Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - "Depression - Pharmaceuticals Required?"

Jinn · 09-15-2005, 08:47 AM

This thread is devoted to the academic pursuit of depression. Is it a disease which requires pharmaceutical (drug) interaction in order to be fully treated? In maintiaining an academic atmosphere, Tilted Knowledge, I'd like posters to develop a reasoned response supported by with references. Likewise, if you're privy to recent research or documents regarding this topic, feel free to provide a link or bibliographical reference to their existance, as well as your brief summary of the facts. EXPECT your source and the material that it presents to be critiqued for soundness and reliability.[/b] If this topic maintains interest, I'd like to see other "research" oriented topics regarding similiarly controversial topics being created.

That said, my position:

I am not infallible in my personal belief that depression or other "emotional disorders" can be treated without the use of any drugs, but I will require that a poster contribute a reputable source that supports their claim in order to be persuaded. Likewise, I believe anyone participating in this thread should not be convinced by anecdotal evidence towards either side (drugs worked for me, drugs did not work for me). Please keep this discussion as scientific as possible.

(I've copy-pasted the most recent posters in the previous thread for continunity of discussion)

1)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Depression, SAD, OCD, panic attacks, ADD, ADHD.. whatever the flavor of the week is -- it's still something that can be solved by anyone with logical faculties, the desire to change it, and the motivation. The only person who REQUIRES medicine lacks one of the above (usually motivation or logical faculties).

Just because you gave up doesn't mean it wasn't possible to overcome your
paralyzing fears. It certainly would have taken longer and been more difficult, but that does not mean you have a 'chemical imbalance." Chemical imbalance has become a psuedoscience buzzword used to describe ALL of these "emotional disorders" -- and unless your doctor can show you that your serotonin, or dopamine or whatever "chemical" he thinks is causing it is LOWER than an actual average.. its just conjecture and an easy way to 'prove' that you need medicine.

2)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ravenseye

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

You can't make emphysema go away with the power of your mind. Irrational fears, paranoia, depression, anxiety.. those are pyschological flaws, not physical flaws.

Actually there is much biological research that has shown that all sorts of psychological disorders have organic causes, many of which have a genetic basis. People can learn to live with these disorders just like they can learn to live with emphysema, but the underlying causes are permanent conditions.

3)

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Show me a credible (cited, peer reviewed) SCIENTIFIC study that can create a causation (rather than a correlation) between emotional "disorders" and a "chemical imbalance" and I'll believe your statement. Otherwise, its the same psuedoscience nonsense I mentioned above.

4)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorade Frost

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Study

From this data, it is clear that NE
circuits are dysregulated in affective disorders. These
abnormalities likely interfere with concentration, attention,
memory, arousal states, and sleep regulation. The primary dysfunction, if there indeed is one, in depression
is increasingly less likely to be found within the NE
system, per se; however, its dysregulation in the depressed
state apparently contributes to significant symptomatology,
and NE perturbation appears to be critical in treatment
response.

<a href="http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~kressle/papers/ResslerNemeroffNorepinephrineDepress1999BiolPsych.pdf">Role of Norepinephrine in the Pathophysiology and
Treatment of Mood Disorders</a>

5)

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Think of it this way: behavior is mediated by enzymes, and enzymes can be made nonfunctional by mutation. If the function of a neurotransmitter is knocked out, there is no way that that cannot influence behavior. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of biochemical pathways involved in our behavior, any one of which can be damaged in a multitude of ways.

6)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suave

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Think of it this way: behavior is mediated by enzymes, and enzymes can be made nonfunctional by mutation. If the function of a neurotransmitter is knocked out, there is no way that that cannot influence behavior. There are hundreds, probably thousands, of biochemical pathways involved in our behavior, any one of which can be damaged in a multitude of ways.

That's circular logic. Of course if one subscribes to your paradigm they will believe that it is all biologically-based. The point is to get someone to subscribe to it in the first place.

If I were to counter by saying: "Think of it this way: behaviour is a product of the mind, which affects the brain rather than the brain affecting the mind, and therefore when the brain is damaged, it does not necessarily cause any problems." You'd go "okay, so what?"

I don't believe that way exactly, but you see my point? Simply explaining what your belief is will not sway another person. Evidence must be provided, or at least a logical link to something tangible.

..discussion continues.