Here it was you need history (or participation in government), Math, science, English, Gym, were mandatory. Which leaves 2 classes open, tops , for electives.
I fail to see what is wrong in telling kids 11-14 "pick from three classes in the following categories". Though the categories themselves seem a bit weird to me.
If they're going to describe Autism spectrum disorders so broadly as to include 1 kid in 68 we are talking about kids in the general population.
My best friend in highschool was on a LOT of lithium. The zombification thing was.. rough. It seemed unnecessary but it was "the only option" simply because the way the school system is set up puts students around other students and then heats up the pressure cooker.
I was specifically addressing when you were responding to someone talking about autistic people put on drugs for aggression.
I'm a fan of the early therapy method.
1) it feels less intrusive, no drugs.
2) really it's just about training the child's brain to perceive and react to common human interaction, which is a valuable skill in all periods of human history.
The problem is it has to be done before the age of 6. I don't think any official studies have been done to confirm it, but having pieced together information from other disciplines (particularly language development) there is a major change happening in the brain at 6 y/o give or take a year.
At 5 or younger, the brain functions in a fairly simple, but multifaceted manner. The simple portion is the focus of this idea, the multifaceted is really just multiple versions of the same simple thing happening (kids are really good at paying attention to multiple sensory inputs). That simple aspect is that kids can only access one idea at a time, the strongest evidence for this is language, but it's also been proven through problem solving experiments.
An example:
Grandma's house is far away and smells like cookies.
To an adult, this seems like a pretty simple sentence, but it contains several concepts.
1) Grandma's house
2) far away
3) smells like cookies
Very small children can't form sentences like that. They can say:
1) Grandma's house is far away.
2) Grandma's house smells like cookies.
They could technically create the full sentence, but there would be a long pause in the middle and probably be more like: Grandma's house is far away and... and... Grandma's house smells like cookies.
Usually by the age of 6 the more complex sentences start to form. What's happening is that the brain is linking ideas together in a string. Even rats can link 2 ideas, but they can't link 3. In similar experiments, rats and children perform equally well when you require them to link 3 ideas together. At 6 y/o though, humans suddenly surge ahead and become really good at those tests.
My hypothesis would be that if they don't develop certain social skills by age 6 (or whenever this development in the brain happens for them) they will always have a more difficult time linking complex ideas involving social interaction. There's a lot of things we can change about the brain... unless it's something that's linked to a development period. Then major aspects can be locked in for life.
Video about how humans start learning language in the womb. One of the interesting tidbits, newborns in different regions of the world cry slightly differently, with those differences being predicted by the mother's primary language.
That makes me laugh. There were plenty of kids who posed a physical threat to their classmates in my school experience.
Not the ones with any kind of diagnosed mental illness, of course. Those would more likely be victims.
Alright I'll try to go back through and add on the qualifications of "mentally handicapped" to every place where it was implied but not outright stated.
Nah, I can do it in my head. It just struck me, that's all.
It's a rather sad thing that the mentally disabled are much more likely to be victimized than the general public, and that when they do lash out it is usually at someone trying to help them.
Nah, I can do it in my head. It just struck me, that's all.It's a rather sad thing that the mentally disabled are much more likely to be victimized than the general public, and that when they do lash out it is usually at someone trying to help them.
It's a rather sad standard human nature thing that the mentally disabled those who are different are much more likely to be victimized than the general public those who conform to the standard.
It's human nature, man. Thousands of years of human nature. It's going to take a looooooong time to undo things that have been reinforced by thousands of years of practice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nah, I can do it in my head. It just struck me, that's all.It's a rather sad thing that the mentally disabled are much more likely to be victimized than the general public, and that when they do lash out it is usually at someone trying to help them.It's a
rather sadstandard human nature thing thatthe mentally disabledthose who are different are much more likely to be victimized thanthe general publicthose who conform to the standard.It's human nature, man. Thousands of years of human nature. It's going to take a looooooong time to undo things that have been reinforced by thousands of years of practice.
