The depression epidemic - Part VI

The best place to begin your inquiries, if you really want to understand this phenomenon (not only depression and the issue of antidepressants, but the economics and politics of the "science" and the way the mass media, "scientific" journals and government agencies have colonised our very ability to think about these things - and even corrupted the legal system in the process), is by reading Dr David Healy's Let them eat prozac (June 2004).

I suggest Healy in preference to Dr Peter Breggin because, unlike Breggin, Healy actually operates within the conventional medical model of "mental disorders", accepts the need for medication in many instances and prescribes medication (including some antidepressants) himself. He even used to be a consultant for Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of Prozac (fluoxetine). What Healy is against, based on a genuine, dispassionate look at the evidence, is the group of antidepressants known as the SSRIs (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil/Seroxat/Aropax, Celexa and Luvox). And he's blown the whistle on the industry for promoting these dangerous drugs, when the scientific evidence against them is so clear-cut. His position, based strictly on the "scientific" evidence, is that the SSRIs work no better than a placebo (that is, they have no therapeutic effect whatsoever) and that they have very serious side effects, icluding suicide and, occasionally, homicide. This is in addition to the (now-)well-known side effects, such as agitation, mania and mental turmoil. Right at the very end of his book he writes: "But with their capacities to control the media and their abilities to reshape our most intimate thoughts and experiences, from sex to the turmoil of adolescence, and the language in which we express our nervousness, GSK (Glaxo-SmithKline), Lilly and Pfizer have become the new engineers". Calling
this "triumph of propaganda" an "anesthetic" (because of the way it has succeeded in dulling our ability to think clearly and rationally), Healy concludes: "This is not a story of ineluctable doom. The arrangements under which we operate are human arrangements and human wit can adept them.The environment has not yet been destroyed completely by these chemicals from which money can be made. But if we are not to poison a generation and produce a Silent Spring in our academic institutions, we need to resist the effects of the anesthetic, we need to recognize the hazards, and we need to act" (Healy, 2004:288). See also www.healyprozac.com .

For those wishing to hear from a practising Psychiatrist who does not use any medication and who has acted as an expert witness in over a hundred "product liability" cases against the pharmaceutical companies without losing a single case, read the books of Dr Peter Breggin (The Wesbecker case was originally "lost" and reported in the media as a victory for Eli Lilly, but the judge changed the verdict when he discovered that Eli Lilly, with the collusion of the plaintiffs' lawyer, had perpetrated fraud on the court). The following books, written by Dr Breggin, are readily available:

Toxic psychiatry:Why therapy, empathy and love must replace the drugs, electroshock and biochemical theories of the "New Psychiatry" (1991);

Talking back to Prozac: What doctors won't tell you about today's most controversial drug (with Ginger Ross Breggin, 1994);

Brain-disabling treatments in psychiatry: Drugs, electroshock and the role of the FDA (1997);

The heart of being helpful:Empathy and the creation of a healing presence (1997);

The war against children of colour: Psychiatry targets inner-city youth (with Ginger Ross Breggin, 1998);

Your drug may be your problem: How and why to stop taking psychiatric medications (with David Cohen, 1999);

Reclaiming our children: A healing solution for a nation in crisis (2000);

The antidepressant fact book: What your doctor won't tell you about Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Celexa and Luvox (2001);

The Ritalin fact book: What your doctor won't tell you about ADHD and stimulant drugs (2002).

You should also check out Dr Breggin's website: www.breggin.com

Finally, another Psychiatrist who's been dealing with the issue of so-called "mental disorders" from a human, social perspective - for the past half-century, Dr William Glasser. Glasser is the founder of reality therapy. In 2003, he published a book called Warning: Psychiatry can be dangerous to your health.

I would like, now, to return to the issue of how we might think about depression and other human ills and, in particular, whether it makes any sense to think about human pain in medical terms, as diseases or disorders requring treatment. I especially want to challenge the notion that depression is a medical condition, an illness that is due to some inherited chemical imbalance in the brain, something that can happen to anyone, something unrelated to either early childhood or even later adult experiences. In the CLS Journal for September 2003, I wrote:

"I had completed less than two months of first year Psychology (towards the end of April, 1971) when I wrote my first ever essay on this subject ('nature versus nurture'). I concluded what I then thought was obvious: neither nature, nor nurture, but an 'interaction' between the two. An 'interaction' does not mean an 'addition'. It does not mean that genes contribute a certain percentage while environment contributes the rest. It means that no organism – including the human organism – is either conceived or born in a vacuum. It also means that 'the environment' (including the physical, human, social and cultural environment) begins to influence whatever is genetically determined AND VICE VERSA from the very moment of conception. The human brain, for example, the Central Nervous System (CNS) and the Autonomic Nervous System (ANS) develop in the mother’s womb in accordance with both the genetic 'code' and the physical environment provided by the mother. The latter is influenced by the environment the mother inhabits, her relationship with her partner (as well as with her own parents and others) and, indeed, by the entire culture in which she and her family are embedded. After the baby is born (after nine long months of heredity/environment interactions of a bewildering and unpredictable complexity) these processes continue. The baby’s innate (not merely genetic) characteristics act on the mother – as well as on the rest of 'the environment' (the father, siblings and others) – to elicit certain kinds of behaviour. How the mother responds depends on a multitude of factors, including the baby’s 'temperament', her own 'personality' and the opportunities and pressures provided by the economic, political and social structure that surround the family. While it is undoubtedly true – no, it is NECESSARILY true – that the young child’s developing 'personality', 'intelligence' and behaviour are, at all stages, influenced by whatever genetic 'code' she has inherited from her parents, it is also true that 'the environment' is also doing so AND INFLUENCING AND ALTERING THE CHILD’S BRAIN, CNS AND ANS – AND EVEN HER GENES – IN THE PROCESS. The brain is not a genetically pre-determined given, either at conception or at birth. It continues to develop and to change as the baby grows into a child and as the child develops to become an adult (the converse is also true; the 'environment' is not a predetermined 'given' either but responds to whatever it is that the baby brings with her into the world).
The question, 'nature or nurture' (or the related question, 'how much nature, how much nurture?'), is a nonsensical, meaningless one. The real question is 'Why does anyone ask such questions?' And that is when we realise that it is, all of it, 'a question of values'".

Actually, the purveyors of the "new psychiatry" do not ask such questions either, but glibly (and sometimes unconsciously) assume that "mental disorders" like depression are due to an inherited (genetic) "chemical imbalance" in the brain, something that can happen to anyone. It's no more than "the luck of the draw" (To be continued).