Depression

[marharth]

Sweetie...I think when talking about the over-use of meds you could in fact cite lots of "fact" sources...but when talking about medications treating depression having real world experience is a HUGE thing.

 

This isn't a political debate....in which if you are a politician wouldn't make your views more valid...if it was a debate on how government OPERATED then being a politician may be valid (and no we can not prove or disprove who is really what but you sound dangerously close to saying that people are making up things and I don't think you really mean that.) But we are talking about the relationship of medications to treatment of a disease....I think having the said disease and the way meds have or have not helped is probably the most valid thing here. Unlike other illnesses that can have measurements it is impossible to measure depression and the impact meds have on it OTHER than by patient reporting.

 

So...um..yeah...maybe you should rethink this one.

 

p.s. Also I would be careful quoting Wikipedia. As it can be handled or mishandled by anyone I never use it as moer than a place to find other links.

Wikipeida quotes all of its sources at the bottom of the page, you can redirect to those sources for everything that is stated as fact.

 

Someone else made a post elsewhere explaining why experience alone is useless, especially on a internet debate forum.

 

You may have experience and that's fine, but you may also have a difference experience then other people. You need to also be able to validate your experiences, not just say you have experience so your right.

 

I hope you understand what I am saying. It is not that having experience doesn't matter, is it that you need to have more then that since you can't prove such experience over a debate forum.

 

No offense intended either, just trying to explain that.

 

But your entire argument is that we should change society as this is the major reason behind the onset of depression and thus the overuse of meds....when not having the depression make an appearence is what should work? Yes?

 

It is an established FACT that many peoples depression is cause by an inbalance of serotonin in the brain. (and I could no doubt drag a million internet facts for this but wont) of course society and social issues can contribute to the onset of depression (i believe it is a combo of factors) and the treatment. To scan everyone's brain is impractical and to follow everyone's seratonin levels as much so. If it is SOCIETY and SOCIAL ISSUES then which ones? How much of an effect do they have on an individuals depression? Why do some people experience a horrible social life and experiences but do not report the same levels of depression as others?

 

You are trying to over-simplify the issue. I do not believe you will ever be able to remove medications from depression treatment. Even if we live in a Utopia there would still be depression because IT IS NOT THE SAME AS BEING DEPRESSED.

 

I understand where you are coming from but part of debate is willingness to concede a point. I don't think there are any right or wrong answers here....but lots of wrong assumptions. Depression and its treatment is complicated. It wasn't so long ago electric shock treatments was considered a perfectly valid way of treating depression. No doubt we will continue to learn better and more effective treatments. However to discount meds in total would be a mistake for the sufferers.

I think I will go ahead and drop out here. I don't think there is enough information either way to completely know. Advancements in brain science will eventually lead to that knowledge.

 

I think medicines will be removed entirely with the advancement of genetic engineering, but the morally of that is for another topic.

[Keanumoreira]

Wait, Marharth does have a point when saying that mental illness' are more common today than they were. I agree with this completely because after the first World War, the shock brought on to the world was more severe than most points in history (I'm saying most because although IMO it was the worst prior to WWII, there could have been something else that I may not be aware of). This brought on the Age of Anxiety where we see a lot of weird characters such as Sigmund Freud and our own society starting to emerge. Obviously the tramau would have been horrific, so you can see where these mental disorders begin to emerge more than they used to.

 

Now, I'm not saying that disorders weren't as present frequentely in the past, because they were. We've got Caligula of the Roman Empire suffering from pyscopathy and depression, brought on by the professionals who say this explains his sexual and murderous attrocities. They said something about Julius Ceaser as well, I believe it was epilepsy? And a few kings too such as one of the Kings of England who liked to kill animals when he was a boy if they were left alone in the castle (I forget his name, but if anyone here is a History expert, please give his name because I can't seem to remember; He was part of the Charels family of the English crown). I think though that some of the more series mental disorders such as Depression and Pyscopathy did develop more commonly between the World Wars and in the society that developed afterwards. Some such as ADD and ADHD, maybe not as much, but possibly.

 

Of course we still have genetics, which I still do agree that it is the main cause of mental disorders, but a great deal too must have to do with society as well.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Keanumoreira

[Lisnpuppy]

I can't say I agree and it is impossible to prove either way. Mental illness was misunderstood as being cursed or as demonic possession. Women were OVER diagnosed with "hysteria" and treated in many odd ways including through sexual gratification in the 1800s. Our society certainly has its issues but the sheer number of abuse incidents, having most of your children die young and perhaps a group of vikings trampling through your subsistence garden would be cause enough to have major onsets of mental illness. Of course I would have hid it if all possible if I was going to get tossed in some of the hospitals during certain times in the past.

 

So is there a higher percentage now of mental illness? I have no idea but I do not think one can claim there was some dramatic growth because of our society and the pharmaceutical industry.