For kids, it isn't just being different (though that does paint a target), it's also the perception of weakness. Humans have a tendency to create a hierarchy, kids are no different. Even if you aren't on the top of the hierarchy, if you can put someone else below you, your standing improves. The more people you push down, the higher you go (relatively speaking).
It's a myth that bullies are loner kids harboring lots of angst. Most bullies are popular kids, who maintain their position through aggression, physical or social. Not many people WANT to think of themselves like that, but for kids with poor impulse control (cause they're kids) it's easy to fall into that trap of pushing others down.
Well I'd say the sad twist on that is that we then portray the mentally disabled as particularly dangerous, when they are in fact more likely to be victims.Nah, I can do it in my head. It just struck me, that's all.It's a rather sad thing that the mentally disabled are much more likely to be victimized than the general public, and that when they do lash out it is usually at someone trying to help them.It's a
rather sadstandard human nature thing thatthe mentally disabledthose who are different are much more likely to be victimized thanthe general publicthose who conform to the standard.It's human nature, man. Thousands of years of human nature. It's going to take a looooooong time to undo things that have been reinforced by thousands of years of practice.
What makes it worse is that even police, the guys who are supposed to help, manage to get away with brutality pulling the "he went crazy on me" line.
Nah, I can do it in my head. It just struck me, that's all.It's a rather sad thing that the mentally disabled are much more likely to be victimized than the general public, and that when they do lash out it is usually at someone trying to help them.It's a
rather sadstandard human nature thing thatthe mentally disabledthose who are different are much more likely to be victimized thanthe general publicthose who conform to the standard.It's human nature, man. Thousands of years of human nature. It's going to take a looooooong time to undo things that have been reinforced by thousands of years of practice.
Well I'd say the sad twist on that is that we then portray the mentally disabled as particularly dangerous, when they are in fact more likely to be victims.
That said, there are some disorders that do make people more dangerous. They are often ones that go undetected and untreated until too late.
Being a victim in no way prevents someone from being dangerous, or vice versa. Our culture is suffused with the myth of the victim, and it is difficult for so many people to accept that being a victim doesn't absolve you from what responsibility you do carry. Thus, various s!+@ theories about how it is society's fault because of a crappy childhood that someone robs a bank, etc. Still, if you learn how to act when someone is in a bad state (confusion, mostly), violence becomes something very rare.
Also, the disorders that make someone dangerous are typically personality disorders (antisocial, for example), i.e. A lack of empathy, coupled with poor impulse control.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In regards to ECT and causing brain damage. It most certainly can. An immediate family member of a friend of mine had been receiving monthly treatments for years. The person receiving the treatments has developed a Parkinson's like tremor as a result. Recently, a treatment left the person in a state not unlike senile dementia for a couple of weeks after the treatment. I can't answer for this person, but I certainly wonder if the benefits have outweighed the costs.
Speaking of Parkinson's, there are other unpleasant side effects to some anti-depressant medications. Abilify can cause uncontrollable muscle movements, in the form of tics or tremors, that can often be permanent, even once off the medication.
Furthermore, due to the poorly understood nature of how these meditations will affect an individual, it's not uncommon to have to try multiple medication regimens before a patient finds one, or a combination, that actually helps them (especially without unlivable side-effects). A friend had to go through 12 different prescriptions (several for multiple medications simultaneously) before finding one that was effective. Additionally, people can develop a tolerance to these medications just as they can to any medication. A relative of mine has had to switch medications every two to three years as the old one began to lose effectiveness. The combo before the current generated such intense feelings of anxiety that said relative became concerned that someone was going to kidnap/murder me. I live in a town that doesn't have a crime rate unless you count speeding.
Seeing what I've seen, and knowing who I've known, I would fight to my last to stop anyone from being forcibly administered anti-depressant medications. I speak from personal experience to say that depression is awful. On the other hand, a "silver bullet" isn't great when you're shot with it.
So, people should just suck it up and suffer? Or go through psychotherapy they are too ill to participate in? I fail to see your alternative, Scythia.
So, people should just suck it up and suffer? Or go through psychotherapy they are too ill to participate in? I fail to see your alternative, Scythia.
