![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 23 of 23. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by vale on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:22
Tiltle of a wonderfull little book first published in 1983, written by Dr. Garth Wood. If you ever get the chance to read it, do so. It'll cost less than a pack of benzos or anti-depressants and do a heck of a better job in the long term. The jist of it is, if we haven't been formally diagnosed with one of the very few genuine mental illnesses, then we are well, and experimenting with various psychoactive cocktails will over time only increase our despair. Anxiety, Guilt and everyday stress are there for a reason, Blunderbussing them with mind pills is no solution. They can be dealt with by excercise, healthy lifestyles, confiding in loved ones and real friends and above all facing the fact that life is basicly quite hard.
End of story
Posted by linkadge on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:22
In reply to The Myth of neurosis, posted by vale on April 21, 2006, at 16:28:23
There are a lot of books that claim a lot of things. Books like that were waiting to be writtain, because authors know there will always be a subset of patients who can heal their depression through positive thinking and fresh air, and they know their is money to be made. Of course that sort of thing helps, but for a lot of people it is insufficiant.
And who here is trying to mask normal everday emotions? Many people here have dealt with chronic suicidal tendancies. That is not normal.I suppose some people find it empowering to try and quantify / compartmentalize other peoples suffering.
Linkadge
Posted by bassman on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:22
In reply to The Myth of neurosis, posted by vale on April 21, 2006, at 16:28:23
"...neurosis is a convenient excuse for a lack of will, effort and maturity in otherwise well people..."
This is an interesting topic, in quite an old book, that perhaps is a partial explanation for the severe prejudice against mental illness that still exists in our society today.
For those interested, the book is out of print, but can be purchased from Amazon.com for $0.01 plus shipping.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:22
In reply to Re: The Myth of neurosis, posted by bassman on April 21, 2006, at 17:17:37
>
> For those interested, the book is out of print, but can be purchased from Amazon.com for $0.01 plus shipping.Thanks for checking that out. Very good information. :)
gg
Posted by Crazy Horse on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:22
In reply to Re: The Myth of neurosis, posted by linkadge on April 21, 2006, at 17:11:31
> There are a lot of books that claim a lot of things. Books like that were waiting to be writtain, because authors know there will always be a subset of patients who can heal their depression through positive thinking and fresh air, and they know their is money to be made. Of course that sort of thing helps, but for a lot of people it is insufficiant.
>
>
> And who here is trying to mask normal everday emotions? Many people here have dealt with chronic suicidal tendancies. That is not normal.
>
> I suppose some people find it empowering to try and quantify / compartmentalize other peoples suffering.
>
>
> LinkadgeVery well said Linkadge..I totally agree! I've tried many times to "help myself" without medications, trying supplements, lot's of exersize, counseling, Church, trying to think positive,self help books, etc. It doesn't work for me because i have a chemical imbalance and without meds i end up suicidal, and usually hospitalized. Enough of that for me, all those things are good and i still practice many of them, but i definitely need medication as well.
-Monte
Posted by vale on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:22
In reply to Re: The Myth of neurosis, posted by linkadge on April 21, 2006, at 17:11:31
> There are a lot of books that claim a lot of things. Books like that were waiting to be writtain, because authors know there will always be a subset of patients who can heal their depression through positive thinking and fresh air, and they know their is money to be made. Of course that sort of thing helps, but for a lot of people it is insufficiant.
>
>
> And who here is trying to mask normal everday emotions? Many people here have dealt with chronic suicidal tendancies. That is not normal.
>
> I suppose some people find it empowering to try and quantify / compartmentalize other peoples suffering.
>
>
> LinkadgeMajor depression is a genuine illness, doubtfull if you could heal it without some form of pharmacological treatment, that's the point I'm making. (I know, I've been there and back).
Healthy people also have suicidal tendancies.
The fact is nobody but you can compartmentalize your suffering, one intrinsicly senses when it's
time to move on, and find solutions other than in the pill box. And one musn't forget that some of us actually enjoy experimenting with pychoactive drugs, but it's a kind of hobby, not a solution to lifes problems. ( The books still worth a read!)
Posted by linkadge on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:22
In reply to Re: The Myth of neurosis, posted by vale on April 21, 2006, at 18:08:13
>Healthy people also have suicidal tendancies.
I suppose nobody has really drawn the line in the sand. Sure most people will say they've thought about suicide in their lifetime, but at any given time, most people will not say they've thought about suicide in say, the last three days.
