# Do you believe in Psychiatry as a science and in meds or not?



## sad vlad (Nov 9, 2013)

Do you think Psychiatry is a ''solid'' science? It is relatively new, keeps on changing the perspective on a lot of topics, is constantly adding new informations that could contradict older ones and fails to provide a good enough explanation to the question: ''What is the cause of my disorder?'' Also, the medication used is usually a trial and error process.

Could people be misdiagnosed and over medicated as a consequence? Where is the line between healthy individuals and mentally ill ones? I've seen plenty of conspiracy theories on psychiatrists and meds prescriptions.

On the other hand, without it, the mental health area would still be in the Dark Ages. Although imperfect, Psychiatry has helped a huge amount of people to better understand their issues and, most importantly, to improve the quality of their lives through medication. Even the most severe mental disorders can be managed to a degree today. Also, it helped reducing the stygmatization of people suffering from a mental issue. 

Like any new science, it's normal to keep on changing and growing. It will take more time to solve the complicated puzzle of the human mind.


----------



## slowlyimproving (Jan 2, 2014)

I think I'm done with meds. They also seem to lower memory.


----------



## sad vlad (Nov 9, 2013)

I found these videos trying to discredit Psychiatry and come up with conspiracy theories:











I see they are both having CCHR behind. According to Wikipedia:



> The *Citizens Commission on Human Rights International* (*CCHR*) is a nonprofit organization whose stated mission is to "eradicate abuses committed under the guise of mental health and enact patient and consumer protections."[1] It has been described by critics as a Scientology front group that campaigns against psychiatry and psychiatrists.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] It was established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz,[10][11][12] and is headquartered in Los Angeles, California.[13]
> The organization holds that mental illness is not a medical disease and that the use of psychiatric medication is a destructive and fraudulent practice.[14] The organization links psychiatry or psychiatrists to school shootings, eugenics, and terrorism


People suffering from Paranoia and some other mental disorders will search for conspiracy theories and such discrediting videos/articles because it would fit their tendency to be skeptical of any sort of treatment. But what is the agenda of organizations like CCHR or Scientology? To bash Psychiatry so people will only trust religions and cults?


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Oh, I suppose it's something of a "science" in the same way that nuclear physics is a science. The real question is do I trust scientists. The answer is no.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

Psychology/psychiatry keep getting in trouble for being out of touch with science and using poor methodology.

If you want a REAL brain scientist then consult someone who works in neuroscience.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Sacrieur said:


> If you want a REAL brain scientist then consult someone who works in neuroscience.


Here's a REAL scientist for ya....










Hence the reason I don't trust them.


----------



## TheDoubtfulGuest (May 14, 2015)

I would recommend The Myth of the Chemical Cure by former psychiatrist Joanna Moncrief . We know little about how psychiatic drugs actually work and they often come with horrible side effects which aren't always made known to you. There is scant evidence that certain mental illnesses are caused by a serotonine or dopamine imbalance, many SSRI's opperate just above the level of a placebo but these drugs do dampen down thoughts and feelings and so give great relief to some. I don't beleive in any conspiracy theories (those video titles did scream Scientology!) but I am concerned with many some aspects of psychiatry. From my time in hospital I was left with the impression that the psychiatrists there were more concerned with making people less of a problem than their wellbeing, I may be wrong. I refused to take the antipsychotic medication prescribed (thankfully I wasn't under section, I left shortly afterwards) and believe I made the right choice for me. I am still taking antidepressants and betablockers. No medication other than betablockers and short course's of benzo's have ever worked for me and I doubt they will. I put the majorty of my progress down to working hard on and challenging the emotions problems that are at the root of my illness with the support of psychologists, nurses, occupation therapist and my fellow mental patients.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Moncrieff


----------



## francisarsenic (May 28, 2015)

Psychiatrist in a former life. Psychodynamic therapy never really helped me, and I didn't think it helped others in the long run. Meds ameliorate but do not eradicate symptoms. Personality disorders are very, very hard to change. Meds can help psychosis (sometimes) and mood disorders (sometimes). Cognitive-behavioral therapy is not magic; it just gets you into a routine of confronting and disputing your distorted thoughts, but it's tough without guidance. Personally, I think the best thing a person who thinks too much can do is manual work to get the mind distracted. If there's nothing to do, do push-ups until you physically cannot. Then a mental peace comes over you. Endorphins, I reckon. And then there's smack.


