Earwicker wrote:3- I've thought - if these anti depressants are stopping so many people from killing themselves, was suicide, before these drugs were developed, wiping out whole swathes of society?

I reckon that the further removed our daily activities become from that which we clearly need to survive or put better; the more ambiguous our roles/actions become, the more prone to depression people become.

Method of manufacture has been widely researched/discussed in terms of extended, linear production vs parts-to-completion involvement, and I reckon the same is true of people's roles in their own existence. Working in the call-centre of an Italian ski-boot manufacturer based in Wolverhampton removes one so entirely from base-level survival that surely mental ill-health is bound to follow.

Balloons in a net...or something.

Earwicker wrote:5. I've seen a few people rah on at Rick about how he shouldn't have an opinion on who is depressed or not cause he's not 'an expert' whilst failing to acknowledge that the over prescription of these drugs is due to these very same 'experts'.
Who the fuck are you to tell 'the experts' who they should and should not be prescribing pills to?
They're 'the experts' after all - how dare you have the gall to tell us your own utterly irrelevant opinion on the matter?

I'm guessing that was addressed at me, since I was the one that made those criticisms.

'The experts' who prescribe these pills are not the same 'experts' who promote them or regulate them. Perhaps doctors are prescribing these pills more and more these days because they see from first hand experience that they work, in which case what is the problem with that? Perhaps they're being over-prescribed because of advertising. If that is the case, then attack advertising not those suffering with depression, real or otherwise.

I've not actually stated anywhere who should and should not be prescribed anti-depressants. My reason for gettting involved in this debate, was because Rick was focused on attacking those with depression (or at least those for whom he thinks it's all in their mind and they can just snap out of it), rather than addressing the wider factors which have lead to this perceived over-prescription.

Rick could have made exactly the same point by suggesting that a mildly depressed person should be sent to a councillor or advised to get exercise, before they are prescribed pills. But instead he chose to judge and insult those less fortunate than himself. Dismissing someone as "flabby" and bringing it on themselves by spending all day on the couch, when Rick has absolutely no idea what is really going through their mind is both offensive and could be dangerous. It's the sort of mindless comment which could easily trigger someone to self-harm for example.

Re: how dare you have the gall to tell us your own utterly irrelevant opinion on the matter?

Ok, so personal experience of anxiety and depression, a mother with clinical depression, a brother with schizophrenia, an aunt (now deceased) with schizophrenia and an uncle (recently deceased) with severe alcohol problems, along with several friends who've had issues with depression, make my opinion "utterly irrelvant"?

Go fuck yourself.

Earwicker wrote:7. Everyone should just cheer up - it can't really be that bad can it?
Do yoga or something and go for a nice walk in the country -

While exercise is always an excellent idea, it can, in fact, be that bad.

It's nice for you that you feel the way you do and have evidently never felt the need to take anything to straighten shit out.

But sometimes the yoga or the walk in the country doesn't do the trick.

I certainly have observed that any kind of outsider or fringe scene certainly attracts those who are less than stable, probably partly because THEY have rejected normal society and partly because they have BEEN rejected by normal society, which may account for what seems like a high number of people on this board who have suffered from depression and other mental illness or problems.

I know I certainly felt like I didn't fit in with most of the people around me when I was young.

Earwicker wrote:2- several who are saying how Not Crap these things are then go on to describe the crippling side effects that have occurred as a result of taking them.

If you've been reading the thread, you've also noticed that some people have different side effects to certain drugs than other people do. People are unique--your mileage may vary. Just like how therapy is crap if you're not matched up with the therapist that works for you, antidepressants can be crap if you don't find one that works well for you. Unfortunately, there's a bit of trial and error involved, so not everyone gets the right one their first time out, i'm sure. My ex started on Zoloft, but then switched to Lexapro and it worked much better for her...more libido, i don't think it took as long to build up in her system...and yet, other people on this thread have said Lexapro saps their libido. EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT.

Look, i get how C/NC is supposed to be black and white and you're supposed to choose one, but if you can't see how this issue is much more complex than that, i guess i can't help you.

4.Everyone seems to agree that these drugs are over prescribed - but why? If they're not Crap what's so bad about everyone being on them?

I wouldn't say alcohol is crap, but not everyone should be drinking.

7. Everyone should just cheer up - it can't really be that bad can it?
Do yoga or something and go for a nice walk in the country -

Oh brother.

Mark Hansen wrote:I certainly have observed that any kind of outsider or fringe scene certainly attracts those who are less than stable, probably partly because THEY have rejected normal society and partly because they have BEEN rejected by normal society, which may account for what seems like a high number of people on this board who have suffered from depression and other mental illness or problems.

I know I certainly felt like I didn't fit in with most of the people around me when I was young.

*ding*

Not that i've ever suffered from anything even close to depression, but do you ever wonder what it'd be like to be one of those people who thinks that our president is doing a good job, that if we work and behave our whole lives we'll go to heaven, and that walks around saying "oh, i like all kinds of music--except country and rap! Hee!" I bet i'd be a lot less cranky and pissy if i could shut off the "question everything" part of my brain and just turn on One Tree Hill.

simmo wrote:Presumably, they feel that despite the crippling side effects, they were stil better off than they were before taking them - the lesser of two evils.

Sure they feel that way. They're high on anti-depressants.

Those reasons for there being more proclivity to suicide now (or less then) don’t wash with me, generally. I’m more inclined to agree with Champion Rabbit's assessment (though I’ve no clue what the balloons and nets thing means)

simmo wrote:All the same, it's too simple to label anti-depressants as "crap", as they do have actual uses with positive ends in the right circumstances. Just as a record could be over-played or over-rated, but still "not crap".

