BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


"Mind" Medication

 
 
Stigma Enigma
08:13 / 19.04.07
I started this thread to sort of feel out where everyone stands on the mental health system and the pharmaceutical industry.

I take a mood stabilizer called Lamictal every day to treat bipolar disorder. Its actually worked well for me and I have been stable and out of any hospital for two years....however, I don't feel it is any sort of "final" solution, I am just sorta going with what works. I don't fully accept it to this day, but its not worth the risk of going off it, especially when I don't have an alternate solution in mind.

I'm not going to be overly extreme and say the medical model should be completely thrown out...I just feel that the present system is very much polluted by the need to maintain social control, and when money gets involved it just gets messier. Maybe they're all in cahoots, or maybe I'm being paranoid and need get a new perscription. =)

It just gets a little more personal when you're on the wrong side of consensus reality and end up institutionalized because of it. My personal experience is pushing me towards the path of mental health reform, mostly for the sake that no one has to go through what I've gone through.

I have encountered many psychiatrists who give the old "well, you would take medicine to help you deal with diabetes, this is a medical condition, its the same thing". (Seriously....they all had the same story, they all said diabetes too, I think its part of their schooling!)

yeah.....umm....that never sat right with me. Its just kinda creepy taking stuff that fucks with your neurotransmitters and keeping a constant supply of it in your system at all times. Not to mention it cancels out the effects of THC...but at least that quit me from smoking.

But I'm not here to bitch and moan, I really just want to here some perspectives.
 
 
Evil Scientist
08:49 / 19.04.07
I find it odd that, whilst you are understandably apprehensive about taking drugs which affect your brain's chemistry, you don't have a problem with using cannabis which also affects your brain's chemistry.

I'm not going to be overly extreme and say the medical model should be completely thrown out...I just feel that the present system is very much polluted by the need to maintain social control, and when money gets involved it just gets messier. Maybe they're all in cahoots, or maybe I'm being paranoid and need get a new perscription. =)

There is, perhaps, an argument that treatment of mental illness is too reliant on using medication to keep the symptoms under control rather than addressing the issues behind it. It can also be argued that it isn't so much an issue of maintaining social control but ensuring that vulnerable people are able to have lives that aren't being dominated by their conditions.

I have encountered many psychiatrists who give the old "well, you would take medicine to help you deal with diabetes, this is a medical condition, its the same thing". (Seriously....they all had the same story, they all said diabetes too, I think its part of their schooling!)

Some mental illnesses do have biochemical causes though, which could be what the psychiatrists are referring to. So in the sense that they are medical conditions which can be kept in check by drugs and monitoring some forms of mental illness are similar diseases to diabetes.
 
 
Saturn's nod
09:13 / 19.04.07
Hi Eazy Eun,

I know there have been a few threads related to this kind of discussion, because one of our long-time posters worked in psychiatry. I just used google with "anti-psychiatry site:barbelith.com" to pull out a few old threads which you might find interesting:

Beyond anti-psychiatry

Is psychiatry dying?

More recently:
Has anyone here ever been to therapy?

It could be argued that in the current state of global crisis, medication's necessary for some people to stay focused on the actions necessary, and able to carry out the actions required, to allow a better future for our species. I agree that for some people, it's possible for them to build and learn ways to stay centred and grounded without the meds. But I guess Ganesh's question in that 'beyond anti-psychiatry' thread is really key here: who's going to help those people build those skills?

He wrote: Whose problem is it? How should we, as a society, deal with that mass of suffering humanity which cannot cope, wants 'help', but is not (or does not want to be viewed as) 'ill'? Who should be responsible for providing such help?

At the moment I guess our culture has devised this method - pills - for getting people stable. I think we're not quite so skilled yet at building the underlying framework to enable people to change their neurochemistry for good to reduce the reliance on pills. That's more immediately socially costly and it always gets hard to push people collectively to invest in things we don't even want to think about (I'd say see climate change issues for another example).
 
 
Red Concrete
10:07 / 19.04.07
Eazy,
In my opinon a lot of it comes down to there not being many or easily accessible paradigms for how to handle having a mental illness. I see it this way - onset of bipolar can be seen as a sudden shift in your mind. One that brings about unfortunate "side effects" because of its volatile nature. The medication can control the bad side effects in some people, and I'm glad that they've worked for you.

But yes, you probably do feel different from how you were before - there's no way to "cure" that, at the moment. And I don't mean to insult you, of course. When there is a mental "event" like onset of bipolar, many sufferers do not recognise it as an illness, but simply as a change in what they are, and the idea of "curing" that is insulting.