----------



## zxzdczxz (Jun 2, 2015)

No. Medication only masks the true issue at hand, it rarely ever permanently rids a person of a health issue. Granted, it is possible for some people to take them and have an easier time transitioning into an environment where they can decrease their anxiety and such. It really depends on the person, but I believe people should try to be as self-dependent as possible and only use medication if you feel you have exhausted all your options for improvement.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

sad vlad said:


> Do you think Psychiatry is a ''solid'' science? It is relatively new, keeps on changing the perspective on a lot of topics, is constantly adding new informations that could contradict older ones and fails to provide a good enough explanation to the question: ''What is the cause of my disorder?'' Also, the medication used is usually a trial and error process.
> 
> Could people be misdiagnosed and over medicated as a consequence? Where is the line between healthy individuals and mentally ill ones? I've seen plenty of conspiracy theories on psychiatrists and meds prescriptions.
> 
> ...


Your last sentence summed it up.

Would we be in a worse position without psychiatry/meds? Of course.

The questions you ask apply to many areas of medicine, not just psychiatry.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Oh, I suppose it's something of a "science" in the same way that nuclear physics is a science. The real question is do I trust scientists. The answer is no.


I suspect you don't really trust anyone apart from yourself.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

WillYouStopDave said:


> Here's a REAL scientist for ya....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So one bad apple spoils to the lot?  What great reasoning.


----------



## ExquisiteCorpse (Jul 20, 2012)

I think psychiatry, as in helping people who have mental problems, is a legitimate field of study. However, the way it's set up nowadays is extremely corrupt. The primary goal of the psychiatrist now is to diagnose a patient (lump them into a category), tell them what they think the patient wants to hear, and then sell them pills. 

What is the point of diagnosing someone? There isn't one. It just convinces the patient that their problem is permanent and that they are helpless, and it leaves the therapist looking at them as if they are just like anyone else with that disorder, rather than an individual with unique problems. The pills also re-enforce this permanence. People become so easily addicted to these anti-depressants, stimulants, tranquelizers, etc. and it's just not right. How does this help anyone? Besides the pharmaceutical companies making the money. If someone comes to you with a problem, help them find the source of that problem and help them to work through it. 

To me it is obvious that this pill industry is just the government's way of making money from drug corporations, and a way of sedating the masses. I'm sick of seeing myself and family members screwed over and even more deeply scarred by these people. Yes, people with hallucinations and violent outbursts and other dangerous symptoms may need to take pills, but I think that even in those cases alternative options need to be explored. No one deserves to have to live as a zombie.

P.S. According to all the therapists, counselors, psychiatrists, etc. I went to, I have Major Depressive Disorder, Bipolar Disorder, ADHD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Panic Disorder, and Social Phobia.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

ExquisiteCorpse said:


> I think psychiatry, as in helping people who have mental problems, is a legitimate field of study. However, the way it's set up nowadays is extremely corrupt. The primary goal of the psychiatrist now is to diagnose a patient (lump them into a category), tell them what they think the patient wants to hear, and then sell them pills.
> 
> What is the point of diagnosing someone? There isn't one. It just convinces the patient that their problem is permanent and that they are helpless, and it leaves the therapist looking at them as if they are just like anyone else with that disorder, rather than an individual with unique problems. The pills also re-enforce this permanence. People become so easily addicted to these anti-depressants, stimulants, tranquelizers, etc. and it's just not right. How does this help anyone? Besides the pharmaceutical companies making the money. If someone comes to you with a problem, help them find the source of that problem and help them to work through it.
> 
> ...


I don't agree with that, especially in countries which have national health welfare systems where it's the government that pay of the medicines, not the individual, so it's not in the government's interest to facilitate over prescription. Doctors and psychiatrists in my country at least are actively encouraged to not prescribe mental health drugs and get people to do CBT and other passive therapies instead. It's extremely hard to be prescribed addictive drugs such as benzos in my country for example.