Maybe you’re right here but I’m going to go and check the gun legislation thread. Guns can certainly do good things (like kill the bad guys before they kill you – that sort of thing) but the majority on this board, (if I remember correctly) think people shouldn’t be allowed to own guns – on account of the bad they do.
It outweighs the possible good (and that ‘good’ re anti-depressants is ambiguous at best, it seems to me).

happyandbored wrote:My reason for getting involved in this debate, was because Rick was focused on attacking those with depression (or at least those for whom he thinks it's all in their mind and they can just snap out of it),

There’s a whole bunch of philosophical questions just waiting to bubble around this concerning the nature of will and determinism blah blah.
Rick is working with the presumption that we have some control over our lives (I’m inclined to disagree, generally, but I’m guessing most wouldn’t). As a result his statement is consistent with that belief.
He thinks some people cause and wallow in their own misery and is criticising that.
Seems fair enough to me – what’s not to criticise?

If, on the other hand, you believe they have no choice or control at all then why presume any of us do, including Rick.
His judgment is just as much a result of chemicals as Gary’s schizophrenic episode last Tuesday and condemning him for making that judgment is just as futile as you think his judging is.

If you catch my drift.

happyandbored wrote:Re: how dare you have the gall to tell us your own utterly irrelevant opinion on the matter?

Ok, so personal experience of anxiety and depression, a mother with clinical depression, a brother with schizophrenia, an aunt (now deceased) with schizophrenia and an uncle (recently deceased) with severe alcohol problems, along with several friends who've had issues with depression, make my opinion "utterly irrelvant"?

Go fuck yourself.

My statement was meant to be ironic.
You criticised Rick for offering his opinion without being ‘an expert’.
I was criticising you for the same (with my tongue placed in my cheek. I disagree with the 'you have to be an expert in order to express your opinion' approach, in case you hadn't noticed).

You retort by giving us a run down of your family’s mental history.

Tell me – does this family history make you ‘an expert’ or do you have to go to University for years and study for that privilege?

You don’t see your double standard do you?

tmidgett wrote:It's nice for you that you feel the way you do and have evidently never felt the need to take anything to straighten shit out.

Actually, I went to the doctor a couple of years ago and asked for some pills cause I was feeling stressed etc.

Cunt wouldn’t give ‘em to me.

He said do some Yoga.



I couldn't be arsed

but I got over it anyway.

DrAwkward wrote:Look, i get how C/NC is supposed to be black and white and you're supposed to choose one, but if you can't see how this issue is much more complex than that, i guess i can't help you.

Don't worry about it. I wasn't asking for your help anyway.
And I do see that the situation is complex. I can of course see that there are positives to anti depressants but when asked - in this here black and white game - I am weighing up the negatives (social and personal) with the positives.
I, personally, think the negatives outweigh the positives. That's all.

Was that any help?

DrAwkward wrote:

4.Everyone seems to agree that these drugs are over prescribed - but why? If they're not Crap what's so bad about everyone being on them?

I wouldn't say alcohol is crap, but not everyone should be drinking.

Nonsense. This is an outrageous suggestion. Who? Who shouldn't be drinking?

Incidentally, what's your opinion on the use of LSD in helping people with various mental conditions?
Leary did some work on it but then research got stopped and he got schlepped into prison.

I know I never felt like I had any kind of drug induced high when I was taking anti-depressants. They just don't work that way.

As two examples, Zoloft and Xanax are two very different classes of drugs, with very different effects, and work in very different ways.

Zoloft does not impair motor skills or thinking. It is an anti-depressant drug.Xanax can impair both. It is an anti-anxiety drug.

This is just one example, but this is the kind of misinformation I had to deal with from people when I was taking Zoloft. Even when I tried to set people right, there still were some who couldn't or wouldn't recognize the difference.

Earwicker wrote:

simmo wrote:Presumably, they feel that despite the crippling side effects, they were stil better off than they were before taking them - the lesser of two evils.

Sure they feel that way. They're high on anti-depressants.

Anti-depressants really aren't designed to "get people high". They're not recreational drugs, they're medical drugs. I can't put it more simply than: they just don't get you high.

Earwicker wrote:Those reasons for there being more proclivity to suicide now (or less then) don’t wash with me, generally. I’m more inclined to agree with Champion Rabbit's assessment (though I’ve no clue what the balloons and nets thing means)

Well, they were ad hoc and not particularly well expressed, but I reckon if expounded upon there might be some truth in them.

Earwicker wrote:This point:

simmo wrote:- People were less introspective. Life was to be devoted to God, not oneself. Identifying oneself as depressed requires a great deal of introspection.

Sounds like you’re euphemistically saying some suicides are self absorbed, narcissists.

I'm not sure how it sounds like that, but it's certainly not what I meant. I was trying to say something along the lines of the following:

If all thoughts a person has about being begin with the idea that being is defined by its relationship to God, the creator, He who can define or redefine being as He chooses, then the way in which you experience the world is going to be very different to someone who believes that he is a self-contained and autonomous entity. Classic Christian theology doesn't embrace a notion of the self in the same way that, for example, Freudian psychology does. A developed and complex notion of the self just isn't needed, as the point of existence doesn't lie in ideas such as "self fulfillment" or even something as simple as "being happy" - the point of existence is to be the subject of an exterior force i.e. God, to live a life of servitude, etc. It's not until you free yourself from the idea that your life has an intrinsic point that you can truly begin to feel despair.