Mental Health - Page 7

Of course, the effects of "depression" are real, but that's merely your name for it. It's not "depression" that's just how it's been sliced up to this point. So, for a person that may be able to overcome it by another means, I say that you would be making a large compromise/sacrafice by taking a drug, since the drug is a means to an end and not a cure. That's all I'm saying. It just scares me that so many people are so ready to trust so blindly contemporary medicine and really feel they've got the complete picture. I'm really talking about the people who haven't had to rely on treatment but the people who conceptually agree with it. People who really think that science has it licked are deluded. There's a hell of a lot more going on so when someone says "it's depression, it's depression," it's really annoying.

And, I'm not minimizing anyone's struggles because they use medication. I empathize with you and just wanted to suggest that Western psychology is not the end-all-be-all which it sometimes thinks it is.

Has anyone read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? How things are neatly classified by "Phaedrus' knife" smaller and smaller but never getting to the truth. That's what this is.

For the record, throughout this whole thread, I've said that medication has a niche and is useful. But I think it's hilarious that someone called someone a Scientologist because he doesn't like medication. What a ******.

Wow - and of course you have the medical training to back this opinion up?

Head-fi, sending medical science back to the dark ages since 2006.

Once again, I'm not saying that psychology/psychiatry is not useful. But that's all it is (or can be). It's the latest theory based on empirical reasoning and if a new theory came about, that one would be endorsed, the old one bastardized, and the new theory would be the new fact. People used to think the world was flat and that was fact. The same kind of "fact" we have here.

I'm not saying someone with "depression" does not have a chemical imbalance. But the chemical imbalance in not the disease, it's the symptom of something larger. So to treat that imbalance is ok if necessary, but to say you're treating a disease I strongly disagree with. You're treating a symptom.

OK, OK, I see the light now: Western medicine has gone hopelessly astray. The TRUTH is:

1. You can generalise from a sample size of one. Your conclusion is then even more valid than all medical journals because this frees you from capitalist greed and political prejudice.

2. It is OK to appropriate medical entities (e.g. migrane) to describe conditions that has never been assessed by a trained professional, because, you know, I know my body best. And the fact that I know my body automatically grants me knowledge to any human body in this world. Even Western medicine dares not lay this claim.

ENLIGHTENMENT does come from unlikely sources.

Since you brought it up, though, why don't you explain how big money has not led mental health care down a pill-friendly avenue and how the pharmaceutical industry doesn't have a vested interest in disorder.

Did I say anything remotely like that? Did I even resent pharmaceutical companies and health care system turning in a profit? That someone does his job for gain doesn't mean he does it badly -- on the contrary, only if he does it well can he expect to make money.

In a highly competitive and research intensive field like pharmaceuticals, it just doesn't pay to "brush up" data to promote a product. For one, flaws in research papers are open to scrutiny when the papers are published, and drug companies that allow researchers to temper with their data are risking their reputation and their research investment. Also, there is an excellent chance that rival companies come up with compounds that treat the same condition, and your product will be in open competition with theirs in the market. Given a few years' time, which product really works will be quite apparent.

What has been said about modern medicine/pharms is equally applicable to "alternative" healers. If acupuncture, for example, is widely accepted as an effective cure, in no time at all people will be grumbling about "the Needle Mafia" having a financial agenda. We'll see best-selling books purporting to debunk acupuncture's shaky philosophical assumptions and false promises, while advocating in its place even more "alternative" form of cure.

Please, for the sake of the OP, let's get back on topic. I have little doubt he would find the current ongoing debate helpful. It would be a disappointing reflection of Head-Fi's maturity if this thread were to be locked.

Depression is transitory/episodic (but recurring). If that is what you had, yes, it would likely lift over time on its own, but via medication, the severity of your suffering and its duration could have been curtailed. That is the advantage of medicine. Also, once one has suffered from a genuine bout with depression, he/she should be prepared to go through it again, it recurs throughout one's life, I'm sorry to inform you.

It wasn't transitory in nature, they were conditions that plagued me nearly every single day from junior high school through college, that is quite a long period of time, I wouldn't call that a bout of anything, but a plague of it. I have had no recurrences well over 5 years now from any of the mental aspects, but the odd migraine or stomach pains, but the occurences are quite rare.

Plainsong, I have never in my life passed judgment on high about anyone or anything. I am relaying my story, which I have little to no doubt whatsoever would have been officially diagnosed for one mental disorder or another. I have friends who have had various symptoms far less severe than I that have been on medications for years now. I offer my story to show that it is possible to change your life without the necessity of professional care and/or lifelong medications. I am a very ordinary individual, and if I can drastically change my life, many others can as well, but thank you for passing your judgment on high about me being "narrow-minded". The open-minded are so "open" to alternative opinions, it never ceases to amaze me.

If anyone had bothered to read my initial post, they would know I do believe there are cases of actual mental illness, and those individuals truly do need medications. The vast remainder, are self-inflicted, usually caused by outer stresses (society in general).

OIC, I hope you find what works for you, I found mine. I'm not saying that to be sarcastic either, regardless of what you believe, I have been there, I have walked a marathon and then some. Good luck.

I'll assume you are calling me a ******, since I wondered if F1GTR was a Scientologist. But, if you read my posts clearly, it was not simply about "not liking medication" , but about assuming that all patients can cure themselves through power of will, and without the help of a mental health professional.

I think we starting running off topic awhile ago, and the OP hasn't even commented since about the second page. I'm not really sure what we are discussing (arguing about?) anymore, but what its worth let me put in my $.02.

Admittedly, modern psychology is still a new science and we don't know everything about the human mind/body yet. But we have made significant progress in the last hundred years. There are many different forms of treatment for mental illness, many of which do not include medication. Every person is different so there is no need to generalize what everyone should do or should be able to do when they have some form of mental illness. There are some people that need medication and some that do not. This has nothing to do with laziness or willpower. People's minds are just as unique as their individual bodies.

For example, you have a group of people and give them all identical cuts on their fingers.

Person A might be able to stop bleeding really fast and not need a band-aid. A few days later the cut is completely healed.

Person B's body might not be able to clot the blood quite as fast and B needs a band-aid.

Person C might take longer to recover and when it does there is a darker scar then in both A and B.

Person D might be get an inflection and need to take antibiotics.

Person E might have hemophilia and needs to be taken to the hospital immediately.

This is a very simple and small example of how people can differ just something as small as a cut on the finger. Imagine if other factors such as age, diet or the environment were also added. You can have a hundred people and all of them could react differently from the exact same cut.

So, back to my main point... The human mind is just as complicated as the human body. This is why everyone's personal experience can be different (as you can see from this thread, and we are a relatively small group). Yes, it is possible for one person to recover from depression without ever seeking professional help. But someone else who is also suffering from depression might need to see a doctor and take medication. They are not "weak" or "lazy," they are just different.

Yami, you're an idiot. I had a fairly deep cut on my thumb back when I was in grade school and I didn't need to be taken to the hospital.

If you ask me, this "hemophilia" idea is nonsense. I've seen dozens of cuts and in not a single case did anyone continue to bleed. Hemophilia is just another disease which the medical establishment comes up with to milk more money out of our pockets.

All you people who claim to have hemophilia, stop being such wimps. Just stick a bandaid on it and stop whining.

i accidently cut my hand off with a chainsaw. but with exercise, proper diet and self-discipline... it grew back.

Edit: Silly me.

I used to suffer from schizophrenia.... but we're alright now.