Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by KirinDave 3845 days ago
> such as talk therapy and lifestyle changes

The places where anti-depressants are applied vs talk therapy are applied are fairly different. The idea that there is a cohort of mustache-twirling doctors and pill pushers trying to shove pills down the throat of every person who'd be better suited to talk therapy is about as ridiculous as I made it sound.

For many people, talk therapy is simply not effective or possible. And in many situations there are social forces which MUST be taken into consideration because they can cause lead to more anxiety and depression.

> perhaps the bigger mistake was not going off SSRIs (at which point the die may have been more or less cast for you, in the short- to medium-term) -- but agreeing to go on them in the first place.

I get so angry reading this. Hot under the collar even. If you think that SSRIs don't help people then you simply don't understand what a true and chemical despair feels like. The difference they can make, both short term and long, is counted in human lives. Many people like me who used them to bridge a short term gap could barely comprehend days without despair, fear and pain.

To have some smug anti-medicine comment oh-so-politely walk up to someone who says, "Hey I treated my mental illness like a real illness and it worked" and respond with scorn an derision? You simply do not understand what real, clinical, and life-threatening depression is.

If you think you do, if you had a mild case that you talked through? Congratulations! I wish the disease on no one. But that doesn't give you license to skulk about making everyone else with a less treatable form of the illness question everything they've done to secure their right to experience happiness.

3 comments

In any case, the current research consensus is that generally antidepressants and talk therapy are complimentary. So talk therapy is better than nothing and antidepressants are better than nothing and combining both treatments is better than sticking to only one.
For me, it is difficult to disentangle my feelings for talk therapy from my fear and antipathy towards the church councillors of my young life who put me on such a destructive path of self-denial.
I am very sorry that that happened to you and I completely understand how sometimes church counsellors can cause more problems. I was raised Catholic so believe me when I say that I understand your words about being on a destructive path of self denial.

For what it's worth, as an adult, I had to make a conscious decision not to let the assholes of my youth ruin my life.

It's bullshit that people treated you like that. I'm very sorry that that happened.

Thanks. I wish I had been born even 10 years later sometimes, I didn't even know the word for my gender until I was in my 30s. People trying to "correct" my course when I was young left me a lot of scars.

So, I'm not saying my case should shape the world. But I think it's worth considering. People here tend to mix "SSRIs are over-prescribed" with "SSRIs don't work." The data suggests the more focused the study, the stronger the effect, which is usually indicative of practicioners failing to properly use an intervention.

Or so my doctor tells me. He was happy to explain carefully why he uses SSRIs, how long he'll agree to prescribe them for, and what his current reading of the research is. I was surprised, but he says GPs often have to be the first line of defense for people who don't outright end up in the emergency room. I guess that stands to reason.

Sure, but the general pattern is: Get the patient stable. Then, follow with talk therapy since that generally is a more permanent solution.
> If you think that SSRIs don't help people then you simply don't understand what a true and chemical despair feels like.

Or you read? If SSRIs are so helpful, then why does the majority of the research suggest that this isn't the case?[1] If you think they are helpful, then the burden of proof is on you to show that the science is incorrect.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Emperors-New-Drugs-Exploding-Antidepre...

http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Epidemic-Bullets-Psychiatric-A...

Please for whatever you hold dear do not say please read and then point to books. Books? seriously, most people know that the peer-review is many times laughable but anyone can publish whatever book they want even if they are respected professionals/scientists/philosophers... You are just downgrading the conversation by orders of magnitude...
Issues such as those books address don't generally fall within the scope guidelines of journals. Anyway, his basic point is that there's plenty of information about SSRIs out there, if one is willing do a bit of focused reading.
For many people, talk therapy is simply not effective or possible.

I don't dispute this; not only that, I was basically acknowledging this fact in what I originally said. The crux of the issue would seem to lie with how you quantify "many."

If you think that SSRIs don't help people ...

That is quite definitely not what I said.

...then you simply don't understand what a true and chemical despair feels like.

Inasmuch as others have criticized me for "second-guessing" the original commenter's decision about how to treat his illness, without knowing medical history: you also have no knowledge, whatsoever, of mine. So I'm not sure what value there is in the assertion you're making.

Sorry, but I'm not buying it. You started this by asserting your experience and knowledge gove you a platform to talk down to someone else. Someone who very likely has a difficult story backing them.

You made this a topic of discussion. Now you're upset that people are judging you via what looks like an ableist agenda.

Charitably, lets assume this is all a big misunderstanding. Either you actively are avoiding expressing any empathy or you're not good at empathy.

Whichever it may be, it doesn't matter. You're implicitly picking a fight with this writer and every reader over the efficacy of chemical interventions, and doing it in a crude, inappropriate, backhanded fashion.

Whichever it may be, it doesn't matter.

Agreed. I'd appreciate it, though, if in the future you'd kindly not attribute specific statements to me that I quite simply didn't make.

Your intent is not magic. If your communications are "misinterpreted" then it's your fault for not being specific enough.

Taking me to task for my interpretation (which attributed no SPECIFIC statement but rather an interpretation of your words) is a classic example of trying to use an asymmetric appeal to "civility" as a blind for your mistakes.

So no. If I see you spout stuff I consider to be ableist, and I feel like it, I'm going to hit reply and call your statements ableist and explain why.

That is the nature of this forum, and I'm one of the very few people who actually tries to do these things; so you're not exactly being overwhelmed with recriminations of that sort.