>The fact is nobody but you can compartmentalize >your suffering, one intrinsicly senses when >it's time to move on, and find solutions other >than in the pill box.
Thats what this page is all about. Its not necessarily about pills, there are many sections with many different ways to approach the same problem. Not everyone gets sufficant relief from the alternatives.
Is it a form of healing? Perhaps its part of the healing process for somebody to think that they have the answer. I suppose it seems more definitive for somebody to think that their solution applies to everbody.
Its the same with religion, I suppose. When sombody gets healed through 'religion', it is a common tendancy to want to spread the word.
I guess what I am saying is that, just because I am not getting better, does not mean I am not still praying. Just because I'm here doesn't mean I am not already considering alternitives.
>And one musn't forget that some of us actually >enjoy experimenting with pychoactive drugs
I'm sure that many people here would give up this board, and everything they ever knew about "psychiatric drugs", in a heartbeat, if it meant that they would not have to suffer clinical depression ever again. For most people with clinical depression, medication is a burdon, not a novelty.
>but it's a kind of hobby, not a solution to >lifes problems.
Hope is a very powerfull thing. But, I would believe your statement about what *isn't* a solution a little more concretely, if I had solid evidence demostrating what exactly *is* a solution.
(Ie.) tell me what I havn't tried.
Linkadge
Posted by Phillipa on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:23
In reply to Re: The Myth of neurosis, posted by linkadge on April 21, 2006, at 18:51:37
Just like a couple meds and theraphy go hand and hand in my opinion. I've never been suicidal and hope never to be. I'm a fighter and won't lose the fight. I will get well that is my mantra Love Phillipa
Posted by med_empowered on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:23
In reply to Re: The Myth of neurosis, posted by Phillipa on April 21, 2006, at 22:32:21
I tend to agree with some of his points, although I think "neurosis" is probably a much less common diagnosis now than ever before--the problem is that diagnoses have been stretched to and beyond their limits to encompass any number of intense emotions people can experience w/o being "diseased"..basically, I feel that we're in a situation where experiencing LIFE has come to be seen as somehow pathological or unwell.
Besides that...even "real" disorders can be treated without meds, or with intermittent use of meds, or with meds and therapy....I think the "you need pills--PERIOD" approach kind of does us all a great disservice. I mean, lots of people can get well w/o pills, some people may need them, some people may do best on a lot of them....the whole situation is much more complex than "take a ((zyprexa, zoloft, klonopin, dexedrine, provigil, ENSAM, etc.)) and see me in a month"
Posted by madeline on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:23
In reply to The Myth of neurosis, posted by vale on April 21, 2006, at 16:28:23
First, I would heartily recommend reading literature about this subject that is more that 20 years old. One would never attempt to understand coronary artery disease by reading a 20 year old textbook would they?
Second, I do think that a lot of medications (especially the benzos) are probably over prescribed just to keep patients quiet.
Third, I will also readily admit that our whole understanding of the mechanism of anxiety, depression and stress is subjective. Who is really to say how MUCH stress a person has? But our understanding is getting better and one can not discount the physiological mechanisms that underly these subjective symptoms.
You just can't lump everyone's physiological response to stress in one big bucket so to speak.
As an example consider a truly subjective symptom - Pain.
There is no quantitative measure for how much pain a person feels. And for years, patients with a so-called low pain thresholds were considered "weak and whiny". Everyone just assumed the best approach was to just suck it up and deal with it. BUT, research now clearly indicates that people who report more pain produce more of a chemical called "Substance P" and lack of appropriate pain management for these people reduces healing time, raises blood pressure and causes a systemic rise in some nasty glucocorticoids. So, should a person that reports more pain than another be subjected to this pathology? Absolutely not! No physician is ever going to tell a patient, "pray away your pain". People have different physiological responses to pain, and neither is right or wrong, just different. There is a physiological underpining to a very subjective report, that can be treated.
Likewise, should a patient that reports more stress than another be told to "pray away your stress?" No, our body chemistry predicts HOW we will respond to stress and for everyone that is different and no amount of prayer, meditation etc is going to change that, it requires a physiological intervention.
And that's why, I think it is really important to NEVER ascribe a blanket "you're not really sick at all" to people that report anxiety, stress or one of the more generalized symptoms. Everyone is different and requires different things.