There are also hundreds of millions of people who once diagnosed with a mental condition aren't then stuck with it and it's drug treatment for the rest of their life. It often is just temporary, and they do recover. (I did)

So, there is no issue with diagnosing people as that is a pre-requisite to treatment. Of course efforts should be made to only diagnose people who there is good case for though.


----------



## Retrograde Movement (May 31, 2015)

ugh1979 said:


> I don't agree with that, especially in countries which have national health welfare systems where it's the government that pay of the medicines, not the individual, so it's not in the government's interest to facilitate over prescription. Doctors and psychiatrists in my country at least are actively encouraged to not prescribe mental health drugs and get people to do CBT and other passive therapies instead. It's extremely hard to be prescribed addictive drugs such as benzos in my country for example.


Contrast that to the United States, where prescription drugs are constantly advertised on TV. Also drug companies send representatives to meet with psychiatrists and nurses, to advertise product, give them free stuff etc. I've actually seen these guys come in to the clinic I am a patient at.

I think it is a stretch to call psychiatry in its current state a science. I really question the ethics of it too, where they are experimenting basically on patients who are led to believe that prescribing psych meds is akin to using insulin to treat diabetes. I've heard that analogy in the mouths of so many doctors and nurses over the years. It is far from true that they understand the mechanisms of mental illness and the drugs they are prescribing with anything near the knowledge of diseases such as diabetes. I've had several different psychiatrists admit to me that it is basically "prescribe and see what happens". In my case, they ****ed up my mind and personality real good.


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

Retrograde Movement said:


> Contrast that to the United States, where prescription drugs are constantly advertised on TV. Also drug companies send representatives to meet with psychiatrists and nurses, to advertise product, give them free stuff etc. I've actually seen these guys come in to the clinic I am a patient at.


Indeed the system is far more open to corruption and issue in the US than much of Europe.



> I think it is a stretch to call psychiatry in its current state a science. I really question the ethics of it too, where they are experimenting basically on patients who are led to believe that prescribing psych meds is akin to using insulin to treat diabetes. I've heard that analogy in the mouths of so many doctors and nurses over the years. It is far from true that they understand the mechanisms of mental illness and the drugs they are prescribing with anything near the knowledge of diseases such as diabetes. I've had several different psychiatrists admit to me that it is basically "prescribe and see what happens". In my case, they ****ed up my mind and personality real good.


The trouble is, unlike with many physical conditions where one treatment usually works for the vast majority of patients, mental health drugs can't be predicted to work with anywhere near the same consistency.

That's not an issue with the drugs, it's an issue with the fact we are all different and can have varying reasons for ill mental health which are difficult to accurately diagnose the reason for, so multiple treatments often need to be tried. I know I went through about 5 different treatments before finally settling on CBT instead which was much more beneficial.

Drugs do work for certain people though, so if they help treat issues for some people so be it.


----------



## Melodic (Apr 16, 2009)

sad vlad said:


> Do you think Psychiatry is a ''solid'' science?
> 
> Like any new science, it's normal to keep on changing and growing. It will take more time to solve the complicated puzzle of the human mind.


Yes. Currently imperfect, it'll improve and become more accurate with ongoing research.


----------



## ExquisiteCorpse (Jul 20, 2012)

ugh1979 said:


> I don't agree with that, especially in countries which have national health welfare systems where it's the government that pay of the medicines, not the individual, so it's not in the government's interest to facilitate over prescription. Doctors and psychiatrists in my country at least are actively encouraged to not prescribe mental health drugs and get people to do CBT and other passive therapies instead. It's extremely hard to be prescribed addictive drugs such as benzos in my country for example.
> 
> There are also hundreds of millions of people who once diagnosed with a mental condition aren't then stuck with it and it's drug treatment for the rest of their life. It often is just temporary, and they do recover. (I did)
> 
> So, there is no issue with diagnosing people as that is a pre-requisite to treatment. Of course efforts should be made to only diagnose people who there is good case for though.


