5 ms·

Your profession needs no help from marsrover to find itself under the wheels of a bus. Every other medical revolution -- such as the rise of antibiotics, the p

Your profession needs no help from marsrover to find itself under the wheels of a bus. Every other medical revolution -- such as the rise of antibiotics, the pioneering of complex surgeries, and the advancements in medical imaging -- have resulted in a net reduction of people suffering from the ailments those tools are involved in treating. Not so with psychiatry. The more drugs that are developed, the more illnesses are discovered to use them on. You'll have to excuse the skepticism of some us who have seen loved ones suffer through debilitating, sometimes permanent side effects from drugs their psychiatrists prescribed. Your profession will get the benefit of the doubt when fewer of us are caring for those loved ones.

vacri 10y ago
Psychiatry is, by far, the most difficult medical specialty. The human mind is so complex that the diagnostic 'bible', the DSM, has two sections - one for mental illnesses, and one for all other medical conditions.
vonmoltke 10y ago
> You'll have to excuse the skepticism of some us who have seen loved ones suffer through debilitating, sometimes permanent side effects from drugs their psychiatrists prescribed. What debilitating side effects are those? How does their frequency compare to side effects for non-psychiatric drugs and treatments?
- Sone7 10y ago
  Don't do that. You can look up the debilitating side effects yourself. Asking someone to re-live watching their loved one lose their self from benzos or anti-psychotics that were prescribed as a first measure rather than a last resort - which Does happen, and far too often - is crueler than you know.
  - cgriswald 10y ago
    Nonsense. Asking for evidence and examples is not "cruel", especially when a broad claim is being made based on a personal experience. I have many dark, hurtful experiences in my life. And when I share them, the only thing I expect in return is respect. Asking a question about my experience or asking me to provide evidence in support of my broader claims is not disrespectful. It's something I would expect might happen. If I couldn't handle it, I wouldn't bring it up. Or I would end the conversation. In all honesty, I would be more offended at the implication that I cannot speak for myself.
    - Sone7 10y ago
      There was no implication whatsoever that intopieces couldn't speak on their own behalf. It's disrespectful to suggest there was. I suggest you read intopieces' reply to vonmoltke, and have a think about this exchange from a fresh perspective. Remember that when people talk about losing their loved ones, a little tact goes a long way. Asking so bluntly for research you could look for yourself (that pharma companies would never actually publish) comes across as tactless in this situation, which is why you're being greyed.
      - vonmoltke 10y ago
        > Asking so bluntly for research you could look for yourself (that pharma companies would never actually publish) comes across as tactless in this situation, which is why you're being greyed. First, pharmaceutical companies are required to publish study data as part of the approval process. Whether the requirements are sufficient is a tangent all its own. Second, I can obviously look up research. I have. It indicates debilitating side effects for a host of non-psychiatric medications as well, which intopieces seems to be ignoring because of bad personal experiences. Third, if you don't want to re-live bad experiences, don't use references to them to score points in a debate.
      - cgriswald 10y ago
        > There was no implication whatsoever that intopieces couldn't speak on their own behalf. It's disrespectful to suggest there was. Except for that fact that you chose to interject on behalf of the emotions you presumed he would have? > I suggest you read intopieces' reply to vonmoltke, and have a think about this exchange from a fresh perspective. I did read it. What you read into it was some kind of assault that isn't necessarily there in the first place. I read it as a challenge to back up his claims (especially now due to subsequent posts), but one could also read it as simply being curious. Perhaps you should try the fresh perspective? Being challenged on a broad claim that is supported only with anecdote is pretty par for the course on HN. This isn't a support group, it's adult discussion. Should we stop challenging broad claims whenever people bring personal anecdotes to the table? After all, even seemingly innocuous anecdotes could be deeply painful for the people involved. > Remember that when people talk about losing their loved ones, a little tact goes a long way. Asking so bluntly for research you could look for yourself (that pharma companies would never actually publish) comes across as tactless in this situation... You've moved the goalposts. You didn't say you had a problem with how he said it (i.e. tact), you said you had a problem with what he said (i.e. "don't do that...") Even so, being "blunt" (your interpretation) isn't being disrespectful. Not everyone wants sugarcoating on their cereal. I'd say your perspective here has quite a lot to do with how you would like to be treated, but that doesn't mean others feel the same way. > ...which is why you're being greyed. I've been upvoted, actually. