>
> but other than that, since I've never personally experienced clinical
> depression (though Google knows that by all rights I should have been
> declared depressed at some point!), I've always just read what people
> had to say and assumed they knew best. If they feel they were depressed
> and it was a chemical imbalance, then that was the way it was. What did
> I know! But now I'm reading this book and wondering about the degree to
> which the pharmaceutical industry and physicians have pushed certain
> diagnoses on people, regardless as to any evidence supporting the
> diagnosis -- and to an unfortunate result as some folks have taken
> medicines that are useless or, worse, cause more symptoms that are then
> treated with more drugs. Or even worse, given drugs that injure or kill
> them.
>
> so, what is the state of the debate folks who know better than I?
>
> shag
The effectiveness of drug therapy varies dramatically depending on the individual and the specific disorder. Two people can suffer from the same symptoms (e.g., severe depression), and a serotonin reuptake inhibitor like Prozac may help one and not the other. Moreover, a number of studies have demonstrated that psychotherapeutic interventions like cognitive-behavioral therapy have longer-lasting beneficial effects than drug therapy. You won't hear that from the Pharmas; they're pushing the "mental disorder is a chemical imbalance and our pill cures you" line for obvious reasons.
Miles