Posted by bassman on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:23
In reply to Re: The Myth of neurosis » vale, posted by madeline on April 22, 2006, at 5:54:24
Exactly. When I pinched a nerve in my back, the docs were falling over themselves to give me meds for pain relief-somehow physical pain seems more "real"-and they all mentioned that it is not good to be in severe pain and be macho about it. Turns out Vicodin, et.al. were pretty useless in terms of pain relief, so I just iced my back until I probably froze my spinal column! :>} The funny thing is that the emotional support group I'm in always has a member or two that has decided just the idea of taking meds is so repugnant to them that they are going to taper off. It isn't that they are having side effects, they just don't want to take the meds. Guess what happens, every time so far? The person ends up absolutely miserable and takes 2-3 months to get out the depression again. So the idea that people love to take their meds is a little less than universal, in my experience.
Posted by vale on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:23
In reply to Re: The Myth of neurosis » vale, posted by madeline on April 22, 2006, at 5:54:24
> First, I would heartily recommend reading literature about this subject that is more that 20 years old. One would never attempt to understand coronary artery disease by reading a 20 year old textbook would they?
>
> Second, I do think that a lot of medications (especially the benzos) are probably over prescribed just to keep patients quiet.
>
> Third, I will also readily admit that our whole understanding of the mechanism of anxiety, depression and stress is subjective. Who is really to say how MUCH stress a person has? But our understanding is getting better and one can not discount the physiological mechanisms that underly these subjective symptoms.
>
> You just can't lump everyone's physiological response to stress in one big bucket so to speak.
>
> As an example consider a truly subjective symptom - Pain.
>
> There is no quantitative measure for how much pain a person feels. And for years, patients with a so-called low pain thresholds were considered "weak and whiny". Everyone just assumed the best approach was to just suck it up and deal with it. BUT, research now clearly indicates that people who report more pain produce more of a chemical called "Substance P" and lack of appropriate pain management for these people reduces healing time, raises blood pressure and causes a systemic rise in some nasty glucocorticoids. So, should a person that reports more pain than another be subjected to this pathology? Absolutely not! No physician is ever going to tell a patient, "pray away your pain". People have different physiological responses to pain, and neither is right or wrong, just different. There is a physiological underpining to a very subjective report, that can be treated.
>
> Likewise, should a patient that reports more stress than another be told to "pray away your stress?" No, our body chemistry predicts HOW we will respond to stress and for everyone that is different and no amount of prayer, meditation etc is going to change that, it requires a physiological intervention.
>
> And that's why, I think it is really important to NEVER ascribe a blanket "you're not really sick at all" to people that report anxiety, stress or one of the more generalized symptoms. Everyone is different and requires different things.
>
>
Dear oh Dear, I'm sorry if I've offended some folks out there. The fact is the initial post was not intended for those who are indeed suffering serious illness, depression, Pychosis, but who perhaps consider themselves not quite sure about their own predicament. In such cases it's certainly worth giving a trial to a relatively austere regime of excersice, healthy diet, and acceptance that lifes basicaly a tough deal. It's the pharmaceutical companies that like to throw us all into one bucket. They are in large part responsible for catagorizing our pain and suffering into a hundred and one new disorders and syndromes. Interupting family viewing on TV to advertise antidepressants, smilely happy faces on Effexor, Wellbutrin and Paxil. The whole scam wouldn't be so bad if they actually did give us a sustainable mood boost on a durable basis. But for most they don't, perhaps intentionaly ,perhaps not. And untill the advent of that blockbuster drug that makes me feel like a million bucks every day of the year, I'll just rely on the endorphin boost that sustained excercise provides, with the occasional dopamine feast of a fine wine coupled with the serenity that family and friends provide.Be well
Posted by linkadge on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:23
In reply to Re: The Myth of neurosis » vale, posted by madeline on April 22, 2006, at 5:54:24
Good points.
Posted by SLS on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:23
In reply to The Myth of neurosis, posted by vale on April 21, 2006, at 16:28:23
I think people sometimes forget to discriminate between depression and life issues. Drugs don't deal with issues. People do. Unfortunately, certain biological depressions deny one the energy, motivation, and cognitive resources to deal with issues. If someone expects a pill to eliminate the difficult issues that life presents, they are bound to be disappointed. They might even develop a loathing of psychiatry for not living up to the promise they were hoping it offered them. The fact remains, however, that many people need to have their depressive illness treated biologically in order to function well enough to live healthy and happy lives.
- Scott
Posted by bassman on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:23
In reply to Re: The Myth of neurosis » madeline, posted by linkadge on April 22, 2006, at 8:29:58
Let's remember that it wasn't that long ago that people with diabetes were put in insane asylums for life because of their bizarre behaviour.
