6 ms·

There are guidelines for determining if someone has depression and/or other mental health diseases, just like any other disease. You can't take an x-ray and see

There are guidelines for determining if someone has depression and/or other mental health diseases, just like any other disease. You can't take an x-ray and see depression like a tumor, but you can talk to the patient and their family to gauge and track symptoms. see: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/depression/index.shtml https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/depression/index.shtm... http://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/assets/basc-3/basc3resources/DSM5_DiagnosticCriteria_MajorDepressiveDisorder.pdf http://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/assets/basc-3/basc3...

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Sure, what I'm saying is that a doctor found that I met those guidelines (apparently) and prescribed me a drug. I don't think I ever needed it, I was just struggling with a transitional period in my life. It didn't really improve my life, in fact between the reduced appetite and hampered sexual performance I'd say it definitely was a negative. After reading some research about the performance of antidepressants vs placebos and the possibility of my sexual side effects becoming permanent I decided I was out. All of which is to say, are anti-depressants over prescribed? I can say yes, if only by my one case.
- hackuser 9y ago
  In fairness, you don't know what your life would have been like without them. I'm not second guessing your personal judgment, which must include a million factors I have no idea about (and it's not my business), but I don't think that kind of comment is conclusive. > I was just struggling with a transitional period in my life Why shouldn't that cause serious depression, and why shouldn't someone need antidepressants for it?
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    I guess... but you can get away with questioning my personal judgment. What if you went around to all the comments here saying "it definitely saved my life" and questioned their judgment? Maybe it's those people who don't realize their ability to beat depression without medication. To your second point I would say that a struggle shouldn't necessitate a clinical diagnosis. Life is full of struggle, and equating struggle to depression to medication is why we're in the overprescription business in the first place.
    - hackuser 9y ago
      Again, I'm not questioning your judgment. Sorry if you feel that way; I'd delete the comment now if I could. I wouldn't question other people either, and especially, for obvious reasons, I wouldn't question the people you mention. > I would say that a struggle shouldn't necessitate a clinical diagnosis. Life is full of struggle, and equating struggle to depression to medication is why we're in the overprescription business in the first place. I know critics repeat that narrative often but I haven't seen evidence of it actually happening. That is, I haven't heard anyone say, 'struggle is a sufficient condition for the diagnosis of depression', and I'm almost certain that the standards for diagnosis in psychology/psychiatry are much higher than that. > overprescription I'm not sure that's true either. Certainly there are always some false positives, but what is the rate? The evidence does indicate there are very many false negatives, people who need help and are not getting it. I suspect the narrative of overprescription for psychological conditions is based in part on two things: 1) People with preconceived negative attitudes toward mental health care, and 2) variation from the norm they are accustomed to, which is that few or no people received mental health treatment. Regarding the latter reason, perhaps there was a problem with the old norm; perhaps many more people need mental health care than we knew. When there is a new treatment for cancer, we don't say 'it's overprescribed; in the old days we toughed it out.' We don't say that about lead in water. If it's helping people, it's a good thing, and I want to society to move forward, for people to be healthier and happier and not be stuck in the conditions of the 1970s (or whatever the baseline is).
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
>There are guidelines for determining if someone has depression and/or other mental health diseases, just like any other disease. Psychiatric diagnoses are not "just like any other disease". Medical pathology is objective science, psychiatry is subjective postulation. >In 2013, Frances said that "psychiatric diagnosis still relies exclusively on fallible subjective judgments rather than objective biological tests". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Frances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Frances
- pmyteh 9y ago
  Pain management, optometry, and many other non-psychiatric disciplines also rely on self-report. There's no bright line between the 'objective' and the 'postulation'.
  - Arizhel 9y ago
    >Pain management, optometry, and many other non-psychiatric disciplines also rely on self-report. That's just plain wrong on the optometry part. While there is a lot of self-reporting used in optometry because it's faster and easier, it's entirely possible to remove it, because you can't fake not being able to read stuff when your vision is too blurry. How do you think the DMV tests your vision? It's not self-reporting; they show you something that you don't know beforehand and you have to read it. Optometrists also use vision tests to gauge your vision as they try different lenses. If they really wanted to, they could move from static tests that you can memorize to dynamic ones to prevent "cheating", but why would anyone cheat on an optometry exam (like they really would for the DMV)?
    - TylerE 9y ago
      Sure you can. There are only so many eye charts in use. It's possible to memorize them. Just being left in the exam room for 30 seconds unobserved would be enough.
      - cowboysauce 9y ago

