance, I take no pleasure in material things, nor do I mourn their loss. No one can insult me or make me feel bad (sad) because I don't care about approval of others, seeing that to be a weakness. I also try not to take exessive pleasure in food or sex, because then they both have the power to depress me if they are withheld.

Many people will respond with, "what's the point in living if you are not extracting pleasure from this life?" For them, I have no answer, because they only ask that question if they are pleasure oriented and base their happiness on pleasures and approval. As far as I know, in the history of mankind, no one has answered that question satisfactorily.

And turn off the tv. Huge amount of depression programming, brainwashing, comes over the tube.

Regards

RH

 

Re: about the chemical imbalance concept

Posted by Simon Sobo MD on August 24, 2004, at 12:48:02

In reply to Re: about the chemical imbalance concept, posted by RH on August 21, 2004, at 22:03:12

Glad to see word is finally getting around. See the movie Garden State

 

Re: about the chemical imbalance concept

Posted by RH on August 24, 2004, at 18:44:44

In reply to Re: about the chemical imbalance concept, posted by Simon Sobo MD on August 24, 2004, at 12:48:02

> Glad to see word is finally getting around. See the movie Garden State

Thanks for the flick tip, I'm going to check it out.

Don't be too optimistic, Dr. Sobo. Sales of the various brain chemical balanacing drugs is in the billions, if not tens of billions. I can obtain many of these over the intenet without seeing a doctor. Not that I would.

For the sake of those who are in turmoil, I understand that these drugs can provide the relief needed to go on. And, yes, I am aware that some patients show up at the hospital in a fetal postion, nearly catatonic, and I would not hesitate to use any good tool to help these folks, if I was a doctor, regardless of what might be the fundamental problem.

And it does not seem to me that a regulating mechanism in the brain might not malfunction, but that conditon may only explain those souls who we typically think of as needing institutionalization.

It is the huge number of people relying on meds that seems suspicious, as well as the faulty psuedo science behind the meds.

I am not sure exactly what role these drugs play in the ongoing slide into nihilism, but my research leads me to believe they hasten it. Still, I keep an open mind that they may in some way be helping to stave it off.

Sometimes I think patients should be seeing a philosopher, not a psychologist or pdoc. Does anyone agree with me? (Fortunately, some of the latter are the former -- patients should understand how to shop for that type.)

Who can argue with good therapy?

Final thought:

In addition to therapy and introspection, forcing happy thoughts on oneself does seem to work, for me certainly, and I know others who have made this confession.

RH

 

Redirect: philosophers

Posted by Dr. Bob on August 24, 2004, at 19:25:50

In reply to Re: about the chemical imbalance concept, posted by RH on August 24, 2004, at 18:44:44

> Sometimes I think patients should be seeing a philosopher, not a psychologist or pdoc.

Sorry to interrupt, but I'd like to redirect follow-ups not about medication to Psycho-Social-Babble. Here's a link:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20040820/msgs/381877.html

Thanks,

Bob

 

Re: To Simon Sobo. Your point being?

Posted by Denise1904 on August 25, 2004, at 12:07:43

In reply to Re: Pstims for OCD?? Really? Not!, posted by Simon Sobo, M.D. on July 20, 2003, at 18:50:16

Hi,

So what point are you actually making here, are you suggesting that people with OCD, Depression, ADD etc do not have any kind of chemical inbalances or problems that are biological in some way? Are you of the opinion that these problems are pschological and caused by past events, thought processes etc because if that's the case you could take any person and I'm sure if you delved deep enough they've all had bad experiences in the past but they don't all end up depressed, anxious, obsessive or overactive.

Also, when I took SSRIs and they worked I never felt this "well whatever" kind of feeling you described, although I have heard some people say they do on them. I actually felt like I cared a lot more, about the right things and in the right ways. Now that they don't work so well I do have that "well whatever" feeling.

Can you tell me your point here?


Denise

 

Re: To Simon Sobo. Your point being?

Posted by Simon Sobo, MD on August 25, 2004, at 13:52:25

In reply to Re: To Simon Sobo. Your point being?, posted by Denise1904 on August 25, 2004, at 12:07:43

It would be silly to repeat the arguments in my article which you have apparently not read. I think the meds are great for the right person at the right time in their life. And yes I even can accept that the meds might be necessary or at least useful in some people for their entire life. My objection is to the complete and absolute lie that the science of most conditions is understood. I don't think my profession is doing a very good job of making that clear. I'll go furhter and say that it is in the interest of psychiatrists to not make the isssue clearly understood. Biological factors surely play a role and even genetic factors but this is very! poorly understood.

The key issue is how much to trust your psychiatrist. Some are fine and honorable and smart human beings doing their very best with what is known. Some are handing out drugs with very little knowledge of their patient and a specious DSM IV diagnosis applied. Recently my 16 year old niece was undergoing a rough time so that she had become pretty emotional. They felt she needed help and I agreed. But I told them to steer clear of psychiatrists or else she would be diagnosed bipolar and soon be on lithium, depakote, zyprexa or a combination of them. It is pathetic that my own profession has gone so far down the medication role that I am advising people to stay away from them unless the problem is very serious. Because many psychiatrists could do a great job and even use meds judiciously with cases that aren't very extreme. But this niece was living in the South, and not knowing anyone my view was that it was better to stay clear of a psychiatrist. Sorry to say that about my own colleagues

 

Re: Excuse me?? Simon Sobo, MD

Posted by AuntieMel on August 26, 2004, at 8:44:17

In reply to Re: To Simon Sobo. Your point being?, posted by Simon Sobo, MD on August 25, 2004, at 13:52:25

Did I hear this right? You said you have a 16 year old niece that needs help, but you told her to stay clear of the psychiatrists because she lives in the south???????

Well, I'm happy to say that we have many, many, well qualified doctors down here and I haven't heard of any exorcisms being done lately;)

My shrink is very, very knowledgable and very cautious with med changes. Sometimes too cautious for my impatient self.

My daughter has been seing one since she wass 16 or 17 and is doing great. She isn't over-medicated either - 75mg effexor xl

 

Re: Excuse me??

Posted by Simon Sobo, MD on August 26, 2004, at 11:03:47

In reply to Re: Excuse me?? Simon Sobo, MD, posted by AuntieMel on August 26, 2004, at 8:44:17

So that we don't go off on a tangent I did not mean to imply there is anything wrong with psychiatrists in the south. I simply don't live there and wouldn't know who to send her to. My point is that far too many psychiatrists are giving out far too many meds to patients they hardly know and are calling this science. The problem is in part with the paradigm (which is the main point of my article) and part with the incentive psychiatrists have to not ask too many questions about what they are doing.

 

Re: Excuse me??

Posted by AuntieMel on August 26, 2004, at 11:21:31

In reply to Re: Excuse me??, posted by Simon Sobo, MD on August 26, 2004, at 11:03:47

I've been reading this with interest and I agree about the tendancy to pass out pills to readily.

It just seems to me that if she is having troubles it would be more responsible to give suggestions on how to pick the right doctor, not tell her to avoik them completely.

I was one of those that thought my daughter was bipolar - with the screaming, quick mood switches and all. Her doctor wouldn't hear of adding a mood stabelizer. She's gone from a very troubled teen to a sophmore in college doing great.


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.