[altonwoodsdrphil]

That's a lovely term is'nt it? It's a term in psychiatry used for medications which are used to control behavior and thought processes. These medications result in an emotional "flat line." You don't feel good, you don't feel bad, you just exist...Used to be that in psych hospitals they used psysical restraints but they don't do that so much anymore, or they used electro-shock therapy, even frontal lobotomyy's. I'm tired of reading posts on this site from people who are being subjected to this form of treatment. I refuse to believe that this is the best we can do for people. Are there times when they are called for? YES! but whats happened thru the over-prescription of them has done so much more harm to people than good. I'm not laying all of this at the feet of drug companies and psychiatrists, there's our health care systym, and finally the people themselves who take the drugs expecting them to fix their problems without being willing to do the cognitive work in therapy critical to restoring mental health. If thats you, I urge you to take an objective look at your goals involving any meds you are on. IN NO WAY AM I SAYING THAT YOU NEED TO QUIT TAKING THEM!! I just really am interested in seeing people get the help they need, and I feel like I have to say something because it's not happening enough...

[perpetuallysad]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
altonwoodsdrphil said:
... finally the people themselves who take the drugs expecting them to fix their problems without being willing to do the cognitive work in therapy critical to restoring mental health. If thats you, I urge you to take an objective look at your goals involving any meds you are on. IN NO WAY AM I SAYING THAT YOU NEED TO QUIT TAKING THEM!! I just really am interested in seeing people get the help they need, and I feel like I have to say something because it's not happening enough...

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post"> (I added the emphasis)

I am new to posting here, so I don't know if its good for me to just jump into this...but here it goes.

I find it very difficult to see that this entire post isn't extremely judgmental and entirely unfair. Are you a psychiatrist? physician? Have you gone to medical school? Since I am familiar with only my own physiology and brain, I can only use this as a reference point. For me, my mental health problems started from as young as I can remember. Literally from 5 years old I have these notebooks where I would scrawl, in my first grader handwriting, how I felt alone and I thought no one loved me and I felt like I had no friends and on and on. Truly heartbreaking stuff to read knowing it was from the mind of a tiny 5 year old girl. My entire life (I'm 32) has been an agonizing and constant struggle to maintain a tenuous grip on sanity. And at the same time, being born with a mental medial problem, I also grew up in a very hard family life, culminating with my brother committing suicide when he was 16 and I was 18. Even after I left my home tons of things happened, both good and bad, but the constant was my never-ending battle with my mental health. Not until just 2 short years ago did I ever even consider going to a psychiatrist and I have found relief; from both the medicines and the therapy. As I have a physiological medical problem as well as having suffered from serious traumas most of my life, I think it is quite necessary to take medications to try and sort out the malfunctions of my brain. Cognitive therapy is a very useful tool, but for someone who has chemical deficiencies, its insulting for people to basically say "get over it". No amount of therapy is ever going to make my brain create the correct chemical combinations. Just like no amount of cognitive therapy is going to make a diabetic produce the correct amount of insulin.

[altonwoodsdrphil]

I welcome you to PC, I would like to address your response. You say that you've found relief from therapy and meds, GREAT! thats what I want for more people to be able to say. You've been battling the stigma of your illness and i understand why you think I'm saying "just get over it" (people are un-kind) which I am not...however, I personally have seen people lifted out of depression, anxiety, cancer, diabeties, simply from prayer! what am I supposed to do? just keep my mouth shut? What I was refering to in my post is the irresponsible use of tools like drugs and how people are'nt willing to do the work involved in not just stablizing brain chemicals but learning to have diffrent perceptions which can over time establish new less bumpy roads in their brains...so I guess we disagree there. you seem like an interesting and obviously articulate person, and I appreciate you "jumping in" here! maybe we can talk some more.

I think the initial poster accepted that meds were useful in SOME cases. As such, I really don't see how your particular experience with meds (which you claim to be good) falsifies what he said.

I also don't see how his post was judgemental or intended to be judgemental.

I personally thought that the effect that he was aiming for was 'empowering'.

Now... How does therapy work for people who have mental illness? Why, by changing their neurology. How else would you suppose it to be effective? We know already that life experiences like learning to cook, being subjected to insults, having close people around us die alter our neurology. And of course the converse holds where having life experiences such as supportive friends, learning how to eat well and exercise and get enough sleep, going to therapy also alters our neurology.