If you were sick in medival times, should you have used leeches because that was the only cure around?
So, people should just suck it up and suffer? Or go through psychotherapy they are too ill to participate in? I fail to see your alternative, Scythia.If you were sick in medival times, should you have used leeches because that was the only cure around?Many forms of medical treatment, both mental and physical, occasionally either fail or have a, usually very small, chance of nasty side effects.
Obviously we should stop all medical practice until treatments are perfected.
YES! Finally we've reached the ideal conclusion! Well done everyone.
Here's you guys --------------------------------------------------------- Here's the point.
How about we acknowledge that medicine isn't perfect and that some people can't afford, monetarily or physically, to go through several different treatment regimens. Not only that, but if you have to capture someone and forcibly medicate them you are just as likely to harm as help them. It isn't an easy choice, ever.
So, people should just suck it up and suffer? Or go through psychotherapy they are too ill to participate in? I fail to see your alternative, Scythia.If you were sick in medival times, should you have used leeches because that was the only cure around?Many forms of medical treatment, both mental and physical, occasionally either fail or have a, usually very small, chance of nasty side effects.
Obviously we should stop all medical practice until treatments are perfected.
At the other extreme you try anything no matter how dangerous or scientifically ungrounded it is and hope that it works. That's not a good decision making model either.
Electro shock therapy is just... oh hell no. Way too many side effects, they're not quite sure if it works, and they don't know HOW it works.
I think that in many areas of mental health our desire to help others has far surpassed our ability to do so.
Umm, no, they now how it works, they're quite sure it can work for some things, and major side affects are rare. People have just seen them portrayed in media as horrible, and since the vast vast majority of people don't know anything at all about it, they assume that representation is accurate.
How about we acknowledge that medicine isn't perfect and that some people can't afford, monetarily or physically, to go through several different treatment regimens.
This is true.
Not only that, but if you have to capture someone and forcibly medicate them you are just as likely to harm as help them
This isn't. At all.
The first statement says that medicine isn't perfect. The second says that all imperfect things are the same. A treatment regime that is 70% likely to help and 30% is substantially more likely (more than two-fold as likely) to help as to harm.
Now, that's still not a comforting level of negative side effects, and it's definitely an area where research would be needed. But don't pretend that 30% and 70% are the same.
So, people should just suck it up and suffer? Or go through psychotherapy they are too ill to participate in? I fail to see your alternative, Scythia.
What I said was that I was against forcibly medicating for depression, a position you took earlier. I'm all for informed voluntary medication. I would prefer to see a strong counseling/therapy component as well. But just round up everyone who's depressed and put pills in them whether they want it or not, risks and side effects be damned? I don't agree with that at all.
Edit: I also disagree that you can assume someone is too ill to participate in or benefit from counseling/therapy. CBT in particular has had good effectiveness in helping people work through depression, simply by giving them tools to challenge their patterns of thinking. Depression can have a neurochemical component, but it doesn't always. Sometimes it can have a cognitive basis.
Umm, no, they now how it works
Although a large amount of research has been carried out, the exact mechanism of action of ECT remains elusive, and successful ECT is usually followed by medication treatment. Linky
they're quite sure it can work for some things
Different studies get different answers
In 2010, a paper by Dr. John Reed and Dr. Richard Bentall found that ECT was only minimally more effective than a placebo during the treatment period, and that there was no difference in effect after the treatment period. In light of this finding, and the risk of side-effects, the authors concluded that the use of ECT "cannot be scientifically justified".[7]
In 2003, The UK ECT Review group published a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ECT to placebo and antidepressant drugs. This meta-analysis demonstrated a large effect size (high efficacy relative to the mean in terms of the standard deviation) for ECT versus placebo, and versus antidepressant drugs.[33]
and major side affects are rare.
One published review summarizing the results of questionnaires about subjective memory loss found that between 29% and 55% of respondents believed they experienced long-lasting or permanent memory changes
People have just seen them portrayed in media as horrible, and since the vast vast majority of people don't know anything at all about it, they assume that representation is accurate.
Now can the veiled insults.
