• Saleh@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    I agree with the principal sentiment. Except for schizophrenia and other illnesses involving acute psychosis, drugs shouldnt be the permanent solution.

    But this requires access to proper psychotherapy, which needs to be part of a consistent concept of slowly reducing the drugs as the condition gets better.

    Also this requires a society, where people have enough agency to remove the causes of psychological distress from their life. People getting anxieties is perfectly normal, if they are in constant fear to not be able to pay their bills. People getting depressed is perfectly normal, if they are expected to work a dead end job for the rest of their lifes, etc.

    I see none of that coming from the direction of any politician.

    EDIT: Wow. People get offended by the idea not to pump people full of drugs for the rest of their lifes, when therapy is a viable alternative. Seriously why do you want people to suffer instead of providing proper healthcare including proper access to therapy and creating life conditions that aren’t designed to make people sick? I never thought this to be controversial.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 minutes ago

      Therapy is great. For some of us it’s necessary but not sufficient. If a medication can help me, it should be my right to decide if I want it as a permanent part of my treatment plan for as long as it helps.

    • 3 dogs in a trenchcoat@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 hours ago

      Ah, but you make an exception for one of the most harmful kinds of perscription drugs that comes with severe side effects often far worse than the symptoms they’re meant to treat. It’s different because psychotic people scaaaaryyy I suppose?

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        It is different because there is no alternative to reliably prevent psychosis afaik.

        Why the hell do you get offended by the idea to minimize use of psychatric drugs where possible and to continue use where necessary?

        • 3 dogs in a trenchcoat@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          There’s no alternative to reliably treat many other psychiatric issues. And antipsychotics are often not worth the extremely debilitating side effects.

    • Tower@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 hours ago

      No, not just for “schizophrenia and other illnesses involving acute psychosis”.

      My brain literally does not properly process dopamine. Adderall, Ritalin, Strattera, etc help this. No matter how much my stress in life is reduced, I still need meds like these to function properly.

      • Saleh@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I really wonder why you get offended by “We should try to minimize the use of psychatric drugs, where therapy is a viable alternative”?

        Do you prefer taking drugs with potentially severe side effects for the rest of your life? Do you want people to die, because some life event outside their control prevents them from accessing drugs like SSRIs or Benzodiazepines that can be deadly if quit cold turkey?

        Nothing of that has to do with maga nutjobs. On the contrary it should be basic human decency to find and provide the least harmful treatment.