The 'people who are mentally ill need to take their meds just like the diabetic needs to take their insulun' analogy is only as good as psych medications are shown to be comperable to insulun in treatment response. I think that the situations that the initial poster is alluding to, however, aren't situations in which a person takes psych meds and then is 'normal' and continues on functioning (like someone who takes insulun). Rather, he was talking about the cases where people are on 'maintenence' treatments where those maintenence treatments simply don't produce a good level of functioning and integration into society etc.

'Chemical lobotomy' is another term that was used for anti-psychotics in psychiatric circles. The discovery of chlorpromazine (in the 60's) was hailed as a breakthrough in psychiatric treatments precisely because (it was alledged) that it had all the benefits of a lobotomy for clinical management (e.g., lack of independent action) with the added bonus of being reversible once the medication ceased! Unfortunately, the development of tardive diskinesias and dementias undermined the 'reversibility' aspect considerably... But interesting that the effects that anti-psychotics were praised by clinicians for was their ability to grossly sedate people.

[vulnerome]

I think that it very much depends on the individual and the med and what else is going on. Obviously doctors and patients do need to be responsible.

For me the meds I am currently on make me feel great. They haven't cured me, but they have allowed me to experience what it is like to be ok, which was a huge help as I had given up all hope of that. Duloxetine, however, really was just like a chemical frontal lobotomy and seriously got in the way of therapy. Back on my original meds now and already starting to have emotions again.

That said, I can see situations where drugs that have this effect can be useful to patients who need a period of respite from extreme pain. Sadly some people need that their entire lives just to survive and the best that can be hoped for is a limited functionality because that is better than the alternative.

[bchlyn]

i am curious about which medications you are referring to as chemical restraints?... i struggle with panic disorder and have tried lexapro and wellbutrin... they worked for awhile but then they seem to have an adverse effect... it maybe just the anxiety over powering them...so to speak... anyway i stopped taking wellbutrin about 3 months ago... i have xanax for when the panic attacks get to much for me to handle...but i don't like taking them... soooooo the doctor wants me to try abilify... which when i googled it seems extreme for panic disorder... i don't have a dx of bipolar or schizophrenia... so taking an anti psychotic... is extremely frightening... i haven't taken it and at this point don't intend too...lyn

[altonwoodsdrphil]

if it says "anti-psychotic" then I'm with you as far as not wanting to take it...am I exibiting behaviors that would cause me to be a danger to myself or others? do I suffer from such profound delusions that I am likely to endanger myself or others? personally, if the answer to these questions is no I would'nt take them. thats just me...(and you apparently) I'd be curious to know if you feel you are making progress with your therapist, is he helping you to better manage your anxiety producing thoughts/perceptions? helping you identify your triggers? pm me if you like.

Well... I have decided to "jump" into this thread.. because it is something I feel very strongly about...

and hey... an opinion.. is just an opinion... so can not be right.. or really wrong.... as it is just a viewpoint....

I come from an "age and time"... when meds were not available... and also... when meds when they were... were under precribed...

so... I am thankful... very... thankful for the psych meds that I have today... I am not "flatlined"... I have a "full range of emotions"... I take an anti-depressant... that also controls anxiety..

and I don't feel that docs or patients are taking the "quick" routes.. and not doing the "work"....

I believe.. there is just so much turmoil... and stress in the world today... that it the environment in which we live is "out of control"...

and the meds are the result of that...

yes, we need as a "whole"... to change the world in which we live in... but that will take time...and in the meantime.... there needs to be help for people.. that need to work.. to take care of families... to live...

the mentality of... my MD... was no... you cannot have ambien.. it is habit forming... and no... you cannot have valium because it is habit forming...

the point on these two drugs... is the refusal of help that I needed.. that was necessary for.. the quality of my life...

so.. my pdoc... prescribes both... I sleep at night... with ambien/trazadone combo...

and the valium... keeps my anxiety level... at a normal range.....due to such increased adrenal in my system.

Now... I could be working years... to change my anxiety level... and my sleep... wouldn't know how to change that... because I have a sleep phobia - I know that every time I lay my head on the pillow... I will have a horrific nightmare....so.. sleeping.. isn't my favorite thing to do...