Forcing someone into medication that you're quite sure will work, or at least has a very decent chance of doing so, for a decidedly dangerous condition that is more dangerous the longer you're in in, for a few weeks, to restore the person to a situation where he or she can then participate in other forms of treatment as well, and more importantly, make an informed decision about the treatment, is not unreasonable, horrible, unlikely to work, "trying anything no matter how dangerous or scientifically ungrounded it is and hope that it works", or anything else it has been describe as upthread.
Yes, it is quite possible, indeed even not that difficult, to determine if someone is too depressed to give informed consent.
CBT works, indeed, but not for the situation where someone is too depressed. You would, among other things, have a hard time finding a serious CBT practitioner willing to do that job for you, since there are few studies on the area. Researchers tend to be quite unwilling to risk having patients commit suicide while under their care, imagine that. Once someone is in better shape and not depressed to that level, CBT is great.
Depression IS a neurochemical disorder. Everyone who shows the symptoms has the neurochemistry. At that point, it doesn't matter WHY they became depressed in the first place. And cognitive symptoms are a part of the presentation of depression.
As for ECT, it is THE most studied treatment in psychiatry, given that it's been with us since the thirties. It provides consistent effect and few side effects. What it does is trigger an epileptic seizure in the brain, using the body's OWN mechanisms for the seizure itself. It is no more dangerous than an epileptic seizure, and further, to reduce muscle cramps and pain due to the seizure, you're also given muscle relaxants. There are side effects, but these are minor and temporary. It is quite possible that someone who was given ECT develops Parkinson's disease, just like everyone else runs that risk, and I am not aware of any greater numbers for this among ECT patients. Nor has any kind of brain damage been shown. Sum total: ECT isn't "trying anything no matter how dangerous or scientifically ungrounded it is and hope that it works" either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Forcing someone into medication that you're quite sure will work, or at least has a very decent chance of doing so, for a decidedly dangerous condition that is more dangerous the longer you're in in, for a few weeks, to restore the person to a situation where he or she can then participate in other forms of treatment as well, and more importantly, make an informed decision about the treatment, is not unreasonable, horrible, unlikely to work, "trying anything no matter how dangerous or scientifically ungrounded it is and hope that it works", or anything else it has been describe as upthread.
Yes, it is quite possible, indeed even not that difficult, to determine if someone is too depressed to give informed consent.
CBT works, indeed, but not for the situation where someone is too depressed. You would, among other things, have a hard time finding a serious CBT practitioner willing to do that job for you, since there are few studies on the area. Researchers tend to be quite unwilling to risk having patients commit suicide while under their care, imagine that. Once someone is in better shape and not depressed to that level, CBT is great.
Depression IS a neurochemical disorder. Everyone who shows the symptoms has the neurochemistry. At that point, it doesn't matter WHY they became depressed in the first place. And cognitive symptoms are a part of the presentation of depression.
As for ECT, it is THE most studied treatment in psychiatry, given that it's been with us since the thirties. It provides consistent effect and few side effects. What it does is trigger an epileptic seizure in the brain, using the body's OWN mechanisms for the seizure itself. It is no more dangerous than an epileptic seizure, and further, to reduce muscle cramps and pain due to the seizure, you're also given muscle relaxants. There are side effects, but these are minor and temporary. It is quite possible that someone who was given ECT develops Parkinson's disease, just like everyone else runs that risk, and I am not aware of any...
Forcibly giving someone medication that you have no idea what effect it will have on them, while hoping for the best doesn't seem like a good policy to me. Treating everyone with a condition as both a danger to themselves, and incapable of refusing consent because some with the condition injure themselves doesn't seem like good justification. Discounting the value of talking with a person to try to help them goes against my personal beliefs and experiences.
I'm afraid I'll simply have to agree to disagree with you.
