What meds are you on?

Information about depression and other related health issues (includes medications).

Moderators: windsong, cj-, BlueGobi, Moderators, Frame

Pilule
Posts: 115
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 6:42 pm

What meds are you on?

Postby Pilule » Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:06 pm

What meds are you on?

Does it work?

Frame
Moderator
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:25 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Postby Frame » Sat Oct 05, 2013 2:34 pm

I see a lot of people have taken a look at this post but no one has replied.

I wonder if it's the second question that hangs people up. The first question is easy; but what does it mean to "work"? I think that's a seriously important question when it comes to meds. What is the objective or more thoroughly, what are the objectives; because rarely have I been able to look at any personal issue and see one cause or just one effect. So when we tinker with the cause (visa meds. or any other therapy) the effects are generally manifold some good, some bad, some hoped for, some unexpected.

Alaska1958
Posts: 178
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2013 11:23 pm

Postby Alaska1958 » Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:39 pm

I've used a whole bunch of antidepressants over the last 30 years. Most all have helped some. I can remember what life was like without any drugs and each hour seemed like a torment. Not always of course, but often enough that I still remember how it was.

no_answer
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:24 pm
Location: usa

Postby no_answer » Fri Oct 11, 2013 10:11 pm

The tricky part of meds is the "regression to the mean", i.e. the stabilization of mood disturbance on its own over time or because of some material improvement in the individual situation. The problem is how do you know if the improvement took place thanks to the medication or due to unrelated improvement? After awhile the meds will serve as the placebo (here is the reason why it doesn't matter which one you take to make things better), or like a classical conditioning where the patient's expectation of improvement becomes a self-fulfilling profecy. Nothing wrong with the improvement, but much is wrong with the side effects and the indoctrination of the populace by big pharmaceutical and psychiatric establishment (not to say the don't have any purpose, just that there may be lots of abuse due to the unknowns I referred to).
That's how I self-justify my decision to abstain from meds....but I could be wrong and/or stupid (after all, I do injest caffeine for stimulation or Chamomile tea for relaxation.....are they just placebos?)
The passage of time leaves more and more answers left unquestioned.

Frame
Moderator
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:25 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Postby Frame » Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:24 am

I strongly believe that mood disturbance or (stabilization for that matter) is a reaction to our environment, as mediated through the constructs of our mind, and exerted on our endocrine system. And in that definition is are the physical, mental, and emotion factors. Change in any one of those factors will effect our emotional balance. Any one of those factors can and will modify our feelings of self.

But let us say that we are Howard Hughes; independently wealthy, driven, brilliant, respected, and as life progresses (for what ever reason; diet, genes, childhood,...) increasingly paranoid. This person has the ability to remove outward physical stressors yet internal stressors (mental and chemical) remain. It seems to me, a long dose of talk therapy or mood stabilizers (and I count caffeine and chamomile just as valid as valium, with a longer history of efficacy, and less side effects) or both, are good bet for setting straight someone with means.

Now let us we, in stead, look at a much broader set of people who have physical stressors which don't go away. Perhaps there are physical ailments of their own or loved one which must be attended to each day lest they worsen. People live and work in hostile environments without the choice of leaving each night or even each month. [Medical science would like to treat all men (and women) as equal, but when it discects and isolates symptoms into narrow categories and specific treatments it may gain social equality (obscurity) but loses perspective. And I believe Western Medicine has lost much human perspective as it breaks into ever narrower channels of specificity.] If we simply start a program chemical intervention seeking the right drug at the right dose to lift our mood, we miss the fact that the physical stressors remain which we must react to in order to maintain quality of life. We react to anxiety to keep things together or we watch them fall apart. Unlike with Hughes, the butler won't clean up our mess.

So in the first case of someone already in control of their environment, calming whatever internal storm is raging can improve well being and quality of life. But in the second case these storms of anxiety are what drive our reactions that keep us going, to reach out and help our selves and each other. Using chemicals simply to improve feeling of well being might work today or tomorrow while our physical circumstances erode. But I believe the only permanent fix, if there is one, is to see more clearly, to be aware of our worth as human beings, to see more options more clearly in making daily decisions so that at the end of the day, we know we've done all we could the best we could. Knowledge and awareness, and yes sure even drugs (but not just the ones that help us feel better by hiding the emotional turmoil) as long as they give us clarity and control over our lives, I believe, must go hand in hand with emotional stability.

Frame
Moderator
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:25 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Postby Frame » Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:35 am

Oh, and no-answer, placebo / real : mental / chemical, does it really matter?

Well may be it does. Greg House says; "It's always better to know than not to know." Of course he's just a TV character.

But I've often said [even if tongue in cheek] "Where would we be without our delusions."

Frame
Moderator
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:25 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Postby Frame » Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:11 pm

OK this is interesting:

Ernest Becker wrote:The whole early training period of the child can be understood in one simple way: it is the period in which he learns to maintain his self-esteem in more-or-less constant fashion by ad apting his reactions to the dictates and the possibilities of his human environment. He maintains his self- esteem by avoiding anxiety; and th e anxiety comes from his human environment in the form of disapprobation or the threat of separation from the parents. Thus, he maintains his self-esteem precisely by forming himself into the type of person who need not fear disapprobation or the loss of his succoring objects. . . . This means that he becomes human by learning to derive his self-esteem from symbolic performances pleasing to adults rather than from continued physiological dependence, which becomes displeasing to them. The various styles of human character (or life styles) which can result from this early training can be considered as variations in modes of self-esteem maintenance. Thus, in the most brief and direct manner, we have a law of human development and its explanatory principle (Becker, 1968: 328).

Which tells me that development of self identity is more fragile than I thought. There are many here who have experienced such great trauma in their childhood that I often say to myself, "What have I to complain about" but certain factors apparently (in Becker's view) need to be present in childhood. Even for well fed (and clothed and housed) children, neglect just as well as active abuse can deprive all human being of their identity. And neglect happens in even the most well healed families.

no_answer
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:24 pm
Location: usa

Postby no_answer » Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:17 am

yes, Frame, I forgot how many insightful and original statements there are in Ernest Becker's work. I'm currently re-reading the section on psychopathology later on in the book (I think Chapter 9 or 10).
What amazes me is how obscure the work is, how rarely cited....maybe because of his implied criticism and disillusionment with the scientific method vs what religion could provide.
I hope you are enjoying the reading, not that the things he's talking about are comforting....but it's better to know than not to know, even if not knowing could make us happy....maybe, we aren't here for pursuit of happiness after all (Viktor Frankl might agree)
The passage of time leaves more and more answers left unquestioned.


Return to “Articles and Essays | Medications: Experiences and Advice”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest