5 ms·

Definitely agree with this. The exchange the doctor describes to begin the article is also common online. I've spent a lot of time in anxiety and depression sup

by xlm1717 11y ago

Definitely agree with this. The exchange the doctor describes to begin the article is also common online. I've spent a lot of time in anxiety and depression support forums and chat rooms for my own problems with anxiety. The most common view is that anxiety and depression are diseases that you need to take medicine to treat. No doubt medicine has its uses in treating anxiety and depression, a momentary reprieve can grant you the clarity to see what you do need to change to feel better. However, I see many people online who cling so strongly to the idea that anxiety and depression are chemical imbalances that you are unlucky enough to be predisposed to developing and that balance can only be restored through medication, that when you suggest that anxiety and depression are not diseases and so can be treated to the point that they are not a problem anymore, people will react violently, as if you just assaulted their identity. This line of thinking makes it extremely difficult for them to get relief. It is also beneficial to pharmaceutical companies who can make a customer for life by convincing customers that if they don't have a certain medication they will always feel miserable.

brador 11y ago
There are also some forums where people discuss abusing a depression/anxiety diagnosis to claim disability welfare. This is much more widespread than most people realise since the rates are higher and the requirements much lower than regular welfare. It's a surprisingly cushy lifestyle, and some would do anything to keep it. And that entire structure is dependent on depression/anxiety being seen as a medical problem with no solution, only medication. They are very vocal in it's protection.
- jacalata 11y ago
  > the rates are higher could you explain this? I've never heard about it.
  - brador 11y ago
    The simplest example would be welfare per month from (disability + unemployed) > unemployed only.
    - jacalata 11y ago
      Hm, I didn't think you could claim both.
Bjartr 11y ago
Unless we can more reliably distinguish between the cases where it is a neurochemical imbalance that needs medicinal intervention and not, then it can be just as damaging to fight against that viewpoint as it is to fight for it. What we need is to foster open discussion of both viewpoints because both are fully valid explanations of anxiety and depression. For those who truly do need[1] such medicine it is demeaning and disheartening to hear views like yours touted as the only valid point of view because it implies they are invalid, or that they're cheating because they're not managing without drugs. I similarly take issue with the article's claim that "anxiety and depression are symptoms of psychosocial needs and threats" because it completely rejects neurological causes of anxiety and depression. There's nothing that says predisposition to neurochemical imbalances will never be more severe than what can be managed without medication. And the same can be said for environmental factors (e.g. ingested and inhaled compounds from the area around where you live, just by happening to live there). Has anyone done a scientific study on the common root causes of anxiety and depression? Do we even know enough about the brain to be able to confidently identify the root cause? [1] If you know there are no such people, I'd like to learn about how you know that.

by xlm1717 11y ago

brador 11y ago

There are also some forums where people discuss abusing a depression/anxiety diagnosis to claim disability welfare. This is much more widespread than most people realise since the rates are higher and the requirements much lower than regular welfare. It's a surprisingly cushy lifestyle, and some would do anything to keep it. And that entire structure is dependent on depression/anxiety being seen as a medical problem with no solution, only medication. They are very vocal in it's protection.

jacalata 11y ago
> the rates are higher could you explain this? I've never heard about it.
- brador 11y ago
  The simplest example would be welfare per month from (disability + unemployed) > unemployed only.
  - jacalata 11y ago
    Hm, I didn't think you could claim both.

Bjartr 11y ago

Unless we can more reliably distinguish between the cases where it is a neurochemical imbalance that needs medicinal intervention and not, then it can be just as damaging to fight against that viewpoint as it is to fight for it. What we need is to foster open discussion of both viewpoints because both are fully valid explanations of anxiety and depression. For those who truly do need[1] such medicine it is demeaning and disheartening to hear views like yours touted as the only valid point of view because it implies they are invalid, or that they're cheating because they're not managing without drugs. I similarly take issue with the article's claim that "anxiety and depression are symptoms of psychosocial needs and threats" because it completely rejects neurological causes of anxiety and depression. There's nothing that says predisposition to neurochemical imbalances will never be more severe than what can be managed without medication. And the same can be said for environmental factors (e.g. ingested and inhaled compounds from the area around where you live, just by happening to live there). Has anyone done a scientific study on the common root causes of anxiety and depression? Do we even know enough about the brain to be able to confidently identify the root cause? [1] If you know there are no such people, I'd like to learn about how you know that.