|
Apology (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| enydo |
tbh, I don't even know if I have a "valid" case for being prescribed, I just know I was sick of dealing with what I was going through, so I decided to try something different.
As has been repeated by numerous people throughout this thread, it's all on the individual. If you don't want medication, the doctor/psychiatrist is not going to force you to take any. UNLESS, of course, you are clearly a THREAT to yourself or others (this is USUALLY defined as physical harm towards yourself or others). The utter lack of education surrounding mental illness is probably the largest reason people tend to hold skewed views on medication.
I had friends treat me completely differently just because they found out I was taking medication, without even knowing what medication it was, or why I was taking it. That kind of is ridiculous and only serves to push people with mental health issues further into the shadows.
//Basically, educating people on what constitutes mental illness, and the varying options for treatment, is probably the best way to bring the overall medication use-rate down. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Do you really think nobody who has spoken up about troubling thoughts or feelings has ever gone on to do something terrible? |
Of course I don't, and I'm not trying to make a case for "it's always the quiet ones", either. It is a generalization, but ask most therapists and they will tell you that in a startling majority of cases, the people who stop coming to meetings or stop opening up are the ones who actualize their tendencies. It's a rare case that somebody makes their threats heard before their actions, which is why it's almost always newsworthy. Because there's a story to tell, a narrative with prejudice and documentation and lurid characterization to fascinate a public whose own neuroses make the entire process a comical prophecy.
| quote: | | I think this argument is being conducted from entirely the wrong angle. The real objection here is whether or not "threat" (whatever the definition) is a valid cut-off point for prescription. Austin is getting so shirty because he knows he's not at risk of killing or harming himself or anyone else, but he still thinks he has a valid case for being prescribed. All this "DEFINE THREAT PLEASE" is bogging the discussion down. |
Yeah, it's slogging through semantics, but second-guessing the implications of "threat" is not wrong in this case because it calls into question something that is so personal, so subjective in the context of society at large and the individual's worth within. Casting any judgment on others' prescriptions is armchair slychology at best, and a hurtful aspersion in its subtlety at worst, aimed at those least deserving of its political inertia; As if people's investment in their health is an ethical decision in the least. |
|
|
| enydo |
Wow, I type out then read Jack/Hal's posts and end up thinking I should just delete the whole thing and post more all-caps nonsense.
It your fault(s). |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| ONE, TWO, THREE, POTATO |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Yeah, it's slogging through semantics, but second-guessing the implications of "threat" is not wrong in this case because it calls into question something that is so personal, so subjective in the context of society at large and the individual's worth within. Casting any judgment on others' prescriptions is armchair slychology at best, and a hurtful aspersion in its subtlety at worst, aimed at those least deserving of its political inertia; As if people's investment in their health is an ethical decision in the least. |
Well I think the argument being made is one related to our discussion of over-prescription, and the diagnosis of whether someone is a "threat" is made by a qualified and detached professional at the point of a decision being made on how to proceed. It's a bit of a moot point to debate people who aren't aware of their own mental illness, because they aren't going to facilitate any kind of help.
This debate concerns the situation where someone who comes to a medical professional in search of help. |
|
|
| Trance-MB |
| quote: | Originally posted by AlphaStarred
I should've said I'm discounting people with diagnoses such as OCD, ADD, etc. I don't understand what's so funny about the statement. Care to explain? |
Yeah, maybe you should have.
I'm not a shrink, but I would prefer to put someone on meds before one gets a threat to himself or to society. At least if there was a chance to and there are clear signals. Problem is such a person must be willing to take them. I knew someone who didn't and there wasn't a happy end.
I do think meds in general are given too quickly for all sort of things. I try to keep the amount as low as possible, (well less would mean stopping), even during winter, which is a bit harder.
I don't have much to add to what has been said especially by Hal. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| OF course it's easier to prescribe someone meds when treating mental illness - addressing and treating all the factors that contribute to a person's unwellness takes a lifetime. One physician alone, especially a GP, is hardly equipped to address all of these factors. Meds are just a starting point...or at least they should be. A good doc will also refer people to a pschiatrist or therapy, etc. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| Who are you arguing with? |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
Not everything is a ing argument, you tool. But you're so used to turning every conversationto a right-fighting debate that you think it is.
I'm just adding to the conversation for 's sake. Being one of the few people here who actually works with doctors I feel it's fair to defend their decision to prescribe meds...I don't doctors are being lazy. Well not all of them. But they have to start somewhere. |
|
|
| Trance-MB |
I'm on Jay's ignore list, so that might explain his question.
And I agree, it's difficult for doctors. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
I think GPs, especially if you're in a PPO or POS med plan tend to function more like Jenny described, or a "gatekeeper" of sorts. They may start you off on a medication, and likely refer you to someone else in their network that they'd recommend as a therapist. More and more GPs are starting to tackle mental health issues, to the point where a lot of times, even if I was going for a flu shot or something like that, they give out GAD-7's or other mental health screening questionnaires, along with asking questions that are clearly mental health related, rather than strictly physical. I don't think it's fair to say GPs don't know what they're talking about and just throw medicine at people. Many are starting to be the primary caregiver for people with mental health issues.
I think this is a statement in and of itself of the fact that mental health issues are not the taboo topics that they used to be. It seems every person you meet has some sort of MH issue, whether it's OCD, ADD, anxiety, etc. I don't know whether this is indicative of people getting more comfortable speaking to their doctor about these types of things, if people are just becoming lazy and wanting to be coddled in the faux-reality of life while medicated, or if it's something else. I think this terrible social stigma of having a mental health issue has been greatly over estimated in this thread. I don't think that really exists for the most part anymore. Maybe if someone is on anti-psychotics, but I wouldn't say there's much negative social stigma towards people on anti-depressants, sedatives, or any of the "run of the mill" psychotropic drugs out there. It seems like those have almost become the norm in our current society, to where a larger percentage of the population than you think is on some sort of mental health medication. |
|
|
|
|