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

Sure, what I'm saying is that a doctor found that I met those guidelines (apparently) and prescribed me a drug. I don't think I ever needed it, I was just struggling with a transitional period in my life. It didn't really improve my life, in fact between the reduced appetite and hampered sexual performance I'd say it definitely was a negative. After reading some research about the performance of antidepressants vs placebos and the possibility of my sexual side effects becoming permanent I decided I was out. All of which is to say, are anti-depressants over prescribed? I can say yes, if only by my one case.

hackuser 9y ago
In fairness, you don't know what your life would have been like without them. I'm not second guessing your personal judgment, which must include a million factors I have no idea about (and it's not my business), but I don't think that kind of comment is conclusive. > I was just struggling with a transitional period in my life Why shouldn't that cause serious depression, and why shouldn't someone need antidepressants for it?
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  I guess... but you can get away with questioning my personal judgment. What if you went around to all the comments here saying "it definitely saved my life" and questioned their judgment? Maybe it's those people who don't realize their ability to beat depression without medication. To your second point I would say that a struggle shouldn't necessitate a clinical diagnosis. Life is full of struggle, and equating struggle to depression to medication is why we're in the overprescription business in the first place.
  - hackuser 9y ago
    Again, I'm not questioning your judgment. Sorry if you feel that way; I'd delete the comment now if I could. I wouldn't question other people either, and especially, for obvious reasons, I wouldn't question the people you mention. > I would say that a struggle shouldn't necessitate a clinical diagnosis. Life is full of struggle, and equating struggle to depression to medication is why we're in the overprescription business in the first place. I know critics repeat that narrative often but I haven't seen evidence of it actually happening. That is, I haven't heard anyone say, 'struggle is a sufficient condition for the diagnosis of depression', and I'm almost certain that the standards for diagnosis in psychology/psychiatry are much higher than that. > overprescription I'm not sure that's true either. Certainly there are always some false positives, but what is the rate? The evidence does indicate there are very many false negatives, people who need help and are not getting it. I suspect the narrative of overprescription for psychological conditions is based in part on two things: 1) People with preconceived negative attitudes toward mental health care, and 2) variation from the norm they are accustomed to, which is that few or no people received mental health treatment. Regarding the latter reason, perhaps there was a problem with the old norm; perhaps many more people need mental health care than we knew. When there is a new treatment for cancer, we don't say 'it's overprescribed; in the old days we toughed it out.' We don't say that about lead in water. If it's helping people, it's a good thing, and I want to society to move forward, for people to be healthier and happier and not be stuck in the conditions of the 1970s (or whatever the baseline is).

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

>There are guidelines for determining if someone has depression and/or other mental health diseases, just like any other disease. Psychiatric diagnoses are not "just like any other disease". Medical pathology is objective science, psychiatry is subjective postulation. >In 2013, Frances said that "psychiatric diagnosis still relies exclusively on fallible subjective judgments rather than objective biological tests". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Frances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Frances

pmyteh 9y ago
Pain management, optometry, and many other non-psychiatric disciplines also rely on self-report. There's no bright line between the 'objective' and the 'postulation'.
- Arizhel 9y ago
  >Pain management, optometry, and many other non-psychiatric disciplines also rely on self-report. That's just plain wrong on the optometry part. While there is a lot of self-reporting used in optometry because it's faster and easier, it's entirely possible to remove it, because you can't fake not being able to read stuff when your vision is too blurry. How do you think the DMV tests your vision? It's not self-reporting; they show you something that you don't know beforehand and you have to read it. Optometrists also use vision tests to gauge your vision as they try different lenses. If they really wanted to, they could move from static tests that you can memorize to dynamic ones to prevent "cheating", but why would anyone cheat on an optometry exam (like they really would for the DMV)?
  - TylerE 9y ago
    Sure you can. There are only so many eye charts in use. It's possible to memorize them. Just being left in the exam room for 30 seconds unobserved would be enough.
    - cowboysauce 9y ago