I could see how diagnosing would help people if they were at least actually given therapy. But I don't think it should be treated as the #1 priority, and the way it's being down now is ****ed up.


----------



## will22 (Mar 28, 2011)

Melodic said:


> Yes. Currently imperfect, it'll improve and become more accurate with ongoing research.


It could improve, but I disagree on your assessment. For uses other than severe/violent psychosis, it's more than imperfect, but currently actively harmful. Psychiatry might by well-meaning. At it's best, it is concerned with making someone socially useful by any means and stopping at that point. But that seems a bit slave-driving, inhumane, and inconsiderate of human welfare. Where it is concerned with human welfare, it operates in a negative utilitarian fashion that doesn't value happiness.

Psychiatry as a prescription-pushing practice by the nature of how the doctor's are trained is effectively limited to whatever, "medicine", is manufactured and heavily advertised. And that happens to be cures promoted by profit seeking mega-corporations that flood the, "evidence", of their drugs efficacy with only their own studies! I definitely don't think, "ongoing research", in the way that the, "research", is done now will make any improvement.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Melodic said:


> Yes. Currently imperfect, it'll improve and become more accurate with ongoing research.


 I just bet it will........


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

will22 said:


> It could improve, but I disagree on your assessment. For uses other than severe/violent psychosis, it's more than imperfect, but currently actively harmful. Psychiatry might by well-meaning. At it's best, it is concerned with making someone socially useful by any means and stopping at that point. But that seems a bit slave-driving, inhumane, and inconsiderate of human welfare. Where it is concerned with human welfare, it operates in a negative utilitarian fashion that doesn't value happiness.


It's not in doctors remit to increase happiness beyond a point. They can only in practice make people achieve a "normal" level of happiness, as in treating disorders that stop people from doing so.

I'd say they are very much concerned with human welfare, in that they actively treat people to achieve a "normal" standard of human welfare and suffering.



> Psychiatry as a prescription-pushing practice by the nature of how the doctor's are trained is effectively limited to whatever, "medicine", is manufactured and heavily advertised. And that happens to be cures promoted by profit seeking mega-corporations that flood the, "evidence", of their drugs efficacy with only their own studies! I definitely don't think, "ongoing research", in the way that the, "research", is done now will make any improvement.


I disagree somewhat. I appreciate in the US there is a culture of drug promotion to treat X, Y and Z, but in Europe drug advertising is banned, and national health services mean corruption is far lower.

Psychiatrists in the UK for example heavily promote non-drug treatments such as CBT and mindfulness meditation as treatments for anxiety and depression.

That line of treatment is actually a direct response to contemporary psychiatric research. It's proven to be beneficial to many patients and saves money from the public purse so it's win win.


----------



## will22 (Mar 28, 2011)

ugh1979 said:


> They can only in practice make people achieve a "normal" level of happiness


If only psychiatric drugs did such a thing. They actively suppress positive emotion (not just sexual).



ugh1979 said:


> I'd say they are very much concerned with human welfare, in that they actively treat people to achieve a "normal" standard of human welfare and suffering.


I have little doubt that a majority of psychiatrists have good intentions, but they are trained to ignore anything that isn't an officially listed side effect that come from studies produced by the companies that make the drugs. And when there is a deadly, life squandering side effect that a company begrudgingly aknowledges, like for example morbid obesity from Zyprexa, in my experience psychiatric pharmaceutical treatment has this "by any means" attitude that really wrecks a person.

It's good that psychotropic drugs for depression/anxiety aren't first line treatment in some countries. But that they are officially used as treatment at all is just a scandal. The explanation and, "evidence", of efficacy that is fed to the public and doctors (or in the case of your country, just the doctors) is very misleading unless you've introspectively tried the drug yourself. And in the case of the most popular drugs, the "evidence" has been scientifically disproven by depleting people of serotonin, and enhancing serotonin with no effect on the results of standards that measure depression.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8852528
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1089400


----------



## EmotionlessThug (Oct 4, 2011)

Computational neuroscience


----------



## ugh1979 (Aug 27, 2010)

will22 said:


> If only psychiatric drugs did such a thing. They actively suppress positive emotion (not just sexual).