Oh, but that's the thing, Scythia. We DO know what effect the treatment will have on them. Nobody is putting anything into action and "hoping for the best". And "treating everyone with a condition as both a danger to themselves and incapable of refusing consent because some with the condition injure themselves": Severe depression is a lethal condition. It kills people through suicide. It is also known to impair people's judgement. It isn't because some of them injure themselves that they are considered incapable of giving consent, but because they are quite literally incapable of making adequate choices. See, they can't see that any change might be for the better. If you talk to them, this inability is quite easy to see. I agree that it's important to talk to people... but nobody would even consider TREATING kidney failure by talking, so why should brain failure at the most serious levels be treatable by talking?
In 2010, a paper by Dr. John Reed and Dr. Richard Bentall found that ECT was only minimally more effective than a placebo during the treatment period, and that there was no difference in effect after the treatment period. In light of this finding, and the risk of side-effects, the authors concluded that the use of ECT "cannot be scientifically justified".[7]
It is worth noting here, that this article bases its judgement on the principle that a study must conduct sham ECT treatments on a control group that you can then compare to real ECT, so you can check the treatment against placebo. It then notes, interestingly enough, that since real ECT gives headaches and short term confusion right after the treatment, a difference the patients notice very clearly, that it may be impossible to disguise this difference. What they then do not conclude is that sham ECT is useless as a placebo treatment - and that their own requirement of sham ECT as a placebo is pretty much completely useless. It would be a good thing if people who wrote articles actually read their own arguments first, no?
People have just seen them portrayed in media as horrible, and since the vast vast majority of people don't know anything at all about it, they assume that representation is accurate.Now can the veiled insults.
I wouldn't call this an insult, veiled or not, rather a quite accurate representation of reality. The ranks of the antipsychiatric movement are legion, and they have no compunctions about lying in their propaganda, by omission or outright. And since care for the severe psychiatric conditions is a field people feel better if they believe it could never happen to them, their lies find fertile soil in the minds of the public.
I wouldn't call this an insult, veiled or not, rather a quite accurate representation of reality
The Wright brothers deriving wing shapes from wind tunnels was an unjustified, unscientific leap of faith but some unknown mechanism with an efficacy comparable to a sugar pill is not only good enough to justify electrocuting someone's brain but of casting aspersions on people who dare to question your judgement?
Edit: I also disagree that you can assume someone is too ill to participate in or benefit from counseling/therapy. CBT in particular has had good effectiveness in helping people work through depression, simply by giving them tools to challenge their patterns of thinking. Depression can have a neurochemical component, but it doesn't always. Sometimes it can have a cognitive basis.
If someone doesn't have neurochemical components to their depression they don't really have clinical depression. They are feeling depressed and might have anxiety problems but they don't have depression as a disease. If talking works it's because you are treating something besides depression. This is similar to the difference between someone how is drunk right now and someone who is an alcoholic. The guy whose drunk you can just prop up to avoid vomit choking, the alcoholic you need to run through an anti-addiction treatment. I also not there are few people who would suggest we don't treat alcoholism.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, but that's the thing, Scythia. We DO know what effect the treatment will have on them. Nobody is putting anything into action and "hoping for the best". And "treating everyone with a condition as both a danger to themselves and incapable of refusing consent because some with the condition injure themselves": Severe depression is a lethal condition. It kills people through suicide. It is also known to impair people's judgement. It isn't because some of them injure themselves that they are considered incapable of giving consent, but because they are quite literally incapable of making adequate choices. See, they can't see that any change might be for the better. If you talk to them, this inability is quite easy to see. I agree that it's important to talk to people... but nobody would even consider TREATING kidney failure by talking, so why should brain failure at the most serious levels be treatable by talking?
If you know what effect an anti-depressant will have, why isn't every prescription right the first time? Why do some anti-depressants work differently on different people? Why do some people have bad reactions to them? Reality bears out uncertainty.
Because some depressed people are suicidal, you assume all are. That's an unsettlingly broad generalization. Deciding via broad generalization (and against any suggestion to the contrary) that a particular group of people are automatically incapable or unable to choose for themselves, and therefore require you (or others) to make the "right" choices for them, is a dangerous path. Historically it hasn't always resulted in things that were truly "for their own good".
