I don't think that one should discount a med because of its name either. A well known side effect of 'anti-psychotics' is that they sedate. A little sedation can be of considerable assistance for symptoms of anxiety / agitation.

I know that a lot of people feel that their meds help them. I think that some of those people are correct - that their meds did help them and that their meds continue to help them. I think that some of those people are correct that their meds helped them - but what they don't have to compare with is whether they would have come right over time or whether the continuation of their meds over time is what is responsible for their stabilisation over time. I think that some people are incorrect that their meds helped them - they don't know whether their getting better was a result of their meds or whether they would have come right without their meds.

The difficulty with assessing the above is that if you stop taking your meds your body needs to go through an adjustment time (otherwise known as a 'withdrawal syndrome') where the initial symptoms often present as much worse than before. A lot of people conclude on that basis that they need to take their meds, but what they don't appreciate is that those particular symptoms are the result of their taking the meds and suffering through withdrawal from them.

I agree that meds do help some people. I think that they help considerably with cases where a person is at significant risk of harming others / themselves. I do think that it is better to have a chemical straightjacket than a physical straightjacket. I do see that wards are much more manageable now largely as a result of psychiatric medications.

But I do think that currently they are very much over-prescribed, yes.

Prescription practices of older generation anti-psychotics were only curbed when (about 15 years after their discovery) it became undeniable that they had a significant role to play in patients developing tardive dyskinesias (parkinsonian like movement disorders) and tardive dementias. The pharma companies only acknowledged the medications role in this once the meds were out of patient anyway and they had already started moving on to promote other things. With the majority of meds on the market we simply don't know what the long term effects of prescribing them are likely to be. Well, we know about tolerance and withdrawal already and their mechanisms of action suggest a role for tardive dyskinesias and dementias (and evidence is gradually accumulating on the newer generation medications). But we don't really know...

I think that this is a good reason to be wary... That being said, a little suicide now vs a little dementia 20 years from now... It isn't so very surprising to me that prescription practices take the latter line...

I do think that it is reason to consider medications to be a last resort kind of strategy, however. And reason to give alternatives a really very good go (and reason to consider supplimenting meds with alternatives and weaning from meds) with respect to longer term strategy...