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong? You seem to think this means something...
- intopieces 10y ago
  You know it's odd: in all those years I spent helping my dad with his knees shot from zoloft induced weight gain or waking my roommate up because she drank too much to counteract the stimulants they prescribed to balance the benzos or sleeping next to a partner with a permanent, random, violent parkinsonian tremor caused by antipsychotics, I never considered doing a frequency analysis against the myriad of unrecommended non-psychiatric drugs and treatments out there. Unfortunately, neither did any of their doctors, it would seem.
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    You know, it's odd: I don't recall asking you if you had personally done a study or frequency analysis. I recall asking a rhetorical question as a follow-up to a specific question about your claim in order to head off anecdote poker. Seems like you decided to jump straight into it, though. So, how many people have you had to deal with who had night terrors due to Chantix? Who became addicted to opiod pain medications? Who developed T2DM as a result of corticosteroid use? Who nearly bled out because of blood thinners? You specifically demonized psychiatric medicine. You know people who have had pretty bad experiences with psychiatric medications but none who have had similar with non-psychiatric medications. My point is not to doubt that these side effects exist, but to illustrate that they exist for a host of non-psychiatric medications as well. Many of those are just as over-prescribed as psychiatric medications, and often by the same general practitioners over-prescribing them.
    - intopieces 10y ago
      How does the existence of side effects in other medicines affect the status of psychiatric medicines and their percieved (in)effectiveness or their overprescription status? You claim I'm 'demonizing' (i.e., being unfair towards) a subset of the medical profession when in fact I'm only relaying my personal experience and skepticism based on that. I don't doubt that there are a whole host of other medicines whose effictiveness is unknown and whose popularity is primarly due to its availability as free samples in doctor's offices and the U.S.'s notoriously effective prescription drug advertisement industry. But to make that a point in this discussion seems like a misdirection more than an counter-argument. Two things can be bad at the same time independently. To answer your questions: I dated someone with night terrors from Chantix, have a relative who is addicted to opoids (but who thinks no one knows when he's high at Christmas dinner), but have thankfully never had to deal with the last two. Even still -- none of those latter series were prescribed to treat disorders discovered after the invention of the drug itself. This is the primary point of skepticism: horrible side effects for well-advertised drugs for disorders we just recently discovered affecting, what was astutely noted by another commentor, the most complex organ of the body. Many psychiatric medications are an excellent example of 'when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.'
- atsaloli 10y ago
  http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/mental-health-medications/index.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/mental-health-medicati.... That's from the National Institute for Mental Health Tics, liver damage, abnormal thinking are all listed as side effects. So is violent behaviour.
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    You can find those side effects for a number of non-psychiatric medications as well.
    - atsaloli 10y ago
      Aye. However, "Antidepressants and ADHD Drugs Top List of Most Violence-Inducing Drugs" http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/03/antidepressant-side-effects.aspx http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/0...
notoes 10y ago
> Your profession needs no help from marsrover to find itself under the wheels of a bus. HN comment of the day :)

