Everyone knows that depression has social causes and triggers. That doesn't mean that drugs don't help, indeed, in life-saving ways, even if we don't know how they work. Perhaps the incidence of depression would be different under different social relations, although is is a linguistic error that I am surprised to see you make to confuse the "materialism" in mind-body materialism that underlies the notion thart depression involves chemical imbalance with Marx's historical materialism, the hypothesus that the economy is somehow basic in explaining a range of social phenomena.
Nonetheless, it is no less irresponsible to suggest to people who need help and may benefit tremendously from chemical intervention that drugs are a fraud (please notice the word "suggest," I know you didn't expressly say that) than it is to say all people need to fix their lives is a little pill. It is a fallacy to say that "something oither: than chemistry causes depression; rather, you should say, something in addition to chemistry. The "something other" suggests that chemistry doe not cause depression. That is, in many cases, false.
Little pills do help, though often finding the right ones is difficult. In many cases, well-documented by clinical studies, they are the only things that help. I expect better of you. This is important, since it involvews a practical question of what to do rather than the blue sky theoretical blather we normally engage in.
jks
--- Rotating Bitch <info at pulpculture.org> wrote:
> Didn't the article say a whole lot more than we
> don't know how
> anti-depressants work? It said that there has been
> "a steady drip of
> studies have challenged the "serotonin did it"
> hypothesis." and that " a
> review of decades of research concluded that
> something other than "changes
> in chemical balance might underlie depression."
>
> and their conclusion was: "there is no such thing as
> a scientifically
> correct 'balance' of serotonin."
>
> Hello? Point blank, a review of decades of research
> suggests that SOMETHING
> OTHER THAN 'CHANGES IN CHEMICAL BALANCE MIGHT
> UNDERLIE DEPRESSION'
>
> And, further: "Claiming that depression results from
> a brain-chemical
> imbalance, as ads do, is problematic on several
> fronts. Patients who
> believe this are more likely to demand a
> prescription. If you have a
> disease caused by too little insulin, you take
> insulin; if you have one
> caused by too little serotonin, you take serotonin
> boosters."
>
>
> As for materiality: social realtions ARE material.
> Isn't that the basic
> insight of Marxism? If, in fact, it's about a
> chemical imbalance, it
> doesn't have to be necessarily something you were
> born with.
>
> There was an article in SCIAM last year that
> discussed how the brain
> structure changes in response to events. They argued
> that one can be
> situationally depressed, for instance, and if that's
> not treated -- if you
> don't get help (talk therapy, whatever) -- then you
> can permanently change
> the chemical balance of your brain and become
> clinically depressed.
>
> No doubt this can happen from the hurts and pains of
> childhood and living
> in a home where those things aren't dealt with
> particularly well. Maybe in
> a home where you were further ignored when you felt
> blue and down. Or
> whatever. Or just living in this shite system, as
> Doug said.
>
> I don't have an investment in how this is handled
> one way or another, but
> at least get the freakin' article straight, mmmmkay?
>
> (this isn't directed at Doug).
>
> Finally,a t the edn of that article, they say "For
> many, SSRIs help little,
> if at all." Anyone know what "for many" means,
> percentage-wise?
>
>
>
> >What's vulgar about biochem explanations of
> psychological disorders is
> >that they assume that the chemicals are the cause -
> that once you've
> >identified some chemical configuration or process,
> you've hit the bedrock
> >first cause. But what if the chemicals themselves
> are an effect, a
> >reflection of environmental influences? Or what if
> the chem configuration
> >interacts with a particular set of environmental
> influeces to give rise to
> >depression? And I don't mean just personal history
> - Carl's right that
> >capitalism causes depression. And I'll bet that the
> anomic,
> >individualistic American kind is more depressogenic
> than others. If you're
> >life is fucked, it's *your* fault! Just pull up
> your socks, pick up a
> >self-help book, and get on with it.
> >
> >Personal history and social structures are also
> materialist explanations.
> >They're just more complicated ones.
> >
> >And yes, the drugs "work" to a certain extent. But
> as the conclusion of
> >the article pointed out, the relapse rate is higher
> than with
> >cognitive-behavioral therapy.
> >
> >Doug
>
>
>
>
> "You know how it is -- come for the animal porn,
> stay for the cultural analysis."
>
> Bitch | Lab
> http://blog.pulpculture.org
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com