psychoanlaysis and drugs

RE earnest at tallynet.com
Mon Mar 31 06:05:51 PST 2003


My impression is that the impact of psychotropic medication is poorly understood. There have been metanalyses of medication studies that indicate the newer antidepressant medications -- mainly antidepressants like Prozac and Zoloft -- are no better than the older medications -- e.g. Imipramine at reducing symptoms. The only improvement is that they work with fewer side effects, not to be dismissed, but from the press you'd think there was more to it. Other studies comparing medication and psychotherapy also show variation. I'll leave it at that.

More anecdotally, some patients I've met with have felt antidepressants were a big help, meds helped them overcome the more gross, immobilizing aspects of their depression, they could get out the door in the morning, didn't feel like crying all the time. Others have either complained of little benefit, or they've experienced losses. For instance, a musician felt he "just didn't feel like bothering to write" when he was taking Zoloft and he was looking for therapy without medication. I once tried Zoloft for about four weeks, and found that my thinking suddenly felt unusually "flat." Between that and getting some traction in real life, I bailed. I've seen references to similar impairments in others, e.g. a photographer who doesn't feel like taking pictures any more.

Often, perhaps most of the time, meds are prescribed by family physicians. This is something that really concerns me in that patients take physicians' prescriptions as equivalent to a psychological consultation. Physicians don't have the time or training to draw out ways that personality functioning might be contributing to problems. Over the years I've been impressed with the truth of the notion of 'maladaptation' as applied to psychological distress (as a Marcuse fan, I initially thought that a focus on adaptation was authoritarian). Simply put, *some* patients really do suffer from a tremendous overexertion of self-control and monitoring; their tolerance level for 'deviant' impulses is terribly low, and they are ongoingly punitive of both themselves and others for their offenses. This makes them subject to anxiety, depression, and other problems. *In and of themselves* meds don't touch this at all, they function as perfume in the craphouse, which the patient can feel obliged to continue to inhabit. Sometimes patients don't need a lot of therapy to start digging their way out. (And, without therapy the beleagured state of mind of these patients can be very relevant to their political views, though it's hard to predict exactly what form it will take.)


:
: >Suppose that he is right, though; then I'd ask, what's wrong with
: >more comfortable ways of coping with chronic illnesses, provided that
: >they work as well as or even better than psychoanalysis and
: >introspection? Other things being equal, I'd always prefer the
: >easiest way.
:
: Sure, the question is what does it mean to say "they work." If something
: works because it allows you to be a normally functioning robot of this so
: called society, then sure, drugs are as good as consciousness. But, if by
: "they work", you mean that they help you become a free and conscious
being,
: then I highly doubt that drugs and introspection/psychonalysis are
: comparable. (At the same time, I know that there are a lot of bad
: therapists out there.)
:
: I just think that you have to decide whether you want to feel good or be
: conscious. I remember Krishnamurti telling a would-be follower that if he
: wants to feel good, he should take drugs. It just depends what it is you
want.
:
: Joanna
:
:
:
:



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list