You seem to be assuming here and below in this utterly uncharitable response of yours, that I have no on the ground experience. I do and in a number of different roles as a professional and lay person.
Firstly, folks who have the resources or the luxe insurance policies to see mental health professionals most commonly are in therapy, with or without medications. [/quote]There's a very large population of middle and upper class people who primarily get medication after an interview session with occasional follow ups.
They apply to anyone who is pathologized for their emotions, by laypeople and professionals alike. We are swimming in the paradigm created by not well supported ideas and very poorly supported applications schemas. And the pharmaceutical companies use their incredible advertising funds and revolving door relationship with oversight and campaign contributions to maintain that paradigm's seeming scientific gloss.Your comments apply to the vast majority of people who have scanty or no mental health coverage and can't afford to pay out of pocket to see a MH provider long term.
False dilemma and strawman. One, I never said anything about banning psychotropics. Two, one can frame the situation differently and in collaboration with the client, decide on a plan. It's the framing I am primarily aiming at and how this is passed on and assumed by both professionals and laypeople alike.They are left with a primary care provider who is not compensated for and isn't prepared to provide therapy. Their options are: advising patients that their problem is a natural reaction to an abnormal life situation so change your life situation (your advice) or write for meds.
Implict strawman and ironic in the extreme. I don't know if you are insulting the hallucinated professional the client or both. First of all the current emotional problems are based on chemical imbalances in your head paradigm is, well, it's all in your head. I honestly can't believe that when you decide to have an uncharitable read/implicit strawman, you make one that includes precisely the opposite message. That the issues for many people are in fact there because of the social/political/economic/paradigmatic situations that people are in. And, of course, I would suggest it be worded differently by the professionals meeting people in non-philosophy forum meetings.Just so you know the average patient hearing the former is going to walk out of the appointment grumbling "that a55hole said it's all in my head and didn't help me, what a jerk".
[my emphasis added] OK, so you want to make this personal.As an aside, you know what folks do when they are paying copays for meds long term for symptom relief that in their opinion are not helping? They stop paying for it (and therefore stop taking it). Thus pretty much the only folks taking MH meds long term feel that they're of some value, (but you know better?)
Nowhere in what I wrote did I say that psychotropics don't relieve symptoms. If you were being polite, reasonable and not making this personal and making up stuff, I'd give you a longer explanation of what you just left out of that 'analysis.'
Politicians are supposed to be involved in oversight. The government via the FDA already approves of drugs and for specific purposes. And it is actually easily demonstrable to legislators, that the pharmaceutical industry has too much power over it's own oversight. Further legislators also decided, recently in my lifetime, to allow direct to customer advertising. You're responding as the government is in some kind of hands off relation to this industry. Au contraire. And this has affected the number of prescriptions. Somehow you assumed, uncharitably, a couple of rather large ideas: 1) that the intention was to ban drugs as anti abortionists have sought to and recently with success again ban abortions. That's a simplified view of both me and the relationship already there before I even made a suggestion, between legislators and medicine. Beyond that it'd be cool if the government looked into the way pharmaceutical companies control media. 2) you seem to be assuming that I want some immediate stop. Actually, I assume that this process will take many, many years, given how entrenched the current paradigm is and given the power of some of the players. There are two time issues: how fast could it in some optimistic estimation actually shift and then how fast should the actual practices shift to make for a healthy, participatory transition for all agents. I have no idea how long the process could take, especially given how people react to something new. And I don't think it would be healthy to just shift everything really fast. We can also focus on some of the egregious systematic abuses and I would definitely suggest everyone take a good look at the medicalization of children and how schools, teachers, social workers, and yes parents are being swayed indirectly and directly by propaganda, and then what is kept out of the media, and/or marginalized in media.Lastly putting aside the value of legislators getting involved in the practice of medicine (see: abortion),
Medical professionals conflate FDA conclusions with science. And, of course, philosophy has a role in all this: causation, epistemology, doctrine of internal relations, systems and so on.
Further there is the whole adjust the humans to fit society aspect of this. I remember as a kind being told by teachers, with some definite accuracy that in the soviet system the people are made to adjust to the government's idea of society' and this was in contrast, rather the government and its ideas of society being adjusted to fit the people and what they needed and desires. The US was supposed to be in contrast to this. And I do think it was, though not as neatly or simply as it was presented to us - and with some horrible systemic issues that were getting glossed over. Part of what I see happening is that we are adjusting people to fit society through pharmaceuticals. We individualize the problems and pathologize reactions that have causes, yup, outside of their heads.
I'm not interested in rushing around grabbing lithium out of the hands of working class people with bipolar disorders. I am interested in challenging the paradigm, depathologizing what are normal responses (and nowhere suggesting it is easy to tease out what is an individual's issue and what can be eased and or is primarily caused by toxic facets of society), and seeing how much people decide or stop deciding to accept/take psychotropic cures for what may well not be problems in their heads.
I frankly hope that more patients are like your hallucinated victim of my proposals and question the 'it's all in your head' and 'you've been sad too long' and all the poor science and philosophy around the vast, use of psychotropics.
yes, the government didn't listen to health professionals. I'm not even sure what this point is and by this time I'm not interested, but it seems like a very odd summation, given the amount of money, organization, active speaking and legislating politicians did in support of health professionals opinions in that time. But perhaps I've missed the point. In any case, as seems to be the case of much of your post, it has little to do with me or what I said. I do believe my post led to associations that led you to write what you wrote. I mean, I can see how it relates to the general topic.if you think politicians care about the opinions of health professionals, you didn't pay attention during the pandemic.
This was a terrible response to my post. I missed it earlier and happened to notice it now. I wish I hadn't noticed it.
Perhaps you've had run-ins with scientologist so you see their outline in every shadow.
But regardless, I will ignore you from here on out.