[SoftTalker]

"The system" has no interest in curing your depression. They want you to keep making therapy appointments, and they want you to keep refilling prescriptions.

Individual doctors may or may not have this view. I'm talking about "the system." Just consider the incentives. That tells you all you need to know.

[lovethevoid]

I don't think you've really considered the incentives either.

The system has as much interest in curing your depression as it does curing obesity. Long term, these conditions are very costly. It takes people out of peak condition, reduces labor pool, increases number of patients taking up resources at hospitals and doctors offices, and so on. A system which encourages these things is a failing one, as taxpayer costs would only continue to balloon.

Additionally, since the thread is about psilocybin, people would still be filling up prescriptions for those.

Also, self-medicating is also very costly. Not only to the system, as people often wind up in hospitals due to laced products or incorrect doses (see marijuana in a lot of states where dealers really aren't concerned about quality), but also to the individual. People are spending absurd amounts of money on vitamins and mushroom teas and all that in hopes it helps, but rarely is that the case due to these categories not being strictly regulated.

[BowBun]

I think your argument is as valid as the one you're responding to.

>The system has as much interest in curing your depression as it does curing obesity.

Ironically enough, the system hasn't cured obesity (if you believe obesity is primarily caused by a poor environment) and seems to instead to be headed towards managing symptoms by hacking our hormones and brains with semaglutides, etc. But at least you can work.

If you use a similar train of thought applied to depression - we're now in a situation where something like 50 million Americans are on antidepressants or antianxiety medication. 1 in 6. This is also treating symptoms and putting people into a state of being able-bodied without being so well as to remove their dependency on the drug. But at least you can work.

So I think the original idea fits with the concerns you outline. Mass producing a few drugs to keep a majority of the population able-bodied might not be that much money in the big picture.

I'm not a firm believer in this theory, but I can totally believe an overly complex system with poor incentives and no absolute oversight can lead to these outcomes.

[Sharlin]

When "the system" subsidizes your therapy and your prescription drugs (as in most civilized societies), and indeed pays for your medical leave and loses value in the form of lost workdays, it definitely doesn't have much of an incentive to keep you in therapy or on drugs.

[iknowSFR]

I get the impression that there’s misalignment on what “the system” is to each commenter here. One side views it as the larger society and the other as the pharmaceutical industry.

[Wytwwww]

> society and the other as the pharmaceutical industry

The market is huge and executives usually care much more about short-term (or at the most medium-term) growth. A company that actually found some magical cure for depression they would have no reason to not undercut their competitors and still make massive amounts of money even if that would destroy their target market would disappear over the next 10-20 years.

Also aren't pretty much all the most popular antidepressants and related drugs relatively very chip. Nobody is making that much money selling SSRIs. Why would pharmaceutical companies forego hundreds of billions on purpose?