3 ms·

I don't see how encouraging caution is manipulative. Although we know SSRIs work, we're still figuring out exactly how they work, and we know even less about de

I don't see how encouraging caution is manipulative. Although we know SSRIs work, we're still figuring out exactly how they work, and we know even less about developing fetuses and the effects of SSRIs on them. The gold standard for care is $reward > $risk; with many medicines we can define $risk pretty darn well. With SSRIs we can't. Saying "we just don't know" or "here are the correlations we've found so far" is a good thing, as is reminding folks -- and ourselves -- of how science has failed us in the past. Women should be empowered to make informed choices, but we need the information to inform them with.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
Comparing SSRIs to thalidomide is manipulative at best; I'd call it something else but let's skip it in the interest of civility. SSRIs have been widely deployed for many years. We don't see significant amount of children whose mothers taken SSRIs being born with deformed limbs and dying young. A better comparison would be between SSRIs and aspirin. In both cases, we know that the drug works and is mostly harmless, but we have clue how exactly it works. Caution is fine. Fear-mongering isn't, especially if it can lead people to avoid treatment that could significantly improve their quality of life for little-to-no side-effects.
- Domenic_S 11y ago
  > We don't see significant amount of children whose mothers taken SSRIs being born with deformed limbs and dying young. This rationalization seems uncompassionate at best, implying that mood/cognitive disorders are less important/disruptive than physical disorders. > SSRIs and aspirin. In both cases, we know that the drug works and is mostly harmless, but we have [no] clue how exactly it works. To the contrary, the 1982 Nobel Prize was awarded for the discovery of the mechanism of action for aspirin. In contrast, although we know SSRIs cause elevated mood and have anti-anxiety effects, their method of action is not understood. This is not in dispute within the medical community. > for little-to-no side-effects We don't know this, which is the entire point of the article and discussion.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

Comparing SSRIs to thalidomide is manipulative at best; I'd call it something else but let's skip it in the interest of civility. SSRIs have been widely deployed for many years. We don't see significant amount of children whose mothers taken SSRIs being born with deformed limbs and dying young. A better comparison would be between SSRIs and aspirin. In both cases, we know that the drug works and is mostly harmless, but we have clue how exactly it works. Caution is fine. Fear-mongering isn't, especially if it can lead people to avoid treatment that could significantly improve their quality of life for little-to-no side-effects.

Domenic_S 11y ago
> We don't see significant amount of children whose mothers taken SSRIs being born with deformed limbs and dying young. This rationalization seems uncompassionate at best, implying that mood/cognitive disorders are less important/disruptive than physical disorders. > SSRIs and aspirin. In both cases, we know that the drug works and is mostly harmless, but we have [no] clue how exactly it works. To the contrary, the 1982 Nobel Prize was awarded for the discovery of the mechanism of action for aspirin. In contrast, although we know SSRIs cause elevated mood and have anti-anxiety effects, their method of action is not understood. This is not in dispute within the medical community. > for little-to-no side-effects We don't know this, which is the entire point of the article and discussion.