I appreciate you may have had a bad experience with them, but I think it's a reach to say the actively suppress positive emotion. They can and do help some people.



> I have little doubt that a majority of psychiatrists have good intentions, but they are trained to ignore anything that isn't an officially listed side effect that come from studies produced by the companies that make the drugs. And when there is a deadly, life squandering side effect that a company begrudgingly aknowledges, like for example morbid obesity from Zyprexa, in my experience psychiatric pharmaceutical treatment has this "by any means" attitude that really wrecks a person.
> 
> It's good that psychotropic drugs for depression/anxiety aren't first line treatment in some countries. But that they are officially used as treatment at all is just a scandal. The explanation and, "evidence", of efficacy that is fed to the public and doctors (or in the case of your country, just the doctors) is very misleading unless you've introspectively tried the drug yourself. And in the case of the most popular drugs, the "evidence" has been scientifically disproven by depleting people of serotonin, and enhancing serotonin with no effect on the results of standards that measure depression.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8852528
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1089400


I could cite studies which say the opposite.

I totally agree they are less than ideal, and unfortunately do make some people even worse, but establishing that they do more harm than good is very difficult.


----------



## Noca (Jun 24, 2005)

I believe that the average doctor is incompitent and knows a lot less about what hes doing than he would like you to believe. He would like you to believe that he used 3 chalkboards worth of calculations to arrive at your 20mg Paxil script. He would like you to believe that he knows about all the drug interactions for the meds he is prescribing you. He would like you to believe that he will be able to anticipate any side effects or adverse effects caused by the medication he is prescribing, be able to identify them if and when they occur and would also like you to believe that he will be there for you and do something about it if and when that happens. He would like you to believe that hes got your back but none of this is true.

The myth that nearly everyone in society has had rammed down their throats and programmed into their brains is that doctors are all intellectuals, that if you get sick, go to a doctor, that they will find what is wrong with you and cure it. The myth is better known by the following three words; "Trust Your Doctor". The myth grossly misrepresents the average doctor's ability. This myth is perpetuated by doctors who are too busy drowning in their own ego to actually admit it. 

The reality is much different than the myth. It is sort of like "The Matrix", you just can't be told how incompetent and lazy the average doctor is, the only way you will be able to overcome a lifetime of being told otherwise is to get sick and see it for yourself. To look back and realize whatever condition Dr Dumbass was treating you for 5 years ago, he is still treating you for and every new condition since then because you never got better because recovery/rehabilitation is not Dr Dumbasses mission. Once you get sick in the Western medical health care system, you stay sick.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

Noca said:


> The myth that nearly everyone in society has had rammed down their throats and programmed into their brains is that doctors are all intellectuals, that if you get sick, go to a doctor, that they will find what is wrong with you and cure it. The myth is better known by the following three words; "Trust Your Doctor". The myth grossly misrepresents the average doctor's ability. This myth is perpetuated by doctors who are too busy drowning in their own ego to actually admit it.


 Well, yeah. To an extent, that's true. But that's not the real problem. The real problem is that the way most people operate is they will trust anyone who has the right password without giving it a second thought. And that problem goes far beyond this context.

No matter what you're dealing with, generally, if you stick a person with the right credentials in front of people, they will just mindlessly believe anything they say. Or if it isn't in a professional setting (say, for instance, it's a political thing) they will automatically trust anyone who says exactly the right things. This society is mostly geared towards doors protected only by dumb locks that can be opened by anyone who has the right key. We just trust that the wrong people will never get the right keys.



> The reality is much different than the myth. It is sort of like "The Matrix", you just can't be told how incompetent and lazy the average doctor is, the only way you will be able to overcome a lifetime of being told otherwise is to get sick and see it for yourself. To look back and realize whatever condition Dr Dumbass was treating you for 5 years ago, he is still treating you for and every new condition since then because you never got better because recovery/rehabilitation is not Dr Dumbasses mission. Once you get sick in the Western medical health care system, you stay sick.


