怎么精神病学用药治疗国家
星期四， 2008年4月17日作者查尔斯理发师谈论美国人’不切实际的概念关于幸福。 我们有medicalized不是精神病的很多生活问题。
当我们在黄金时间的电视时现在习惯了处方药商务堰坝，它刺激获悉做广告的这是仅法律的在美国和新西兰。 工业制药没有仅目标美国人直接地，而且花费大致$25,000每位医师每年。 在信息的帮助下从数据采集公司，一个配药代表确切地知道多少张处方为什么疗程医生写了，允许产业单独地瞄准他们。
怎么美国人走向与工业制药的这个忧虑的关系，并且它的药物-特殊抗抑郁剂-是查尔斯理发师的新书主题， 舒适地麻木. 精神健康节目的退伍军人在导致了为最严肃的案件一次预留的普遍规定疗程的流浪者避身处和一位讲师在精神病学方面在耶鲁大学医学院，理发师训练他的眼睛对科学和文化合流。
当神经科学的领域继续搅动新的数据关于方式我们的脑力劳动时，理发师是快提醒我们多少更多将被了解。 理发师与AlterNet最近讲了话对怎样较不性感的治疗象社会干预和疗法可以是正有效在改变脑子。
Onnesha Roychoudhuri ： 什么带领您写书？
查尔斯理发师： 当我在精神健康领域开始了在80年代末期真正地没有一个名字对于什么我。 如果我与专业，教育的人民谈了话，他们不了解精神病学的诊断或疗程。 然后， 10年后，人们是非常在诊断，他们是有同情心的对什么我做着，并且现在有一个名字对于领域： 精神健康。 大多数采取同样疗程我的客户是。 有一系列的事件在设置所有的晚80年代和早期的90年代期间。 主要事是三氮烷和它的表兄弟Paxil和Zoloft，变得完全主流; the TV advertising of drugs in the mid-’90s, well-known figures going public with their clinical depression, and a lot of subsequent pop culture stuff: The Sopranos and A Beautiful Mind, for example. All of this brought psychiatry, particularly medications, into the fore.
OR: Can you talk about your involvement in the mental health field and what it has enabled you to observe?
CB: I fell into the field for a lot of different reasons. I worked in psychiatric homeless shelter programs for about 10 years in New York — Bellevue being the most well-known. So I was working with the really seriously mentally ill, many of whom had been in and out of prisons and state psychiatric facilities and homeless shelters. What I found was that psychiatry, at least for certain diagnoses, has confused the really serious forms of the illness with the far lesser forms. The best example is depression. Many of the folks that I worked with suffered from severe depression. I make the distinction in the book between big “D” depression and small “d” depression. In its severe forms, it’s an absolutely brutal, horrific and malevolent illness where people are at dire risk of hurting themselves.
It’s jarring to go to a cocktail party and hear people talking about being bummed out or hear that they’re going through a divorce, and their family doctor put them on an antidepressant. There has been a confusion and conflation of this diagnosis that confuses serious disorders with far lesser conditions or, in many cases, life problems. We’ve medicalized a lot of life issues that are not mental illnesses.
OR: Just to be clear, this book is not about medication as a “bad” thing.
CB: Absolutely not. I think I make clear in the book that for serious disorders, I’ve seen the medications work really, really well. However, there are often side effects that the field has overlooked and is becoming more aware of these days. And these medications still don’t work a good percentage of the time for people with serious disorders. My critique is that the further you get away from serious or moderate disorders, where you’re treating nondisorders or marginal disorders with medication, the risk/reward calculus of the medications becomes more iffy — particularly antidepressants.
When the SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) antidepressants like Prozac and Zoloft and Paxil first came out, they were considered pretty much side-effect-free, largely because the previous generation of antidepressants had a lot of side effects. But in the past few years, people have become more aware that they have more side effects. These effects are seen most when people are getting on and off the drugs.
OR: You write that, in 2002, more than 11 percent of American women and five percent of American men were taking antidepressants. I was struck by the high percentages, but also the fact that more than 1 in 10 women are on these medications.
See More:Health News USA NewsHave Your Say: How Psychiatry Is Medicating a Nation
Please note, only selected comments will be published.
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 17th, 2008at 9:48 pmand is filed under Surveillance, Civil Liberties & Human Rights News, Culture. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Free Newsletter
Loading ...Related News
- Are We Really That Ill?
- CCTV proves police lied: de Menezes behaved normally before being murdered
- CIA techniques cause serious mental damage
- Police ‘failure’ in Menezes murder
- DNA database threatens civil rights in health care
Latest Headlines
- THE DEBATE: UK Passports - Interview or Interrogation?
- Detainees Allege Being Drugged To Coerce Confessions
- London ANPR mass surveillance snooping
- British government lied about Persian Gulf incident
- Amnesty unveils shock ‘waterboarding’ film
- Earth Day: Is the impact worth the build-up?
- China police “shoot two” in village land protest
- DNA samples taken from polygamists’ kids
- Hunger Plagues Haiti and the World
- Clinton on Iran Attack: ‘Obliterate Them’
More Breaking News
Archive