|
it's really quite difficult to disentangle what is chemically driven from what is caused by other things. sometimes i think that there is no necessary distinction, that what amounts to a distinction is generated by effects: if you cant function, then there is a problem and while a diagnosis might be in a way arbitrary, at the same time it doesnt really matter if the results of it (that is the treatment, the therapy) enables you to function better (or at all).
i know alot of folk who have been at one point or another driven to the point of having to get help like this, and my understanding of the treatments is that it is often the act of going through the therapy itself that really helps.
i am very susipicious of the hmo-style substitution of chemicals for therapy simply because it is more cost-effective. i think that is wrong.
but it seems to me that there is a hard distinction between "being negative" and chemically driven depression, and that distinction centers on general functionality. and that is not really for other people to judge. i might find x or y to be a serious drag to be around, but that doesnt equal a diagnosis.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|