 

I think we can all agree that only the doctor and patient can decide the course of treatment and all factors in determining mental illness and the treatment and possible prevention need to be looked at. Unfortunately less and less money is being used for funding this and the treatment of mental illness (many with these illnesses can not hold down jobs and have no health insurance, fancy that and the government has been cutting public funding for their treatment and assistance every year.)

 

I do not think we should simply dispose of medications because they are over-prescribed especially as there are not yet any other treatment means. Perhaps making these companies spend a certain percent of their money on research....pairing them with educational schools to do studies and things like that...limiting their advertizing especially to the general public...would offer more results in treatment and preventing and also perhaps help with the over-prescribing of the meds themselves?

[Aurielius]

Keanumoreira excerpt:

"And a few kings too such as one of the Kings of England who liked to kill animals when he was a boy if they were left alone in the castle (I forget his name, but if anyone here is a History expert, please give his name because I can't seem to remember; He was part of the Charels family of the English crown)."

 

OK the line of the royal family that your are referring to is the House of Stuart which are:James I (r. 1603-1625),Charles I (r. 1625-1649).Interregnum (1649-1660), Charles II (r.1660 -1685), James II (r.1685-1688), Mary II, William III and (The Act of Settlement). Anne (r.1702-1714). None of which have had the aliment that you describe. can you be any more specific as to what leads you to believe this is attributable to an English monarch? George III was considered to be mentally unbalanced but had no violent tendencies that I can recall, though to any Scot.. Edward II might have been considered somewhat of a sociopath but to any Brit would be a great king. sorry but that is the best I can do for your thesis.

Edited July 23, 2011 by Aurielius

[ginnyfizz]

I think he's actually thinking of Ivan Grozny, aka Ivan The Terrible, of Russia. Our closest to a psychopath would probably have been Henry VIII, and he was not known to torturing animals as a boy. Ivan certainly was, and so come to that was Vlad Tepes of Wallachia, aka The Impaler aka Dracula.

[Keanumoreira]

Keanumoreira excerpt:

"And a few kings too such as one of the Kings of England who liked to kill animals when he was a boy if they were left alone in the castle (I forget his name, but if anyone here is a History expert, please give his name because I can't seem to remember; He was part of the Charels family of the English crown)."

 

OK the line of the royal family that your are referring to is the House of Stuart which are:James I (r. 1603-1625),Charles I (r. 1625-1649).Interregnum (1649-1660), Charles II (r.1660 -1685), James II (r.1685-1688), Mary II, William III and (The Act of Settlement). Anne (r.1702-1714). None of which have had the aliment that you describe. can you be any more specific as to what leads you to believe this is attributable to an English monarch? George III was considered to be mentally unbalanced but had no violent tendencies that I can recall, though to any Scot.. Edward II might have been considered somewhat of a sociopath but to any Brit would be a great king. sorry but that is the best I can do for your thesis.

 

I've read it directly from a history book, and one other time in a library, I just don't remember what his name was.

[kvnchrist]

Could it possibly be stated that the reason that there are so many mental diseases out there is that we have much more time to absorb the happenings of today.

 

I mean 100 years ago most of our time was spent just surviving. We were a much more agrarian society, without the technology we have to aid us today. Could the increase of free time be working against us mentally. And If so, is that an act of nature, and if so, could we use hard work to rid ourselves of some of these illnesses.

 

Just a thought.

[Lisnpuppy]

Could it possibly be stated that the reason that there are so many mental diseases out there is that we have much more time to absorb the happenings of today.

 

I mean 100 years ago most of our time was spent just surviving. We were a much more agrarian society, without the technology we have to aid us today. Could the increase of free time be working against us mentally. And If so, is that an act of nature, and if so, could we use hard work to rid ourselves of some of these illnesses.

 

Just a thought.

 

I think I am done here.

[kvnchrist]

Could it possibly be stated that the reason that there are so many mental diseases out there is that we have much more time to absorb the happenings of today.

 

I mean 100 years ago most of our time was spent just surviving. We were a much more agrarian society, without the technology we have to aid us today. Could the increase of free time be working against us mentally. And If so, is that an act of nature, and if so, could we use hard work to rid ourselves of some of these illnesses.

 

Just a thought.

 

I think I am done here.

Hey, it just popped into my head. I thought it might make things interesting. The topic seems to be loosing speed and I've learned a lot by reading the responses. Plus they can't always be a gem!

[Keanumoreira]

Could it possibly be stated that the reason that there are so many mental diseases out there is that we have much more time to absorb the happenings of today.

 

I mean 100 years ago most of our time was spent just surviving. We were a much more agrarian society, without the technology we have to aid us today. Could the increase of free time be working against us mentally. And If so, is that an act of nature, and if so, could we use hard work to rid ourselves of some of these illnesses.

 

Just a thought.

 

It could be.

 

Some people who stay inside their homes for too long will develop stir craziness (for anyone who doesn't know what this is, it's basically just a form of anxiety). However, stir craziness, I don't think, causes psycological problems, which if it did, is the only thing I can think of that free time could contribute to. So do I think stir craziness causes it? No, but it sounds like an interesting cause should it be true.