4 ms·

>When it comes to mental health, our society approaches it like we did with physical health 50 years ago. We only think about it when something is wrong. I'm n

>When it comes to mental health, our society approaches it like we did with physical health 50 years ago. We only think about it when something is wrong. I'm not sure about the broader society, but I think this mentality is still prevalent in both physical and mental health these day. My mother was a very health conscious person (to the level of insanity) but one attitude she showed that I think lead to long term mental/physical health improvement is what your attitude towards medicine is. She saw medicine never as a solution but a temporary band-aid and if you use one medication more than once, it is a indication that something in your life is terribly wrong. I don't share that absolutist attitude, some situations are only solvable with medical interference. But where you draw this line seems to have an profound effect. I've observed that people that consider medicine (both for physical & mental health) as a part of the solution to a problem they have in life never achieve to get out of their trouble. If you're living a unhealthy lifestyle, any health complications are amplified and taking medicine might suppress it for now, but unless you change the underlying life-style, it will slowly make things worse. Same goes for mental health; If your mental life style is unhealthy (bad social interaction, information consumption that most lead to negative emotions etc), any amount of anti-depressant won't get you out of trouble. You're only delaying it.

Yanu-3452 6y ago
Sorry but this is nonsense. You're suggesting that I shouldn't get the same chemotherapy for relapsed cancer or that my relapse is because of "something in my life is terribly wrong". Because the treatment worked to get it in remission, fuck me for wanting to take the same medicine again? Lots of people suffer from poor health through no fault of their own. Arguing that their ills must be because of poor life choices is victim blaming. Just because you're lucky enough to not have suffered chronic ill health doesn't mean others have been so lucky. Take pleasure in your fortune, but don't try to take all credit for it.
- js8 6y ago
  I disagree. I think parent post has a similar view to Johann Hari, who also emphasizes solutions to mental health problems on the level of community. I would say what it means that medical intervention should be used only as a last resort (or quick) measure.
- mkmk2 6y ago
  It's possible to have the parents post view and still believe chemotherapy is an incredible tool in the right circumstances. I don't feel they were talking about it in an over-generalizing way, just saying that if you're living unhealthily you're going to continue to be/get unhealthy. Medicine and treatment can help though, as a band aid in these cases. Of course this doesn't preclude someone who's generally healthy from getting sick, unfortunately. But your comment is also correct, just misdirected in this case I feel :)
- hobofan 6y ago
  > I don't share that absolutist attitude, some situations are only solvable with medical interference.
- SilasX 6y ago
  There's a good comment[1] that really stuck with me from a while back, and it strikes a balance between the two. Basically, avoid using medicine for minor issues -- instead focusing on general wellness through diet and exercise -- but for terminal conditions, be willing to take more extreme treatments. To quote the key paragraphs: >>I have seen what modern medicine does to people. "You cholesterol is too high, take this statin and your number will get better. Don't take it and you will have a heart attack". And then you have family members and friends take the drugs, and start having side effects.. random pain, random problems that stop them from being physically active. So then they go back to a doctor and get some new medicines, that maybe fixes the pain, but then adds a new side effect. And pretty soon they are bed ridden and taking 14 pills to stay alive. What a bunch of crap. >>I am not anti-medicine, but I am anti-cutting-edge-for-margain-gain medicine. If you have AIDs, you probably should take some medicine. I vaccinate myself and my children. However I think that if you are active and eat well, I don't care what my cholesterol is. Maybe it is high, maybe it isn't. And if you aren't active or eating well - you need to fix that (not take medicine). If I start dying of cancer, I will throw every medicine I can find at it. But if I am good and healthy, I am going to leave well enough alone. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11506599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11506599

Yanu-3452 6y ago

Sorry but this is nonsense. You're suggesting that I shouldn't get the same chemotherapy for relapsed cancer or that my relapse is because of "something in my life is terribly wrong". Because the treatment worked to get it in remission, fuck me for wanting to take the same medicine again? Lots of people suffer from poor health through no fault of their own. Arguing that their ills must be because of poor life choices is victim blaming. Just because you're lucky enough to not have suffered chronic ill health doesn't mean others have been so lucky. Take pleasure in your fortune, but don't try to take all credit for it.

js8 6y ago
I disagree. I think parent post has a similar view to Johann Hari, who also emphasizes solutions to mental health problems on the level of community. I would say what it means that medical intervention should be used only as a last resort (or quick) measure.
mkmk2 6y ago
It's possible to have the parents post view and still believe chemotherapy is an incredible tool in the right circumstances. I don't feel they were talking about it in an over-generalizing way, just saying that if you're living unhealthily you're going to continue to be/get unhealthy. Medicine and treatment can help though, as a band aid in these cases. Of course this doesn't preclude someone who's generally healthy from getting sick, unfortunately. But your comment is also correct, just misdirected in this case I feel :)
hobofan 6y ago
> I don't share that absolutist attitude, some situations are only solvable with medical interference.
SilasX 6y ago
There's a good comment[1] that really stuck with me from a while back, and it strikes a balance between the two. Basically, avoid using medicine for minor issues -- instead focusing on general wellness through diet and exercise -- but for terminal conditions, be willing to take more extreme treatments. To quote the key paragraphs: >>I have seen what modern medicine does to people. "You cholesterol is too high, take this statin and your number will get better. Don't take it and you will have a heart attack". And then you have family members and friends take the drugs, and start having side effects.. random pain, random problems that stop them from being physically active. So then they go back to a doctor and get some new medicines, that maybe fixes the pain, but then adds a new side effect. And pretty soon they are bed ridden and taking 14 pills to stay alive. What a bunch of crap. >>I am not anti-medicine, but I am anti-cutting-edge-for-margain-gain medicine. If you have AIDs, you probably should take some medicine. I vaccinate myself and my children. However I think that if you are active and eat well, I don't care what my cholesterol is. Maybe it is high, maybe it isn't. And if you aren't active or eating well - you need to fix that (not take medicine). If I start dying of cancer, I will throw every medicine I can find at it. But if I am good and healthy, I am going to leave well enough alone. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11506599 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11506599