The reason that talking can help the brain and not the kidneys is fairly simple: talking can change the brain, but not the kidneys. Conditioning and reinforcement can change how the brain functions. Encouragement can improve mental performance. Talking through problems can reduce stress, and aid a person in seeing a better future. Even fairly silly things like platitudes can aid a person in making sense of their feelings, and the world around them. Is it as fast as popping a pill? No. I think it has other benefits though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The reason that talking can help the brain and not the kidneys is fairly simple: talking can change the brain, but not the kidneys. Conditioning and reinforcement can change how the brain functions. Encouragement can improve mental performance. Talking through problems can reduce stress, and aid a person in seeing a better future. Even fairly silly...
If that works the person didn't have medically diagnosed depression.
Every medicine has side effects. The analysis is whether the effects outweigh the side effects. For different people, that comes out differently for different side effects.
Again, I did not say all depressed people were suicidal. I said severe depression. Repeat that as many times as you feel you need to remember it before responding.
Regarding the bad places of authoritarianism, they are the reason there is openness and legal oversight of the process. If that went away, I would agree with you.
Also, what Alex said.
Every medicine has side effects. The analysis is whether the effects outweigh the side effects. For different people, that comes out differently for different side effects.
I completely agree, which is why I don't support a one size fits all solution like forcible medication.
Again, I did not say all depressed people were suicidal. I said severe depression. Repeat that as many times as you feel you need to remember it before responding.Also, what Alex said.
I'm sorry, I must have missed that distinction earlier. I would still be leery about who/how "severe enough" is decided. I would much rather that suicidal risk be determined by ideation, planning, or attempts rather than assigned by virtue of a chronic condition.
In regards to what Alex has said, I might be unaware of changes newly added in the DSM V, but I don't recall "can't benefit from talk based therapy" or "has neurochemical abnormalities" as diagnostic requirements for major depressive disorder. If we assume that talk based therapies can have no effect upon depression, one must wonder how anyone ever recovered before the advent of anti-depressants.
Forced medication doesn't mean the patient isn't allowed to influence which drug, of course.
Severe depression, as I said, pretty much rules out talk therapy due to inefficiency. CBT has its place in therapy, but that isn't it.
People did recover from depression before antidepressants, of course. The natural (i.e. without treatment) course of a bout of depression is six to eighteen months until you no longer qualify for the diagnosis.
Forcing someone into treatment, even the most benign treatment, doesn't work well. It is better for everyone involved if the person in treatment actively wants to be there.
If so, Freehold, anyone whose mental illness prevents them from accepting treatment is just f$~!ed. Is that reasonable? Is that what you want for them?
Sometimes you don't have the best option. Then what do you do?
The choice is between forcing people in extremely bad psychiatric condition to treatment which restores their functioning in a matter of weeks, or abandon them to suffer and die on their own.
Forcing someone into treatment, even the most benign treatment, doesn't work well. It is better for everyone involved if the person in treatment actively wants to be there.
It's also better for all involved if the person in treatment never needed treatment in the first place. Unfortunately, medical decisions need to be made about the patient you have, not the patient you wish you had.
While you're right that forcible treatment may not work as well as non-forcible treatment, that's not the relevant comparison. The relevant comparison is "does forcible treatment work better than leaving a condition untreated?" and the answer to that is usually "yes, it does."
I stand by what I said. It doesn't work WELL. It doesn't mean people who don't want treatment should be ignored or are completely screwed. Keep in mind that I live in a state where someone can indeed walk away from all treatments willingly and legally as long as they are not a danger to themselves or others and that has shaped my view and approach. Once/If they have shown they are a danger, however, they usually are screwed, even if they are in the process of attempting to get help at the time.
Forced treatment vs. No treatment, overall, depends very much on what we are talking about. I have had people walk out of my program and go to work and I have never seen them again. I have had people state that they are okay and everyone is wrong and they have ended up back in the hospital and then back in my program a lot humbler. It's very individual.
In regards to what Alex has said, I might be unaware of changes newly added in the DSM V, but I don't recall "can't benefit from talk based therapy" or "has neurochemical abnormalities" as diagnostic requirements for major depressive disorder. If we assume that talk based therapies can have no effect upon depression, one must wonder how anyone ever recovered before the advent of anti-depressants.