And... I do believe in the power of prayer... and I certainly believe in therapy... but meds.... are good...
just like pencillen was... all those many years ago... just as the polio.. vacination... was...

My... life has been changed.. for the betterment.. by meds....

and no I do not believe they are over prescribed.. they are used as a tool to help people... help themselves..

[vulnerome]

I'm not sure that one should discount a med purely because it is classed as an anti-psychotic. At lower doses they are known as mood stabilisers and can aid with unpleasant levels of anxiety. I'm on a low dose of risperidone and have found it great., with no flattening, just greater stability.

Obviously things still need to be worked on in therapy, but it allows me to be funtional enough to get to therapy and to engage with it.

[wickedwings]

eeeps! chemical lobotomy. holy sh$t! i went through that for a year. chemical lobotomy........ holy h@ll.

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...

[splitimage]

I have a love hate relationship with my anti-psychotic, risperidone. I'm on 3 mg a day. In the ways that it's helped me, I no longer dissociate, I'm no longer paranoid, and I no longer wake up from horrible nightmares, thinking that they are still real and then spend hours thinking people are trying to kill me. When I went up to 3 mg from 2 mg, it was like i had hit some magic threshold - in a lot of ways it was like waking up from a 19 year sleep. I could plan the future again, and begin to think rationally about what I wanted to be doing. On the downside - it definitely makes me emotionally flat, enough so that it was recommended that I get communications coaching to appear more emotionally engaged during job interviews, and sometimes I feel like my brain is fighting against itself with ideas that want to come out, but just can't quite. On the balance though, I think I'm happier on them than not. Can I see a day when I might not need them? Maybe. I'm in therapy and practice meditation which I find helps me a lot. I also do a lot of self help reading and practice. I'm also on high dose anti-D's and anti-anxiety meds, and I do sometimes worry about the long term effects, but for now I'm viewing them as necessary to keep me healthy enough to do the work I need to do in therapy.

--splitimage

[sunrise]

(in reference to alex_k's post)

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
alexandra_k said:
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.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">I especially like how you described this, alex. So true, so true. Many people go off their ADs and don't realize they will feel depressed at first as their brain readjusts to the "no med" situation by upregulating their serotonin receptors (in the case of the SSRIs). So they feel depressed and then go right back onto their ADs again. The brain needs time to readjust. Probably several months off of the ADs is a fair trial to see if one is still depressed or not "under there." (Of course, if a person is going to harm himself, resuming the meds quickly is probably the best course!) This also highlights the need to go off the ADs very gradually, to give one's brain chemistry a change to adjust.

[bchlyn]

so how long does it take to know? i stepped down off my AD very slowly... i have been completely off for about 2 or 3 months... over the holiday's i had a major crisis hit... and my panic attacks/& flashbacks seemed to take on a life of their own... even during my sleep... i really don't want to go back on the meds...but, during the worst of it... i was a mess...i have never felt like they were going to dibilitate me to the point that i couldn't continue to work... which only caused them to get worse...right now they are still happening...but most of the time i can get myself grounded somewhat safely... i need to be honest here... i si... and that is why my t is concerned...but i haven't seen any change in the urges on or off my medication... and actually i have only followed through one time in almost 3 months...prior to that i was in a really bad cycle...i haven't ruled out going back on AD...but i am afraid of the abilify... i do plan to speak with my med doc at my appointment in march...lyn

[embarassed]

Alexandra_k,

Well, I think that meds certainly are not the answer in every situation.

But I am not sure I would go as far as to call them a chemical restraint.

For me, in my experience, having been on meds, then off them, and then back on... I do WAY better on meds than off. Including an antipsychotic which makes it so I am no longer afraid of everything around me and having flashbacks, SI urges are lessened, and my distorted thinking becomes much clearer.

I wouldn't say that I am much of a danger to myself or others, but I certainly suffer when I don't have my meds.

I also think this is a very very sensitive topic, as some people who truly do need meds so as to not be a danger to others or themselves may read this and misinterpret it as proof or a reason to quit their meds. Quite often those that are experiencing things like psychosis or rapid mood cycling and mania will feel like they no longer require there meds, when in fact the meds are working preventatively to make sure things do not get worse again.

