The depression epidemic - Part V

In the first four parts I focused on the dangers of antidepressants, especially the Selective Serotonoin Re-uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs). As I tried to say, the horror stories I related form only a tiny percentage of the many tragedies associated with these dangerous medications. Search the net and you'll find many, many others. I also referred to some of the so-called "scientific" evidence, mostly conducted by the manufacturers of these drugs, though occasionally by organizations like the NIMH (or at least funded by them). I pointed out that, even in these studies the companies were unable to hide the fact that, even over a 12-week period, these antidepressants at least doubled the probability of suicide and some times increased this probability five-fold.

I also briefly mentioned that the conceptualisation of human pain in quasi-medical terms made no sense and, more important, that it hid the probable social, familial, cultural, political and economic causes. I referred, very briefly, to the lack of research into a possible link to childhood experiences such as leaving babies to cry (or "controlled crying" or using a "settling technique"), early weaning (or not breastfeeding at all) and the use of early "day care" or "childcare". I did not really explore these issues in any depth.

Here is what I had written in one of the earliest editorials I wrote in the CLS Journal (in April 2003):
"With delightful synchronicity, my daughter told me she was expecting a baby at around the time we discovered that our attempt to adopt a child from India had fallen through. On 23 September 2002 she gave birth to twin girls. So they are now seven months old (And now - in February 2006 - they are three years and four months old)...I am finding the experience of being a grandfather remarkable, indeed I have no really adequate words to describe the feeling. For me, life will always be a mystery. I simply cannot comprehend how such bewilderingly complex beings are created. The moment I see them my heart opens. Such beauty! So much joy! For me they are the surest sign of the existence of some divine force in the universe.
Both consciously and, no doubt, unconsciously as well, their existence has re-awakened in me memories of the birth of my own children and of their first months as babies. And, as I now know, babies ALWAYS reawaken our OWN experiences as babies and infants, though this is almost never a conscious process. In addition, though, they have reminded me of IDEAS, that is, of thoughts and speculations that once preoccupied me. These speculations concern the relationship between the individual and the society and entire culture into which babies are born. As a result of this renewed interest on my part, I have been listening to and reading current ideas about child-rearing, 'nature versus nurture' and the whole question of the relative contributions of genetics (nature) and environment (nurture) to the development of personality, intelligence, 'mental health' and the like.

The result is that I am appalled by most of what I hear and read on the subject! Battles I thought had been won a quarter of a century ago appear as if they had never been fought. Not only have we all, allegedly, been born with our personalities as surely as we have been born with the colour of our eyes. Now, 'science' has proven it. Those of us suffering from depression, or 'schizophrenia' or 'bipolar disorder' or any other 'illness' need not concern ourselves with the real world into which we were born. These 'disorders' are inherited – and we have scientific evidence to prove it. Whether we are happy or unhappy, calm or anxious, bright or dull, introverted or extraverted, all of these are biological givens. And the benefit of these 'facts' is that we no longer need to concern ourselves with how we treat our children, since it won’t make much (or any) difference in the long run. Whether mum picks her baby up to comfort her or leaves her to cry for hours makes no real difference in the long term. Whether baby is looked after, in the home, by the mother (or father, for that matter) or whether she is placed in 'child care' is simply a matter of personal choice. 'It won’t harm them'. Indeed, there is a 'child care' lobby that proselytises about the benefits of 'child care', even for babies as young as three months old!

As for the mess that these appalling views create, we now have an instant cure, in the form of medication or, for those opposed to drugs, 'natural remedies'. I realise that I may appear, to some, to be taking an incredibly rigid, hard line on this subject. That is because I take a rigid, hard line on the subject. To see the ungodly mess that masquerades as 'reality' (the state of the world, globally, nationally and locally) yet fail to connect it with what takes place within the family, at the child care centre, at preschool, at school and in the organisations in which we earn our living, to fail to make such a connection is to be both blind and irresponsible.

I am filled with awe, admiration and respect for my daughter. She had the wisdom to listen to her own inner guidance on such matters and is already reaping some of the benefits. With the support of her parents (who, for a change, agreed not only with her instincts but with each other) as well as that of in-laws and others, she had the strength to resist the misguided advice of doctors, nurses and other professionals who seem to know little about the real needs of babies. As a result, both of my grandchildren have remained unbelievably alert, bright, healthy and glowing – and show every sign of continuing to grow as vital, vibrant bundles of joy".

I continued with a brief article:

"More thoughts on the subject
Why the 'state of knowledge' in the field appals me is that I really haven’t given the subject much thought over the past twenty years, thinking that these matters had been settled by the end of the 1970s or, at the very least, by the early 1980s. Yet today, the purveyors of the new 'theories', who can cite the latest 'scientific' research, know nothing about the real research that was done in the 1950s and 1960s. Who mentions Jules Henry these days (Culture against man, 1963; Pathways to madness, 1965)? Who has heard of Paul Goodman (Growing up absurd, 1956-1960; Compulsory miseducation, 1962)? Does anyone mention Thomas Szasz any more (The myth of mental illness, 1960-61; The manufacture of madness, 1970)? Are any of our modern psychiatric gurus aware of the research into families conducted by R D Laing, Aaron Esterson or David Cooper in the 1950s and 1960s (The divided self, 1960; Self and others, 1961; Sanity, madness and the family, 1964; Psychiatry and anti-psychiatry, 1967; The politics of experience, 1967; The politics of the family, 1969; The leaves of spring: schizophrenia, family and sacrifice, 1970)? Believe me this is no more than a very tiny sample of what is available from the period. Who today takes seriously Bruno Bettelheim’s work with emotionally disturbed children? (See, for example, A home for the heart, 1974). Or the work of “Villa 26” in London with “schizophrenic” adults? Better known but still widely disputed (or ignored!) by some is the work of John Bowlby (Attachment and loss, 1969; 1973; 1980; not to mention dozens of articles between 1951 and 1969). And how many people refer to Jean Liedloff’s Continuum concept (1975)?
It is tempting to continue with the list. The point of mentioning the above authors and their work is simply to remind ourselves that they once existed. To ignore them is to choose blindness, deafness and unconsciousness. The results of their researches have not been shown to be false. They are merely inconvenient for a culture that has made a fetish out of material wellbeing. The most important commandment today directed at parents, teachers and psychiatrists/psychologists is: 'Thou shalt not feel guilty'. For myself, while I don’t advocate guilt, I prefer consciousness and awareness to unconsciousness or rationalisation".

[Later, I added the following]:

"On Monday, 28 April, 2003 the ABC program "Four Corners" featured an antidepressant known as Aropax in Australia, Paxil in the United States and Seroxat in the United Kingdom. Entitled "Secrets of the happy pill", it was largely a re-run of a program called "Panorama" that had been shown on the BBC in October, 2002. To deal with the adverse publicity that was likely to follow, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) immediately put out a press release advising the public that a company called Pan Pharmaceuticals was being shut down and hundreds of its products - complementary medicines used by people on the advice of naturopaths and other alternative health practitioners - were being recalled. This blatant manipulation of the media ensured that there was no public debate concerning the dangers of antidepressants, for the simple reason that, for several weeks, the mass media focused their attention on the dangers associated with complementary medicine instead. See CLS Journal, Volume 4 Number 2 for the story" (To be continued).