There are conditions that talk-based therapy as you call it can help but they are either someone who doesn't really have a mental disease or helping those with illnesses cope rather than actually curing them. You can help a depressed person deal with suicidal impulses through therapy but you can never make them go away. You can try to motivate them to overcome their lethargy and lack of energy, but you will never remove the hurdle from occurring.
Take for example schizophrenia a disease that afflicted more than one person I know. You can help someone realize their hallucinations aren't real or that their delusions have no basis in reality but you can never make them go away without drugs. Drugs which I might add due have huge negative consequences due to usually including dopamine inhibitors. Hence why for mild cases like someone who just has to deal with conversation word salad and a persistent scratching noise it makes sense to not want medication, but for someone who is convinced their house is alive and wants to eat them there isn't realistically a way for them to be happy without drugs.
Also though a digression. Whenever someone's symptoms completely disappear with non-drug therapy that means those symptoms were caused by completely external forces. Things like suffering abuse as a child, living in a hostile environment, going through a war, having no social interaction. These are all legitimate reasons for a person to need help. I'm not trying to diminish them, but they aren't something that would be treated with drugs to begin with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the...
If there is no dividing line can you give me an example of a schizophrenic cured by therapy?
Can you prove:Whenever someone's symptoms completely disappear with non-drug therapy that means those symptoms were caused by completely external forces. ... they aren't something that would be treated with drugs to begin with.
I don't have my texts with me so quick of webmd
Interpersonal Therapy for Depression
Interpersonal therapy focuses on the behaviors and interactions a depressed patient has with family, friends, co-workers, and other important people encountered on a day-to-day basis. The primary goal of this therapy is to improve communication skills and increase self-esteem during a short period of time. It usually lasts three to four months and works well for depression caused by loss and grief, relationship conflicts, major life events, social isolation, or role transitions (such as becoming a mother or a caregiver).
All of the listed reasons for psychotherapy treated depression are external forces. Dopamine imbalance isn't going to be cured by talking.
Can you prove:Whenever someone's symptoms completely disappear with non-drug therapy that means those symptoms were caused by completely external forces. ... they aren't something that would be treated with drugs to begin with.I don't have my texts with me so quick of webmd
All of the listed reasons for psychotherapy treated depression are external forces. Dopamine imbalance isn't going to be cured by talking.Interpersonal Therapy for Depression
Interpersonal therapy focuses on the behaviors and interactions a depressed patient has with family, friends, co-workers, and other important people encountered on a day-to-day basis. The primary goal of this therapy is to improve communication skills and increase self-esteem during a short period of time. It usually lasts three to four months and works well for depression caused by loss and grief, relationship conflicts, major life events, social isolation, or role transitions (such as becoming a mother or a caregiver).
You're claiming that certain feelings, depending on HOW they were caused, have nothing to do with chemicals in the brain?
Do you have any proof of this?
As far as I'm aware, this is a fundamental process of why we feel things. For example, petting a dog is external, but it causes your brain to release oxytocin in your brain which increases feelings of trust and love. The same process happens to both mother and infant while breastfeeding.
The brain is a collection of chemical producers and receptors. This fact is one of the fundamental processes by which it accomplishes things.
If you're going to claim otherwise, I'm going to ask you for evidence.
The brain is an electric sponge soaking in neurochemical juice. Alter the electricity or neurochemical admixture enough, and things start to happen. It usually helps to talk about those things. Sometimes they defy description and even verbal communication entirely, at which point things get tragic and interesting for everyone involved. Things are up to luck and finance a lot more than they should be at this point in time, but if some thing along the way is not functioning as it should be, all manner of help should be offered to everyone involved.
You're claiming that certain feelings, depending on HOW they were caused, have nothing to do with chemicals in the brain?
Do you have any proof of this?
As far as I'm aware, this is a fundamental process of why we feel things. For example, petting a dog is external, but it causes your brain to release oxytocin in your brain which increases feelings of trust and love. The same process happens to both mother and infant while breastfeeding.