 Actually, the problem is much bigger than that. Because of the situation I just mentioned, people with all kinds of alternate agendas can simply use their magic keyrings to make an "illness" up and diagnose people with it and no one who matters will ever lift a finger to stop it.

"Mental health" is much more ripe for abuse than most other health fields because really, if you have something like terminal cancer, well, it's pretty obvious. The concept of a mental illness or a disorder is highly subjective in many cases. And there are any number of reasons why someone might be interested in in fabricating a new disorder (or blowing something that's rather common way out of proportion). Profit is one reason but hardly the only one.

And then you have "disorders" that are not (strictly speaking) "curable" without (figuratively) killing the patient. Because for those particular people, the "disorder" is such a deeply rooted part of who they are (and who they want to be) you cannot separate the two.


----------



## Melodic (Apr 16, 2009)

will22 said:


> It could improve, but I disagree on your assessment. For uses other than severe/violent psychosis, it's more than imperfect, but currently actively harmful. Psychiatry might by well-meaning. At it's best, it is concerned with making someone socially useful by any means and stopping at that point. But that seems a bit slave-driving, inhumane, and inconsiderate of human welfare. Where it is concerned with human welfare, it operates in a negative utilitarian fashion that doesn't value happiness.
> 
> Psychiatry as a prescription-pushing practice by the nature of how the doctor's are trained is effectively limited to whatever, "medicine", is manufactured and heavily advertised. And that happens to be cures promoted by profit seeking mega-corporations that flood the, "evidence", of their drugs efficacy with only their own studies! I definitely don't think, "ongoing research", in the way that the, "research", is done now will make any improvement.


I've realised that it must be really bad in the US then because here in Australia, from first hand experience of the public mental healthcare system, it's completely different to what you describe. I can imagine that private psychiatrists might be more inclined to diagnose and prescribe for profit/convenience, but on the flipside there are also a lot of patients who manipulate to get diagnoses, and furthermore, try to get their hands on drugs themselves (the medication section of this website is a small example).

You have to understand that most drugs have side effects, so yes there are potential harms. At best, it helps people control their very real diseases and lead almost normal lives. Pretty sure that's what medicine is designed to do? What do you mean by psychiatry not valuing happiness? Happiness should not come in the form of a pill.

As for your last paragraph, I don't see any advertisements for prescription medications here. Of course there is a lot of bias on the part of pharmaceutical companies, but this fact is well known. Like any large company or corporation that wants to earn money to line its own pockets, pharmaceutical companies are simply a part of this big consumerist and capitalist society. Also, not all research is bad. There are people other than the pharma companies conducting research.


----------



## CheezusCrust (May 23, 2013)

I do believe in psychiatry as a science. Sadly the medications available at this point (such as SSRIs) don't help as many people, say, as an antibiotic for a harmful bacterium. More people who take them are helped than not, but there's still a large percent of people who aren't really helped. I happen to be one of the latter, unfortunately. It's interesting that the poll results are, so far, similar to the breakdown of studies showing how many people are helped by anti-depressants.


----------



## CheezusCrust (May 23, 2013)

Noca said:


> I believe that the average doctor is incompitent and knows a lot less about what hes doing than he would like you to believe. He would like you to believe that he used 3 chalkboards worth of calculations to arrive at your 20mg Paxil script. He would like you to believe that he knows about all the drug interactions for the meds he is prescribing you. He would like you to believe that he will be able to anticipate any side effects or adverse effects caused by the medication he is prescribing, be able to identify them if and when they occur and would also like you to believe that he will be there for you and do something about it if and when that happens. He would like you to believe that hes got your back but none of this is true.
> 
> The myth that nearly everyone in society has had rammed down their throats and programmed into their brains is that doctors are all intellectuals, that if you get sick, go to a doctor, that they will find what is wrong with you and cure it. The myth is better known by the following three words; "Trust Your Doctor". The myth grossly misrepresents the average doctor's ability. This myth is perpetuated by doctors who are too busy drowning in their own ego to actually admit it.
> 
> The reality is much different than the myth. It is sort of like "The Matrix", you just can't be told how incompetent and lazy the average doctor is, the only way you will be able to overcome a lifetime of being told otherwise is to get sick and see it for yourself. To look back and realize whatever condition Dr Dumbass was treating you for 5 years ago, he is still treating you for and every new condition since then because you never got better because recovery/rehabilitation is not Dr Dumbasses mission. Once you get sick in the Western medical health care system, you stay sick.


