怎麼精神病學用藥治療國家
星期四， 2008年4月17日作者查爾斯理髮師談論美國人』不切實際的概念關於幸福。 我們有medicalized不是精神病的很多生活問題。
當我們在黃金時間的電視時現在習慣了處方藥商務堰壩，它刺激獲悉做廣告的這是仅法律的在美國和新西蘭。 工業製藥沒有僅目標美國人直接地，而且花費大致$25,000每位醫師每年。 在信息的幫助下從數據採集公司，一個配藥代表確切地知道多少張處方為什麼療程醫生寫了，允許產業單獨地瞄準他們。
怎麼美國人走向與工業製藥的這個憂慮的關係，并且它的藥物-特殊抗抑鬱劑-是查爾斯理髮師的新書主題， 舒適地麻木. 精神健康節目的退伍軍人在導致了為最嚴肅的案件一次預留的普遍規定療程的流浪者避身處和一位講師在精神病學方面在耶魯大學醫學院，理髮師訓練他的眼睛對科學和文化合流。
當神經科學的領域繼續攪動新的數據關於方式我們的腦力勞動時，理髮師是快提醒我們多少更多将被瞭解。 理髮師與AlterNet最近講了話對怎樣較不性感的治療像社會干預和療法可以是正有效在改變腦子。
Onnesha Roychoudhuri ： 什麼帶領您寫書？
查爾斯理髮師： 當我在精神健康領域開始了在80年代末期真正地沒有一個名字對於什麼我。 如果我與專業，教育的人民談了話，他們不瞭解精神病學的診斷或療程。 然後， 10年後，人們是非常在診斷，他們是有同情心的對什麼我做着，并且現在有一個名字對於領域： 精神健康。 大多數採取同樣療程我的客戶是。 有一系列的事件在設置所有的晚80年代和早期的90年代期間。 主要事是三氮烷和它的表兄弟Paxil和Zoloft，變得完全主流; 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