[Danialla]

I have avoided this thread so far because I have very strong opinions on this subject and because I felt that the title was very inflammatory to begin with. I was hoping that it would just go away on its own. Unfortunately it hasn't, so here goes...

First, if someone is posting in a "supportive" mental health community, for the purpose of educating those members with their own mental health issues or who are dealing with a loved ones MI, why would you use such an inflammatory title?? Why would you use a title that just perpetuates the stigma we deal with from others or continue to heap on ourselves at are lowest???

Why would you bury your "support" for those of us who have had a positive experience with the use of medication, within the same paragraph where you use the terms such as "emotional flat line" & "frontal lobotomy"?? HMMM... Doesn't sound very supportive to me. But hey, I'm on medication and my thought processes are "controlled" right?

Anyway, let me say that medication has been a life saver, literally! I have been treated off and on for the past 30 years. I was hospitalized in the mid 70's when the only medications out there were the major tranquilizers. I had ECT and the hospital pdoc even floated the idea of a lobotomy past my parents, I was 16. Yes, those were the days....

I did try life without medications, many, many times. I have gone years without medications. They were not good years, not for me or my loved ones. I have had therapy and continue to have therapy on a as needed basis for years. We discuss my fear of the stigma of mental illness. We discuss the years I made my family miserable and my guilt over not following the doctor's suggestion to take medication. Trust me, I should have! Having clear thought processes would have made the world of difference in my life. I would have had many less regrets...anyway.

My diagnosis is "Major Depression with Psychotic Features". Now, I take medication daily and yes and one of those is even a dreaded "anti-psychotic". I have a family who still loves me, I work full-time in an intellectually stimulating job that I love and I haven't had a relapse in 5 years. Are my thought processes "controlled"? No, but they are definitely much clearer and more organized. Is my behavior controlled? No, but I am less likely to attempt suicide on my medication. Am I "emotionally flat lined"? No, but I will say that at times, when I have had to have medication adjustments, I do sometimes go through a period of fatigue until my body adjusts. A small price to pay for continued good mental health.

In closing, are psychiatric medications sometimes over prescribed..... probably. Are there some people who are prescribed anti-cholesterol meds when a life style change would be enough.... probably. Are there people with Type 2 Diabetes that are prescribed meds when a life style change again would be enough ..... probably. The only real difference is that with the hot topic of mental illness, we, those of us who brave the stigma and seek treatment, are not only fighting ourselves, but have to justify our need for medications in threads like these.

> I felt that the title was very inflammatory to begin with.

The American Psychiatric Association hailed anti-psychotics as a signfiicant breakthrough precisely because they (were alledged) to act as a chemical straightjacket. When they said that that was how anti-psychotics acted they certainly didn't intend to be inflammatory. They meant to be descriptive. They meant to be describing their action. All the benefits of a lobotomy with the bonus of being reversible (though that aspect hasn't worked out so well).

That isn't being inflammatory. Or at least... Not more inflammatory than the American Psychiatric Association was when they were (intending to be) raving about the benefits of these new medications.

> Why would you bury your "support" for those of us who have had a positive experience with the use of medication, within the same paragraph where you use the terms such as "emotional flat line" & "frontal lobotomy"??

Well... Why would you bury your "support" for those of us who have had a negative experience with the use of medication?

I think the idea is that this forum is mostly PRO drugs / medication. I thought that the poster was (fairly refreshingly) posting from the other side of that.

> I had ECT and the hospital pdoc even floated the idea of a lobotomy past my parents, I was 16. Yes, those were the days....

Yeah. A chemical lobotomy. Lucky you (literally).

> In closing, are psychiatric medications sometimes over prescribed..... probably. Are there some people who are prescribed anti-cholesterol meds when a life style change would be enough.... probably. Are there people with Type 2 Diabetes that are prescribed meds when a life style change again would be enough ..... probably.

I agree that it isn't only psychiatric medication that is over prescribed.

I do think that there is a significant difference with the efficacy of medications with known mechanisms of action vs psychiatric meds, however. I think that the diabetic and insulun metaphor is only as good as the relationship between psych disorders and their medications - and the relationship isn't anywhere near as good.