There are many ways to see it, and probably while you're well some form of therapy might help you deal with the trauma of having been so ill. The very best of luck to you, anyway!

I recommend that you read up, educate yourself about your disorder. Neurotransmitters are the traditional hypothesis, because that was what the drugs were known to affect, but new effects of these drugs are being found. I'm not a believer in mind-body duality - I think it's all biology. (not to say that treatment has to be only medication!) My advice: be skeptical of the popular press, and if you need help understanding anything, either us, or some other serious message board, or your psychiatrist can probably help you understand.

That said, you will never know as much as a psychiatrist without actually training as one. The slightly patronising way that psychiatrists treat patients is unfortunate, but it was developed (I think) in order to explain in simple terms why medication should be taken, to a patient who may not be thinking very rationally. It's shit, but there's a catch 22 in the nature of the disorder, in that it's often not until they're well, that a patient sees the need for some sort of treatment.

Therefore many people, once recovered, harbour a (justifiable) grudge against the psychiatrists, against the system, against the idea of the drugs. It's not paranoia and not part of the illness, it's a normal human reaction.

Of course there's no reason for the docs to keep up a patronising tone with someone who is well, but they're only human! Having worked with psychiatrists, some of them seem to develop quirks or patterns of speech that probably help them deal with their work, which is more stressful than you'd assume. Personally, I'd hate their job...

I'll stop before I reach page 2 and I again wish you all the best.
 
 
Saturn's nod
11:34 / 19.04.07
@Red Concrete you will never know as much as a psychiatrist without actually training as one.

I think you've got some really good points there, Red Concrete, but there's something more to say on the bit I've pulled out. Possibly a bit quibbly:

I'm thinking about Expert Patient programmes. I've come across them from friends who've trained with them. The idea is that someone who lives and manages a disorder their whole life can become more expert than the medics who are in charge of their treatment, and acknowledging that can become helpful all round. I think it's a matter of focus - if your job involves hundreds of conditions you don't have the same focus as someone who has been living for thirty years with one condition, and who may have been able to put in a lot of extra study, keep up with the latest literature and so on. A patient might have more contact with and more time to learn from specialists and researchers, depending on their inclination.

I think people who have cystic fibrosis are a key example of this: often the GPs they see most often know far less about their disease than the patient does. I've heard that sometime hospital staff are a bit intimidated by their expertise: a cystic fibrosis patient isn't likely to miss if you do something slightly wrong, since they are some of the most intensively treated people walking around and they have been watching people put lines in or do whatever treatment since they were born.

As far as I know Expert Patient programmes have mostly been put into place with people with chronic physical ailments, but I don't think there's an overwhelming reason why a patient who is managing a mental health condition well over the long term shouldn't become an expert patient.
 
 
jentacular dreams
14:30 / 19.04.07
Except that this implies to some extent that a condition will affect all patients in the same way, which I'd argue is probably far less true of the neurological-psychological conditions than it is of the physical (with different conditions probably varying to differing extents). That said, it's unlikely that such an expert-patient's input would ever be truly useless..
 
 
Red Concrete
20:57 / 19.04.07
Yes, thanks Saturn's nod - Expert Patient didn't even occur to me. I'm a strong believer that more information, more education is a good thing.

That said, it probably is more difficult with mental illnesses than with others, because often times when treatment is first needed or when treatment needs to be revised are times when the patient is most vulnerable and scared, and in some cases less verbally coherent.

Also you have to consider that there is often patient - psychiatrist antagonism, for all kinds of reasons. Now I don't think that the sufferer having expertise and information will make things worse, but the patient in a crisis thinking that they know as much or more than the psychiatrist might. But I'm speculating, and I really should do some reading on this first.

During remission and recovery, and any period of tailing-off medication, I'd say there is nothing but good in having as much information as possible.

I'd like to discuss the social aspect of this as well, Eazy. I know there are some schools of thought that maintain that detention is wrong (surrealists I think?). IMHO it's always worth keeping a very close eye on a system that grants powers but relies so much on the good judgment and charity of humans (in this case doctors). Such trust is normally only given to active 'do-gooding' professions such as police, firemen, etc.. (breaking doors with axes, snashing windows, arresting people, etc) but maybe doctors do fit that as well.

I've just read a little about the new mental health bill in the UK, actually the report that the Joint Committee on Human Rights made on it, but I've a lot more reading to do on the bill, that I understand has since been amended..? If anyone wants to give me a summary of the issues, please do!
 
 
Red Concrete
21:02 / 19.04.07
Sorry, it took me an hour to write that post, and I still forgot to include the link to Expert Patients, which by the way does mention bipolar, major depression and schizophrenia. The site's probably worth exploring.
 
