[PragmaticPulp]

> Hopefully irreversable damage isn't occuring. But I suppose that damage is better than the alternative.

On the contrary, untreated depression is far more likely to produce long-term damage than a well-studied medication that has been in use for several decades. Untreated depression really does a number on the brain and body, not to mention the downstream effects of reduced exercise, socialization, sleep, and other problems that come from depression.

> I also wonder, since I feel so good, if I should try weaning off the Zoloft.

Be careful and only proceed with the help of a psychiatrist.

Depressive relapse is very common in patients who decide to discontinue their medication. The scary part is that the depression often returns very slowly over a long period of time, which the patient may not fully notice until they are deep within another depressive episode.

[zander312]

Thanks for the reply. That makes sense to me. I am totally fine with taking the meds forever.

I am one of the lucky cases where I experience basically zero side effects and it's been 2 years so far. I have heard of the horror story side effects like getting really overweight, not being able to bone, feeling fatigued, constantly napping etc. But I have never felt any of that. These last two years have been the best of my life.

I always have this concern though that these meds must be doing something sketchy to my brain chemistry.

But it makes sense that the constant terror of anxiety could also produce some neural pathways and brain chemistry that would be very bad...

[PragmaticPulp]

> I am one of the lucky cases where I experience basically zero side effects and it's been 2 years so far.

The reality is that most (but not all, obviously) people don't have terrible side effects from modern antidepressants.

It's difficult because most people who take antidepressants without issue simply don't talk about it. Partially because they don't feel like advertising their mental health struggles, but also because there simply isn't much to talk about when you simply take a medication and it just works.

> I always have this concern though that these meds must be doing something sketchy to my brain chemistry.

Given how long they've been in use and how widespread they are, we would have seen any blatant negative effects by now. SSRIs have been in use since the 80s and the antidepressants before that were far less selective.

If anything, the research points to SSRIs being helpful in repairing or reversing damage caused by depression.

[grawprog]

>The reality is that most (but not all, obviously) people don't have terrible side effects from modern antidepressants.

I wonder how many of those side effects might be from people put on antidepressants who may not actually be chronically depressed.

I've known people who have been prescribed antidepressants after going through periods of depression, rather than it being an ongoing chronic problem and they have sometimes had some troubling personality changes that lasted even after stopping them.

But I have met people who have taken them long term because of chronic depression that seem a lot better on them.

I really do feel like we take too much of a 'one size fits all' approach when it comes to mental health. Every person's mind and brain are unique.

I know, as humans, we like to put a factual, observable cause to things, but I really don't think mental health always works like that.

Two people who may be suffering from long term depression or any other, mental health issue(I personally dislike this term greatly, but can't really think of a better one.), may have very different reasons and causes for their depression and the same approach may not be helpful to both.

It's great we have access to medications that are helpful in improving people's lives, but I do wonder sometimes if we should focus more on addressing why someone's experiencing these mental states that are causing problems, rather than just working on correcting it.

I can't speak too much about it suppose, I don't really know.

But I had a good friend who I feel like was neglected by the system and didn't get the help that would have been good for him.

His mom was going through cancer treatments and he didn't take it well. He got pretty depressed and didn't get out of bed for a couple of years. He started getting these worries about getting the urge to walk into traffic.

So he went and tried to get some help. He was immediately prescribed seroquil, Zoloft, ativan and some other things.

And...I have no other way to put it...it fucked him up...

I'd get phone calls from him randomly asking what time of day it was, he'd forget things that happened moments before, he hallucinated watching new tron movie 3 times in a 4 hour period...the movie's like two and a half hours long or something, he managed to unplug my internet around 1am so, he wouldn't have even been able to finish it the first time.

It was really sad seeing what happened to him and I couldn't help but feel like maybe if someone had just talked to him for a while before prescribing him those drugs, they could have helped him without him ending up like that.

[pseudalopex]

Being prescribed 3 drugs immediately isn't normal at all.

[Judgmentality]

If antidepressants really are pervasive as you say, I'd be concerned about what it's doing to us as a species when it comes time to reproduce. Are the offspring of parents who regularly take anti-depressants any worse off than those who don't?

I think these are the sorts of questions that would be useful to know when really mass-prescribing drugs to humanity. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the drugs are inherently harmful to offspring - but it seems like something that would be good to know. If the parents have a chemical dependency, what does that mean for the children?

[PragmaticPulp]

All medications, including antidepressants, are studied for potential reproductive harm. This is taken very seriously in wake of the Thalidomide disaster in the 60s.

Is it possible that antidepressants have some extremely subtle transgenerational epigenetic effects? Maybe, but comparing healthy patients to SSRI-treated remitted depressed patients is a bit of a red herring anyway. The real comparison would be between SSRI-treated patients and untreated depressed patients, because healthy people aren't prescribed SSRIs. We do know untreated depression is very harmful to people and their families, so speculating about immeasurably small negative effects of SSRIs while ignoring the massive and very real cost of untreated depression would be a mistake.

[Judgmentality]

> The real comparison would be between SSRI-treated patients and untreated depressed patients, because healthy people aren't prescribed SSRIs.

I see it very differently, as you are focusing entirely on the parents and completely ignoring the children. If the untreated patients weren't going to have kids, the question is only whether or not the children are happy. If the children of parents with antidepressants are more likely to require antidepressants themselves, I'd say that's indicative of a serious problem.

[PragmaticPulp]

> If the children of parents with antidepressants are more likely to require antidepressants themselves, I'd say that's indicative of a serious problem.

I'm not aware of any evidence that this is the case. Do you have any evidence, or are you speculating worst case scenarios?

Regardless, I think it's shortsighted and in poor taste to suggest that there is a problem with parents on SSRIs having children, particularly without any evidence to support your claims.

[msrenee]

Some cases of depression and especially bipolar disorder seem to have a genetic component. Parents that are on SSRIs, SNRIs, antipsychotics and atypical antipsychotics are probably already much more likely to have children who have the same conditions and need antidepressants, as the underlying condition often has a genetic component.

[bawolff]

You don't think having a parent with untreated depression is bad for child development?