We hear a great deal about how 'mental illness isn't anybody's fault it is irreversible and genetic' and 'it wasn't their fault they have a mental illness they didn't have any volountary control over that at all' and so on.

In one respect those above descriptions are... Liberating. Destigmatising (perhaps)

In another respect those above descriptions are... A life sentance. Stigmatising.

Depends on your thoughts on the issue, I guess.

I think we hear a lot about the former line (I have something like diabetes that I have no control over). Liberating for some - stigmatising for others.

I took this thread to be posting in support of those who feel stigmatised.

There are many others here who post in support of those who feel liberated by being categorised and being told they have a mental disease just like diabetes...

You don't have to justify the efficacy of your meds. But then... I don't have to justify the inefficacy of my experiences with meds either.

[Seraph]

I think chemical restraints can be a good idea. "Just existing" IMHO is better than taking your life to escape the pain which tragically, far too many people do.

[spiritual_emergency]

<blockquote>
Danialla: I have avoided this thread so far because I have very strong opinions on this subject and because I felt that the title was very inflammatory to begin with. I was hoping that it would just go away on its own.

I'm never comfortable when I see this particular subject degenerate into opposing camps. The absolute truth of the matter is that some people identify medication as being enormously helpful to them and do not feel they could have made the turnaround they did without it. Other people identify medication as not being helpful to them and may even feel that it has harmed more than it has helped.

There is no right answer on this one, there is only your answer. If you identify medication as being personally helpful to you, you should continue to take it without apology. If you find medication to be unhelpful, you should certainly explore alternative forms of dealing with whatever symptoms you experience.

That said...

Regardless of which "camp" you might find yourself in, everyone agrees that medication comes with side effects, some of which can be quite severe. Therefore, everyone can surely see the wisdom of thoroughly investigating whatever medication you are taking or are interested in taking. Without that investigation you cannot make an truly informed decision and you are entitled to that.

It's also acknowledged that medication is big business and even though you may find meds to be helpful, that doesn't mean that the corporation that produces it has your best interests at heart -- Eli Lilly, Zyprexa and Diabetes comes to mind. Therefore, consumers are right to press for accurate and unbiased reporting so that they have the information they need to make their own best decision.

It's further acknowledged that people in crisis benefit from empathic human care and that's not the equivalent of writing a prescription. I've heard this complaint numerous times: My doctor doctors my prescription, not me. Regardless of how helpful a pill may be it is not the totality of what most people need to move into recovery. Medication is only one tool in the tool box; it's not the entire box.

Meantime, let's not beat each other over the heads about this issue. There is always going to be two camps because people are different. People who take medication have insights into that specific medication that others can benefit from. If it helps you, it just might help someone else so share what works (or doesn't work) for you.

However, people who don't take medication also have something valuable to offer because they may have found alternative coping methods. This knowledge is beneficial for those in both camps.

I wondered when you were going to show up on this thread :-)

Sensible take on the issue, I think...

[sunrise]

I didn't realize that by posting to this thread I was going to be cast into one of two camps. I'm not in either camp--I am just in favor of people getting as much information as they can. Meds help some people, but not others, and some people somewhat, etc. I tend not to see the world as either black or white so can read many views and understand that there is truth in them all. I hope my short post on how the brain needs time to biochemically adjust when ADs are stopped was informative and useful. It was not intended to be judgmental, just informational.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Rainbowzz wrote:
I also think this is a very very sensitive topic, as some people who truly do need meds so as to not be a danger to others or themselves may read this and misinterpret it as proof or a reason to quit their meds.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">Rainbowzz, I definitely understand what you are saying, and I certainly don't favor those people quitting their meds and endangering themselves and others. Yet I still don't favor withholding information just because some people might misinterpret it. I think it is better to just aim to be as clear as possible to minimize potential misunderstanding.

[Danialla]

I agree that this subject should not be seen as a black and white issue. The entire medication issue is a rather personal one. What works for some, whether it be certain medications, only medications, medications and certain types of therapies, etc. (you get my point) may not work for others We are all different, we have all had different experiences, so we all bring different and very personal perspectives to this topic. That's okay, but people posting in a community like this need to be aware and respectful of that too.

