3 ms·

I know someone who has diagnosised but untreated schizophrenia. She was admitted to the hospital after she started having thyroid problems and they also adminis

I know someone who has diagnosised but untreated schizophrenia. She was admitted to the hospital after she started having thyroid problems and they also administered schizophrenia medication while she was in. The change in her behaviour was positive and dramatic and allowed her to start accepting help after being scared that men in white coats would take her away if she ever let on about her illness to anyone. Now she has been out of hospital for a while, unmedicated again and back to her old behaviour including talking to people who aren’t there and having bad episodes. Maybe some medications are off the mark but whatever they used for her absolutely worked. I realise a sample size of one anecdotal piece of evidence is hardly scientific, but I’m getting rather tired of the constant mouse model studies, with barely related parameters. I wish there was a better way to do medical research, in actual human beings. Unfortunately it seems historically that actual human medical research is mired in the suffering of the (generally unwilling) participants.

P_I_Staker 3y ago
[flagged]
- ChrisClark 3y ago
  > Now she has been out of hospital for a while, unmedicated You're wrong, it obviously worked. Might want to check into your own beliefs about why the doctors are trying to sap all your bodily fluids.
  - P_I_Staker 3y ago
    I don't think you read my comment. This issue is actually highly contentious. If a remedy consistently has poor results, it's a bad remedy. Simply saying "it works for the ones that are righteous" is absurd. If you break it down that's generally what people are saying, but usually use words like lazy, stupid, crazy, addict, etc. If most patients can't or won't follow a treatment maybe it doesn't work so well. > Might want to check into your own beliefs about why the doctors are trying to sap all your bodily fluids. This is very insulting, and demeaning, not to mention untrue. At no point did I imply doctors are trying to sap me of my "bodily fluids". I've never believed anything close to that. A leach sucks body fluid, so I guess it's a bit like that, but metaphoric. You seemed to care about your friend. I don't see the point in blatant bigotry towards mental illness.
    - strken 3y ago
      The issue of entire treatment plans not working when the patient is unable to follow them might be contentious, but whether the medication works when taken isn't, and that was the topic being discussed. Convincing people to agree to treatment that's in their own interests is fascinating and raises moral questions, but is also completely irrelevant.
      - P_I_Staker 3y ago
        > but whether the medication works when taken isn't But this is irrelevant, arguably. It doesn't work if you don't take it. People don't take it if it's a bad medicine. In which case, I think it's fair to say "this is a bad medicine that doesn't work" I know many people feel otherwise, but I'm baffled as to why... btw, many doctors agree with me. IMO they're ahead of the curve on this issue. > and that was the topic being discussed. No, that's not the topic being discussed. I'm talking about whether this entire way of thinking makes any sense (it doesn't). That's especially true when there's real reasons these treatments fail. That makes them bad. That makes them "not work". It's totally reasonable to question the entire way of thinking. This is happening with obesity and drug abuse, also. Is there any point we'll put our biases down and stop blaming the patient for our failings. Also, I'm a little shocked that you think you can dictate what we're talking about. In any discussion these topics are always negotiable. Things that you feel are irrelevant, may not be. It's fair to argue against the entire way of thinking, and how we should be interpreting a concept like "a medicine working". You can try to reframe, but I'm always going to take issue with this assumption that patient behavior is irrelevant to the concept of a medicine working. This is also an issue because this whole "they were fine until they decided to be stupid and stop taking their meds for no reason" stereotype hurts people, especially when you pretend that their negative experiences are "irrelevant" > Convincing people to agree to treatment that's in their own interests is fascinating and raises moral questions, but is also completely irrelevant. I never mentioned this, it's a total strawman. I also question your assumption that it's in their own interest, which you are very ill equipped to judge. Please remember all the times in history we did horrible things because we thought we knew someone's best interests better than them. I think I'm being more reasonable than you're giving me credit for, and you should consider these ideas further, instead of being so dismissive.
- crooked-v 3y ago
  Medication only works while you take the medication. Do you also object when taking a few aspirin doesn't make all headaches stop for the entire rest of your life?

P_I_Staker 3y ago

[flagged]

ChrisClark 3y ago
> Now she has been out of hospital for a while, unmedicated You're wrong, it obviously worked. Might want to check into your own beliefs about why the doctors are trying to sap all your bodily fluids.
- P_I_Staker 3y ago
  I don't think you read my comment. This issue is actually highly contentious. If a remedy consistently has poor results, it's a bad remedy. Simply saying "it works for the ones that are righteous" is absurd. If you break it down that's generally what people are saying, but usually use words like lazy, stupid, crazy, addict, etc. If most patients can't or won't follow a treatment maybe it doesn't work so well. > Might want to check into your own beliefs about why the doctors are trying to sap all your bodily fluids. This is very insulting, and demeaning, not to mention untrue. At no point did I imply doctors are trying to sap me of my "bodily fluids". I've never believed anything close to that. A leach sucks body fluid, so I guess it's a bit like that, but metaphoric. You seemed to care about your friend. I don't see the point in blatant bigotry towards mental illness.
  - strken 3y ago
    The issue of entire treatment plans not working when the patient is unable to follow them might be contentious, but whether the medication works when taken isn't, and that was the topic being discussed. Convincing people to agree to treatment that's in their own interests is fascinating and raises moral questions, but is also completely irrelevant.
    - P_I_Staker 3y ago
      > but whether the medication works when taken isn't But this is irrelevant, arguably. It doesn't work if you don't take it. People don't take it if it's a bad medicine. In which case, I think it's fair to say "this is a bad medicine that doesn't work" I know many people feel otherwise, but I'm baffled as to why... btw, many doctors agree with me. IMO they're ahead of the curve on this issue. > and that was the topic being discussed. No, that's not the topic being discussed. I'm talking about whether this entire way of thinking makes any sense (it doesn't). That's especially true when there's real reasons these treatments fail. That makes them bad. That makes them "not work". It's totally reasonable to question the entire way of thinking. This is happening with obesity and drug abuse, also. Is there any point we'll put our biases down and stop blaming the patient for our failings. Also, I'm a little shocked that you think you can dictate what we're talking about. In any discussion these topics are always negotiable. Things that you feel are irrelevant, may not be. It's fair to argue against the entire way of thinking, and how we should be interpreting a concept like "a medicine working". You can try to reframe, but I'm always going to take issue with this assumption that patient behavior is irrelevant to the concept of a medicine working. This is also an issue because this whole "they were fine until they decided to be stupid and stop taking their meds for no reason" stereotype hurts people, especially when you pretend that their negative experiences are "irrelevant" > Convincing people to agree to treatment that's in their own interests is fascinating and raises moral questions, but is also completely irrelevant. I never mentioned this, it's a total strawman. I also question your assumption that it's in their own interest, which you are very ill equipped to judge. Please remember all the times in history we did horrible things because we thought we knew someone's best interests better than them. I think I'm being more reasonable than you're giving me credit for, and you should consider these ideas further, instead of being so dismissive.
crooked-v 3y ago
Medication only works while you take the medication. Do you also object when taking a few aspirin doesn't make all headaches stop for the entire rest of your life?