I've encountered far too many doctors like this. Many of them are religious and recommend pseudoscience such as chiropractic, acupuncture, etc. I go to a doctor expecting someone who cares about science, but no... some (including ones that specialize in chronic pain) are just as gullible and/or ignorant as the general population.


----------



## CheezusCrust (May 23, 2013)

will22 said:


> If only psychiatric drugs did such a thing. They actively suppress positive emotion (not just sexual).
> 
> I have little doubt that a majority of psychiatrists have good intentions, but they are trained to ignore anything that isn't an officially listed side effect that come from studies produced by the companies that make the drugs. And when there is a deadly, life squandering side effect that a company begrudgingly aknowledges, like for example morbid obesity from Zyprexa, in my experience psychiatric pharmaceutical treatment has this "by any means" attitude that really wrecks a person.
> 
> ...


They don't suppress positive emotion. Not sure where you heard that. Nor do they always have side effects that affect sexual desire.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

CheezusCrust said:


> I do believe in psychiatry as a science. Sadly the medications available at this point (such as SSRIs) don't help as many people, say, as an antibiotic for a harmful bacterium. More people who take them are helped than not, but there's still a large percent of people who aren't really helped. I happen to be one of the latter, unfortunately. It's interesting that the poll results are, so far, similar to the breakdown of studies showing how many people are helped by anti-depressants.


 And yet "mental health professionals" still insist that there is absolutely something terribly wrong with all of these people. They just don't know what it is well enough to have the first clue how to "fix" it. But they're pretty sure that a chemical lobotomy is the answer. They just gotta find the right formula.


----------



## CheezusCrust (May 23, 2013)

WillYouStopDave said:


> And yet "mental health professionals" still insist that there is absolutely something terribly wrong with all of these people. They just don't know what it is well enough to have the first clue how to "fix" it. But they're pretty sure that a chemical lobotomy is the answer. They just gotta find the right formula.


Yeah, there is a lot that they don't know. Still, I don't think giving medication is a bad thing... as long as it works. If it doesn't, it's unethical to keep insisting that someone stays on it.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

CheezusCrust said:


> Yeah, there is a lot that they don't know. Still, I don't think giving medication is a bad thing... as long as it works. If it doesn't, it's unethical to keep insisting that someone stays on it.


 I took a basic computer class way back in the early 90s. My teacher liked to say that people who went through his class knew just enough to be dangerous.

That's all shrinks will ever be is dangerous. No matter how much they ever know they will know just as much as they need to know to screw around with people's minds.


----------



## CheezusCrust (May 23, 2013)

ugh1979 said:


> It's not in doctors remit to increase happiness beyond a point. They can only in practice make people achieve a "normal" level of happiness, as in treating disorders that stop people from doing so.
> 
> I'd say they are very much concerned with human welfare, in that they actively treat people to achieve a "normal" standard of human welfare and suffering.
> 
> ...


I feel like the drug-pushing U.S. doctor is actually a rare phenomenon, unlike what the woomeister alternative med practitioners say. This isn't necessarily the case with psychiatrists, but many doctors are actually afraid to prescribe pain meds thanks to over-regulation brought about by charlatans and fearmongers.


----------



## CheezusCrust (May 23, 2013)

WillYouStopDave said:


> I took a basic computer class way back in the early 90s. My teacher liked to say that people who went through his class knew just enough to be dangerous.
> 
> That's all shrinks will ever be is dangerous. No matter how much they ever know they will know just as much as they need to know to screw around with people's minds.


Let's say a person's mind is defective in some way. Is that such a bad thing wanting it fixed? I'm not sure what your alternative would be, but if it's psychologists, not everyone has success with them, either.


----------



## HelpfulHero (Aug 14, 2013)

Not really.


----------