What I really found offensive was the title of this thread. In my opinion it was needlessly inflammatory. Add to that the references to "physical restraints, ECT, frontal lobotomies", etc. being compared to and found the same as the use of medications, for the sole purpose of " controlling your thoughts and behavior" Come on, talk about perpetuating the stigma of mental illness.

Now some will argue whether mental illness is really an "illness". Expressing the view that medications are only a crutch, you use them because you obviously are not working hard enough in therapy..... you all do have the time and money to go to therapy right??? That a doctor's sole purpose in prescribing these evil medications are only to "control" your thoughts and behaviors.... maw ha ha ha. Please.....

Everyone should find what works for them, whether it be medications, therapy, a combination of the two. But nobody should be made to feel that the choices they make, and that work for them, are in anyway the "wrong" choices, because it isn't "your" choice. Everyone should be an educated consumer, and also be comfortable with the fact that what works for some, does not necessarily work for all.

For me, medication has been a ray of hope. It has allowed me to have a family, to keep a job, to really enjoy life. Without medication my thought process gets disorganized (that is the worst part), my depression becomes unbearable, and my suicidal thoughts become overwhelming. For you it may be different......but That is okay.....because we are different.

[spiritual_emergency]

<blockquote>
sunrise: I didn't realize that by posting to this thread I was going to be cast into one of two camps.

sunrise, I hope you can appreciate that I was responding to Danialla specifically because she was taking an opposing viewpoint. Ideally, there is more than two camps but if we find the conversation is drifting into two opposing viewpoints, it's often because it's separating into those camps of pro-medication and anti-medication.

Danialla: What I really found offensive was the title of this thread. In my opinion it was needlessly inflammatory. Add to that the references to "physical restraints, ECT, frontal lobotomies", etc. being compared to and found the same as the use of medications, for the sole purpose of " controlling your thoughts and behavior" Come on, talk about perpetuating the stigma of mental illness.

Can you consider for a moment how your comment might be interpreted by someone who has been physically restrained, received ECT, had a lobotomy, or felt that they had been "chemically lobotomized"? When someone makes reference to these actual acts that have happened in their life or other people's lives, are they really perpetuating the stigma of mental illness or are they trying to raise awareness?

This is where it can be helpful to take a look at not only what treatments are used but also, why, and how those specific treatments came into use in the first place.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>

In the early 1950s, chlorpromazine--marketed as Thorazine--was introduced for the treatment of psychotic disorders. Initially, physicians praised it for producing a "chemical lobotomy," and noted that it also produced symptoms similar in kind to the encephalitis lethargic virus. It was seen as a drug useful for quieting asylum patients, and not as a "cure" for psychosis. However, over the next decade, the drug underwent an image makeover (which was driven by the pharmaceutical companies), and by the early 1960s chlorpromazine and other newly introduced neuroleptics were hailed as "safe, antischizophrenic" medications.

Source: Mad in America


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Antipsychotic medication was initially marketed as a chemical lobotomy because it produced a similar deadening of responses. Because it was chemically induced however, the treatment was perceived to be "more humane" than the surgically induced frontal lobotomy, which was itself considered to be more humane than treatments such as metrazole convulsive therapy. Marketing techniques for new therapies are nearly always based on the deficiencies of the old ones. For example, the new antipsychotics were presented as superior to the old ones because they produced less neurological side effects like tardive dykinethesia. What we now know is that the new atypicals produce a different kind of damage in some people such as metabolic dysfunction, stroke and pulmonary complications.

Now some will argue whether mental illness is really an "illness". Expressing the view that medications are only a crutch, you use them because you obviously are not working hard enough in therapy..... you all do have the time and money to go to therapy right??? That a doctor's sole purpose in prescribing these evil medications are only to "control" your thoughts and behaviors.... maw ha ha ha. Please.....

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>

Patient groups in the 1960s and 1970s often protested vigorously against the use of the medications, and fought in court for the right to forgo such treatment. What made their protests particularly powerful was that they came at the same time that the Soviets were using neuroleptics to punish dissidents.

Source: Mad in America


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Historically, psychiatric medication (and treatments) have been used to control other people therefore it's not false to point that out. It may not be true in your own experience but that doesn't mean it's not true of the experiences of others.