The brain is a collection of chemical producers and receptors. This fact is one of the fundamental processes by which it accomplishes things.
If you're going to claim otherwise, I'm going to ask you for evidence.
I just posted the explanation. If something is altering the chemistry from an external source like abuse then external medication like therapy can be effective. However if the problem is persistent and internal like a brain that fails to manufacture certain emotion causing chemicals you need to fix the chemical production. It's fundamentally the same as the difference between someone having a stomach ache because of eating gross food and someone having a stomach ache due to an ulcer.
I just posted the explanation. If something is altering the chemistry from an external source like abuse then external medication like therapy can be effective. However if the problem is persistent and internal like a brain that fails to manufacture certain emotion causing chemicals you need to fix the chemical production. It's fundamentally the same as the difference between someone having a stomach ache because of eating gross food and someone having a stomach ache due to an ulcer.You're claiming that certain feelings, depending on HOW they were caused, have nothing to do with chemicals in the brain?
Do you have any proof of this?
As far as I'm aware, this is a fundamental process of why we feel things. For example, petting a dog is external, but it causes your brain to release oxytocin in your brain which increases feelings of trust and love. The same process happens to both mother and infant while breastfeeding.
The brain is a collection of chemical producers and receptors. This fact is one of the fundamental processes by which it accomplishes things.
If you're going to claim otherwise, I'm going to ask you for evidence.
Again, I'm asking you to provide proof.
How is depression from an "external" source inherently different from depression from an "internal" source?
Depression is still depression. It's a problem with various chemicals in the brain, such as dopamine and serotonin. You're claimining that the SOURCE of the problem changes the fundamental nature of how the brain is fucntioning. I'm asking you to provide PROOF of your claim. All you did right there was repeat your claim. Repeating a claim is not proof of said claim.
Example:
Me: I am a time traveler.
You: Prove it, tell me something about the future.
Me: I did prove it, I said "I am a time traveler."
Prove to me that depression from an external source behaves differently than depression caused from an internal source. Don't just repeat the claim. Show me something that backs up your claim.
Well, there used to be a discussion about endogenous (internally caused) and exogenous (externally caused) depression. The thinking was that this should show up in treatment studies. If there were different causes, and therefore different mechanisms of pathology, this should be clearly visible. To my knowledge, this difference didn't show up at all. Depression is depression, whatever originally might have caused it. When you break it down after the knowledge we have today, the only clear correlation is that it is rather common for the first episode of depression to follow some sort of crisis or stress. With the following such episodes, no such correlation has been found. In all likelihood, then, using the stress-vulnerability model, there is a large part of the population that can react with depression, and will do so more often when put through something bad enough. Typically, this happens in the teenage years. After this, they keep getting depressive episodes where no real triggering cause can be identified. Note that it is far from every case where you can find a likely trigger even the first time.
Another thing worth noting is that for each depressive episode you have had but did not get treatment for, the next episode becomes more likely, comes sooner, gets more severe, and gets harder to treat. Eventually, a certain situation called refractory depression happens (usually when the person is in his/her sixties), where depression is a constant, and more or less impossible to treat. We also know that depression causes loss of neuron dendrites (connections to other neurons), and that at least SSRI can reverse this degeneration to some degree.
How is depression from an "external" source inherently different from depression from an "internal" source?
As an analogy, the same way your blood sugar can vary depending upon what you eat, but also upon the degree of effectiveness of your pancreas and liver.
If you eat a potato, your blood sugar will spike, but that's not usually an issue. If your blood sugar is elevated when you've not eaten anything all day, that's an issue. But if you eat enough high-carb food (and spike your blood sugar high enough/often enough), you will cause chemical changes in your pancreas and liver that will cause them to behave differently, differently enough to push you into that second group.
That's why early-stage type 2 diabetes can be controlled by lifestyle changes, but sometimes it progresses to the point where insulin supplements are necessary. Similarly, early-stage depression caused by external factors can be controlled by CBT, up to a point.
On the other hand, if you simply don't produce the right chemicals, no amount of talk therapy or diet change is going to help much.