I'm a little behind on digests right now, so this topic may well have been put to rest already. I would just like to put in one or two thoughts on this.
After the talk of "side effects" of drugs, i was reminded of a conversation i once had with a lecturer of mine, a clinical psychologist by trade. He said that our attitudes towards medication really should change. Firstly because many people seem to be given medication as a "qucik fix" solution- a quick fix for both patient and professional. While this may be quick, it certainly does not "fix" the underlying problems. He also made a very pertinent point as regards these "side effects". It would seem wiser, in some regards, to think of side effects as *other* effects of the drug. These may not be the intended effect, but their occurence can not be swept into what many of us would/could interpret as an unimportant bracket-"side effect". Consider for a moment the case of the drugs most commonly administered to individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia- chlorpromazine and clozapine. Perhaps if Heather were still knocking around the list, she could support my claim that these drugs have the effect of blocking dopamine activity. They are administered due to the belief that an excess of dopamine causes shizophrenia (or at least causes in part; there is indeed empirical evidence to support this with some, not huge, degree of confidence). These drugs *do* yield positive results, don't get me wrong...... they **do** lessen the schizophrenic characteristics that were previously exhibited. They aren't, however, without inherent problems- problems that are too often described away as "side effects". The above mentioned drugs have been shown to lead to short term parkinsomism. So, then anti-parkinsons drugs have to be administered, and this, i think, brings us back to one of the original/earlier points of this thread. Consistent long term use can lead to permanent damage of the nervous system, and result in tardive dyskinesia. The thing that hits me hardest is the fact that these drugs do not help in any way about 25% of those that they are given to. My point is that we need to see that while drugs can be, and are, helpful, they are (or rather should be) only ONE part of an overall treatment or intervention, and that doses better serve most individuals in small and short term doses, if at all needed. Mary said: > fads in psychology come and go. the 80's/early 90's fad was everything was >caused by psychological trauma. today it's everything is biological. the >ruth is somewhere in the middle between these extremes, plus other factors >too i'm sure (like unhappy marriage, poor job situation, lack of money, etc.) I agree with this sentiment. The most modern beliefs are *integrative* of all the theories taht have come before for the vast majority of what we can call the commonly occuring mental illnesses, including, for example, depression and shhizophrenia. This seems to make a lot of sense considering that there is a wealth of literature and statistics and case studies that will lend support to theories coming from points of view as diverse as the biological/genetic theories, cognitive theories, social theories and so on. Someone commented that mental illnesses are caused by physical abnormalities in the brain. I don't think that we know enough about either mental illnesses or the brain to be able to make a hard and fast statement of that kind. I would opt for the "on the fence" standpoint: perhaps physical abnormalities (including retarded chemical production) do play a role in the liklihood of developing a mental illness, but couldn't say that they are the sole cause. Someone also said that no amount of will and self determination will help people with mental illnesses. I can see arguements supporting this viewpoint, but it all comes down to what you are defining as "mental illness". For example, most of us would consider depression a mental illness, and i for one do believe cognitive and behaviour therapy's that stress this positive thinking can be immensely helpful in helping to deal with some forms of depression. I think (i stress the i think here) that Colin said that drugs merely "shove the feelings further down". I would qualify this with "sometimes". Other times, and i guess this is the intention, the drug helps people to cut out behaviour and/or thoughts that are impedeing their ability to *deal with the feelings*, if it is indeed feelings that need dealing with. I realise that i'm probably making very little sense because i'm talking in such generalities. To close with i'd like to mention that in order to come up with an intervention for a mental problem, or a psychological problem of any sort, a formulation must be made.. The factors to be considered are: the predisposing factors, this could include a genetic vulnerability; the precipitating factors, this could include some major event, or be more like family life cylce transitions; and then the maintaining factors, the things that keep the problem going. i hope that i didn't sound *too* didactic, for that was not my intention. i intended only to voice some thoughts on one or two issues of interest to me that arose in the course of the discussion. GARRET