From a slightly different perspective, a woman once told me she hated me because I had recovered without medication. I can't think of any valid reason why that should inspire hatred. In her case, I suspect she decided my non-medicated recovery meant I was in "the enemy camp. I think it also brought up some fears of her own that maybe there was something "wrong" with her or her loved ones if they couldn't do the same and she felt a need to defend that. Meantime, I was only trying to speak from my own experience but I was shut down for doing so.

We seem to be in agreement that we are all different and the most effective treatment is the one that works for that person. But we shouldn't blind ourselves to a wider reality either. There is plenty to get inflamed about by the system of care and treatments offered to "the mentally ill". If we don't allow those views to be expressed, we silence and invalidate the experiences of those who might be different from us.

[embarassed]

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Danialla said:
Why would you bury your "support" for those of us who have had a positive experience with the use of medication, within the same paragraph where you use the terms such as "emotional flat line" &amp; "frontal lobotomy"?? HMMM... Doesn't sound very supportive to me. But hey, I'm on medication and my thought processes are "controlled" right?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">I'm also on medication so I can see where you're coming from Danialla but I think you're being slightly insensitive. There are many people who HAVE had negative experiences w/meds. You're discounting the people who HAVE experienced the "emotional flatline" and "frontal lobotomy" symptoms.

I've had caring doctors who tried to work with me as a whole person. I've also had docs who didn't give a sh** about me and simply signed the prescription pad and shoved me out the door after spending two minutes with me. The people on this board have had diverse experiences w/meds, both good and bad. I don't see why you're being defensive. The original poster was just sharing one of many different types of experiences. Everyone is different. What's good for you may be horrible for someone else. Don't discount the people who've had bad experiences.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Danialla said:
I did try life without medications, many, many times. I have gone years without medications. They were not good years.

Trust me, I should have! Having clear thought processes would have made the world of difference in my life. I would have had many less regrets...anyway.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">I can completely relate to that. My meds allow me to think clearly and function normally. I do not feel "drugged up" and my creativity has not been stifled. In fact, I'm more creative because the drugs clear my brain fog and help me think more clearly which allows the "real me" to emerge. I wish I had been treated earlier (not just w/meds but other approaches too). It's hard not to look back and think about regrets and missed opportunities.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Danialla said:those of us who brave the stigma and seek treatment, are not only fighting ourselves, but have to justify our need for medications

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">That's part of the reason WHY I'm so strongly against the overprescribing of medications. Overprescribing/overdiagnosing only creates more STIGMA against people who really have mental disorders.I'm SICK of having to justify my need for meds because of selfish college students pretending to have ADHD, yuppie parents getting Ritalin so their precious little Johnny can get straight A's and idiot docs who distribute pills like Halloween candy. Everyone &amp; their mother seems to be on a psych med these days. As a result, everyone thinks that legit folks like you and me are just jumping on the bandwagon looking for excuses. That's why I don't disclose my condition to people, because they'll probably say, "Yeah right, don't we all have ADHD." Our experiences are trivialized because psych drugs are overused.

Pill-popping needs to be addressed. Many people use pills to deal w/normal life problems. I knew a girl in high school who went on Prozac because she was upset at being rejected from Princeton (Oh gosh, the horror!). There are college students pretending to have ADHD to obtain Adderall to cram for exams and anorexics who use it to lose weight. It's sickening. And unfortunately, sometimes doctors DO use anti-psychotics to make patients more um..."manageable". It's not because they're evil dictators conspiring to "control" people. It's due to the joys of "managed care". Many hospitals are understaffed so doctors &amp; nurses simply don't have enough time to work w/patients. My friend is a nurse and she says this is a huge issue. There's also the insurance issue. Insurance companies aren't very generous about paying for non-pill treatments. Pills are all too often used as a Bandaid solution for our broken health care system. If pills are used, they should be a tool in a comprehensive multifaceted treatment plan, not as the entire treatment plan.

I wish I didn't have to take meds but there's no doubt that I need my ADHD meds. However, I do question my need for ADs. I've experienced suicidal ideation before but I've never actually attempted it. I've had therapy in the past but I can't afford it right now. D*** those evil insurance companies! But that's an entirely different topic. I'll probably moonlight as a waitress for some extra income so I can pay for therapy. I've accepted that I need meds for ADHD but I would definitely like to get off these anti-depressants at some point.