 
Stigma Enigma
00:03 / 20.04.07
well just a quick response for Evil Scientist while I have time...

Yes, perhaps it highlights my hypocrisy or weakens my standpoint to be apprehensive about lamictal and not cannibus.

Yes, you can lump them together and say they both affect brain chemistry.

I guess with the weed it comes down to inducing an altered state...enhancing my sensory perception...having really good sex...feeling a certain spiritual attunement. I just used to really enjoy the experience, socially or privately. However, the fact that it won't affect me anymore like it used to is a call to pursue what I could achieve simply by ingesting a substance through self-discipline alone. Its harder but I heard its worth the trouble. =)

With the lamictal its a constant level in your body, a constant presence floating around your head, and its synthetic. And the effects are subtle and aim at stabilization. But! What matters to me is that after taking it for two years I am more stable than I ever have been. My intent here was to open discussion, I've never been too good at taking sides.

So yes, they both affect brain chemistry, but the differences are so drastic I don't think its wrong of me to have a different attitude towards things that affect the brain in unique ways. I mean, what DOESN'T affect brain chemistry?
 
 
Stigma Enigma
00:09 / 20.04.07
to edit my post above...I shouldn't say I stand by an absolute such as "anti-med". But...the fact that I am defending it later in my post should clear that up for itself mm?
 
 
Stigma Enigma
01:34 / 20.04.07
clarification:

the fact that I am defending MEDS later on should lend to the value I place on them, especially in terms of the life they have helped provide.
 
 
Stigma Enigma
01:53 / 20.04.07
I am checking out Expert Patients right now.

What I like is that the training program is taught by people who are living with long term illness.

This is something I would like to see more of. Therapy from people who have lived through it themselves. Getting advice from a person who is enjoying a successful life after having had overcome some similar debilitating illness gives the subject a sense of hope, trust, and mutual empathy.

At least it has the potential to reduce any air of superiority. Its like when they first started studying LSD in a therapeutic setting...the psychologists took it themselves and then interpreted the effects as experienced by those they studied. Gives you an experiental framework that you can't get from religiously reading the DSM.
 
 
Evil Scientist
08:17 / 20.04.07
So yes, they both affect brain chemistry, but the differences are so drastic I don't think its wrong of me to have a different attitude towards things that affect the brain in unique ways. I mean, what DOESN'T affect brain chemistry?

No you're quite right. I didn't mean to sound critical there.
 
 
Elfwreck
18:29 / 20.04.07
The slightly patronising way that psychiatrists treat patients is unfortunate, but it was developed (I think) in order to explain in simple terms why medication should be taken, to a patient who may not be thinking very rationally.

No, it wasn't. It's endemic to doctors, and there are hints of it in every professional field... but while a contractor who's fixing a crumbling porch built without a proper foundation may say, "look, I have the training, and yes, dammit, you need eighteen inches of cement here or your house will fall apart; no, I'm not going to tell you exactly why because I don't want to spend two weeks teaching the basics of engineering to every homeowner," they are prone to dropping that if the homeowner actually seems interested, and is willing to accept fairly basic explanations. And they'll explain which elements are required, and which are just recommended, and which they do because it's they're personal preference and someone else might do it differently.

With many mood-drug prescribing doctors, it's difficult to get a straight answer to "why are you recommending this drug and not that one?" Or, "which of the side-effects I told you about made you decide to switch my prescription, and why do you think this new drug is better for me?"

I get the feeling they're making it up as they go along... after all, if you ask a surgeon, "why are you cutting sideways instead of up-and-down," or "why are you cutting in my abdomen when it's my thigh that hurts?" he'll tell you. You may not understand all the technical details, but you'll know that he's got a reason... and it's not "this is the company that sent me free stuff!"
 
 
Quantum
14:32 / 22.04.07
I get the feeling they're making it up as they go along

Doesn't it rather depend on the doctor? I don't think lumping all of them together is very helpful, some will happily tell you exactly why they're prescribing a particular medication, while others will just hand out the same pills to everyone. Like every profession, some doctors are good at their job and some not so good.

I think it's more tricksy than your surgery example shows, because it's the mind that is being medicated not the body. If a patient has mental health issues then the reasons a Dr has to choose one pill over another could be something difficult to explain, either because of the intricacies of neurochemistry or because the patient's mental health issues interfere with their understanding of it. For example, if a pill was making someone anxious or confused that might affect their perception of the reasons for a change in medication, or if someone is being treated for paranoia they may distrust the Dr's motives.
I'm aware that some doctors are pill-happy, but not all of them are prozac-pushing Pfizer drones.
 
  
Add Your Reply