But my gosh, yes, just like with hypertension, say, try the non-chemical changes of exercise, diet, etc. equally, only go to a psychoactive med if your functioning is impaired or your life is trying to survive another day of anxiety/depression. And yes, drug companies have lots of psychoactive drugs on the market that require them to sell people on the idea that if they aren't happy all the time, they should run to their doc and get a prescription of an on-patent AD at $3/day for the rest of their lives. The Buddha's First Noble Truth was that life is suffering, heck, and he didn't take an AD. I think we all accept that there is a lot of suffering in life for which there is no cure. In "Listening to Prozac", Kramer talks about people taking Prozac to be "better than good". I don't think anyone on this board thinks that's a good idea.
But calling severe depression and anxiety an "excuse"-as the subtitle of the book does...well, it was fun, I'll bet.:>} Maybe I'll wait a couple months until everyone has forgotten this post and have something with the title, "AD's are only for Weenies" and see people trying to write tactful messages while gritting their teeth...:>}
Posted by SLS on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:23
In reply to Re: The Myth of neurosis » vale, posted by SLS on April 22, 2006, at 8:48:43
Sorry. I neglected to include other mental illnesses in my post.
> I think people sometimes forget to discriminate between depression and life issues. Drugs don't deal with issues. People do. Unfortunately, certain biological depressions deny one the energy, motivation, and cognitive resources to deal with issues. If someone expects a pill to eliminate the difficult issues that life presents, they are bound to be disappointed. They might even develop a loathing of psychiatry for not living up to the promise they were hoping it offered them. The fact remains, however, that many people need to have their depressive illness treated biologically in order to function well enough to live healthy and happy lives.
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by bassman on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:23
In reply to Re: The Myth of neurosis, posted by SLS on April 22, 2006, at 8:57:35
Excellent point; I'm sorry, too. People suffer from many other mental illnesses other than depression and anxiety, and I should have been sensitive to that in my post.
Posted by madeline on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:23
In reply to Re: The Myth of neurosis, posted by vale on April 22, 2006, at 8:21:48
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/46032
Just in case you haven't heard of it, the onion is a cheeky "news service" that never fails to crack me up.
Posted by bassman on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:24
In reply to Maybe you need this..... » vale, posted by madeline on April 22, 2006, at 9:31:27
Our politically conservative friends on psychobabble may find it less humorous; just as a courtesy comment. The idea goes with this string: "laughter is the best medicine"!
Posted by Caedmon on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:24
In reply to Re: Maybe you need this....., posted by bassman on April 22, 2006, at 10:30:32
On that humorous note, more Onion:
Pfizer Launches 'Zoloft For Everything' Ad Campaign
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28349- C
Posted by Caedmon on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:24
In reply to Re: The Myth of neurosis » vale, posted by madeline on April 22, 2006, at 5:54:24
> Third, I will also readily admit that our whole understanding of the mechanism of anxiety, depression and stress is subjective. Who is really to say how MUCH stress a person has? But our understanding is getting better and one can not discount the physiological mechanisms that underly these subjective symptoms.>>
Yeah this is one of the biggest problem (maybe THE biggest problem?) w/ DSM criteria, it is all so self-reported. But then again, who knows you better than yourself?
> And that's why, I think it is really important to NEVER ascribe a blanket "you're not really sick at all" to people that report anxiety, stress or one of the more generalized symptoms. Everyone is different and requires different things.>>I agree.
- C
Posted by aabag on April 23, 2006, at 0:35:24
In reply to The Myth of neurosis, posted by vale on April 21, 2006, at 16:28:23
That's like saying DNA is a myth, so is RNA, so are genes, and so are the proteins made from them. Are they a myths too? Neurosis is an expansive, imprecise term, which, as it turns out, covers a variety of environmental and genetic interactions. So, to say it is a myth is really to say nothing at all, or enough to sell an ancient screed. We find out each week, it seems, the degree to which knock-out genes drastically effect behavior. Some people are pre-disposed by virtue of their genetic structure to have brains wired and cosntructed different each from the next. In fact, some of these come out in the form of Downs symdrome or the like. That's a myth too, right?
Posted by curtm on April 24, 2006, at 16:57:36
In reply to Re: The Myth of neurosis (is not a myth), posted by aabag on April 22, 2006, at 12:53:59
Thanks to all of you for showing that you truly are different and unique; and are not afraid to express it. I have to side with the scientific, not the philosophic, on this one, too.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
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.