vacri 10y ago

Psychiatry is, by far, the most difficult medical specialty. The human mind is so complex that the diagnostic 'bible', the DSM, has two sections - one for mental illnesses, and one for all other medical conditions.

vonmoltke 10y ago

> You'll have to excuse the skepticism of some us who have seen loved ones suffer through debilitating, sometimes permanent side effects from drugs their psychiatrists prescribed. What debilitating side effects are those? How does their frequency compare to side effects for non-psychiatric drugs and treatments?

Sone7 10y ago
Don't do that. You can look up the debilitating side effects yourself. Asking someone to re-live watching their loved one lose their self from benzos or anti-psychotics that were prescribed as a first measure rather than a last resort - which Does happen, and far too often - is crueler than you know.
- cgriswald 10y ago
  Nonsense. Asking for evidence and examples is not "cruel", especially when a broad claim is being made based on a personal experience. I have many dark, hurtful experiences in my life. And when I share them, the only thing I expect in return is respect. Asking a question about my experience or asking me to provide evidence in support of my broader claims is not disrespectful. It's something I would expect might happen. If I couldn't handle it, I wouldn't bring it up. Or I would end the conversation. In all honesty, I would be more offended at the implication that I cannot speak for myself.
  - Sone7 10y ago
    There was no implication whatsoever that intopieces couldn't speak on their own behalf. It's disrespectful to suggest there was. I suggest you read intopieces' reply to vonmoltke, and have a think about this exchange from a fresh perspective. Remember that when people talk about losing their loved ones, a little tact goes a long way. Asking so bluntly for research you could look for yourself (that pharma companies would never actually publish) comes across as tactless in this situation, which is why you're being greyed.
    - vonmoltke 10y ago
      > Asking so bluntly for research you could look for yourself (that pharma companies would never actually publish) comes across as tactless in this situation, which is why you're being greyed. First, pharmaceutical companies are required to publish study data as part of the approval process. Whether the requirements are sufficient is a tangent all its own. Second, I can obviously look up research. I have. It indicates debilitating side effects for a host of non-psychiatric medications as well, which intopieces seems to be ignoring because of bad personal experiences. Third, if you don't want to re-live bad experiences, don't use references to them to score points in a debate.
    - cgriswald 10y ago
      > There was no implication whatsoever that intopieces couldn't speak on their own behalf. It's disrespectful to suggest there was. Except for that fact that you chose to interject on behalf of the emotions you presumed he would have? > I suggest you read intopieces' reply to vonmoltke, and have a think about this exchange from a fresh perspective. I did read it. What you read into it was some kind of assault that isn't necessarily there in the first place. I read it as a challenge to back up his claims (especially now due to subsequent posts), but one could also read it as simply being curious. Perhaps you should try the fresh perspective? Being challenged on a broad claim that is supported only with anecdote is pretty par for the course on HN. This isn't a support group, it's adult discussion. Should we stop challenging broad claims whenever people bring personal anecdotes to the table? After all, even seemingly innocuous anecdotes could be deeply painful for the people involved. > Remember that when people talk about losing their loved ones, a little tact goes a long way. Asking so bluntly for research you could look for yourself (that pharma companies would never actually publish) comes across as tactless in this situation... You've moved the goalposts. You didn't say you had a problem with how he said it (i.e. tact), you said you had a problem with what he said (i.e. "don't do that...") Even so, being "blunt" (your interpretation) isn't being disrespectful. Not everyone wants sugarcoating on their cereal. I'd say your perspective here has quite a lot to do with how you would like to be treated, but that doesn't mean others feel the same way. > ...which is why you're being greyed. I've been upvoted, actually. Does that mean I'm right and you're wrong? You seem to think this means something...
intopieces 10y ago
You know it's odd: in all those years I spent helping my dad with his knees shot from zoloft induced weight gain or waking my roommate up because she drank too much to counteract the stimulants they prescribed to balance the benzos or sleeping next to a partner with a permanent, random, violent parkinsonian tremor caused by antipsychotics, I never considered doing a frequency analysis against the myriad of unrecommended non-psychiatric drugs and treatments out there. Unfortunately, neither did any of their doctors, it would seem.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  You know, it's odd: I don't recall asking you if you had personally done a study or frequency analysis. I recall asking a rhetorical question as a follow-up to a specific question about your claim in order to head off anecdote poker. Seems like you decided to jump straight into it, though. So, how many people have you had to deal with who had night terrors due to Chantix? Who became addicted to opiod pain medications? Who developed T2DM as a result of corticosteroid use? Who nearly bled out because of blood thinners? You specifically demonized psychiatric medicine. You know people who have had pretty bad experiences with psychiatric medications but none who have had similar with non-psychiatric medications. My point is not to doubt that these side effects exist, but to illustrate that they exist for a host of non-psychiatric medications as well. Many of those are just as over-prescribed as psychiatric medications, and often by the same general practitioners over-prescribing them.
  - intopieces 10y ago
    How does the existence of side effects in other medicines affect the status of psychiatric medicines and their percieved (in)effectiveness or their overprescription status? You claim I'm 'demonizing' (i.e., being unfair towards) a subset of the medical profession when in fact I'm only relaying my personal experience and skepticism based on that. I don't doubt that there are a whole host of other medicines whose effictiveness is unknown and whose popularity is primarly due to its availability as free samples in doctor's offices and the U.S.'s notoriously effective prescription drug advertisement industry. But to make that a point in this discussion seems like a misdirection more than an counter-argument. Two things can be bad at the same time independently. To answer your questions: I dated someone with night terrors from Chantix, have a relative who is addicted to opoids (but who thinks no one knows when he's high at Christmas dinner), but have thankfully never had to deal with the last two. Even still -- none of those latter series were prescribed to treat disorders discovered after the invention of the drug itself. This is the primary point of skepticism: horrible side effects for well-advertised drugs for disorders we just recently discovered affecting, what was astutely noted by another commentor, the most complex organ of the body. Many psychiatric medications are an excellent example of 'when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.'
atsaloli 10y ago
http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/mental-health-medications/index.shtml http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/mental-health-medicati.... That's from the National Institute for Mental Health Tics, liver damage, abnormal thinking are all listed as side effects. So is violent behaviour.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  You can find those side effects for a number of non-psychiatric medications as well.
  - atsaloli 10y ago
    Aye. However, "Antidepressants and ADHD Drugs Top List of Most Violence-Inducing Drugs" http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/03/antidepressant-side-effects.aspx http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/10/0...

notoes 10y ago

> Your profession needs no help from marsrover to find itself under the wheels of a bus. HN comment of the day :)