In
http://www.clinical-depression.co.uk...on/causes2.htm, the following passage brings light to an interesting part of this discusison:
Quote:
Depression can not be said to be a disease, because it is not primarily a biological disorder - that is, the root cause of the symptoms are not usually physical. How do we know? Well, here's one way:
People born since 1945 are 10 times more likely to suffer from depression than those born before.
That is an astounding figure, and it cannot be explained away by people going to their doctor more, or depression being diagnosed more easily, as these were taken into account in the study.
|
I do not know the source of the original study, but it brings a valid point. If depression has increased ten-fold in the last 100 years, does this point to causes OTHER than biology?
Another point of interest is discussed therein:
Quote:
Clinical Depression is often said to be caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, and this is what most drug treatments are based on. Certainly in many cases, there is a reduction in the amount of certain neurotransmitters found (monoamines such as serotonin and norepinephrine) in depressed people.
However, low serotonin levels are simply another symtom of depression, not a cause. The more negative introspection you carry out, and the fewer pleasure-giving activities you participate in, the lower your serotonin levels become.
|
Can chemical imbalances be a SYMPTOM of a problem, such as depression, rather than a cause? Is it not likely that a person suffering from depression would have a chemical change that could be modified by drugs? If so, then the pharmaceutical in this role would only be masking the symptoms, rather than dealing with the root cause of the depression, anxiety, or SAD.
Please rebut. I am still reading the study provided above.