Is depression a disease? Is it more prevalent today?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

True. I seriously believe that psychology and environment are very relevant to pretty much every depression.
.

Yet depression seems to show up in every society, in every culture, across every class, in every religion and non-religion.

[Spiffor]

My main problem with the use of meds is the way they are perceived by those depressed I got to meet.

I don't know if the doctors tout their meds as a mircale cure (I think not), but regardless, I've seen enough people increasing their feeling of depair because their meds had no effect. In some way, the lack of effect "proves" that their brain is FUBAR, and that there's no hope.

Besides, I think we all agree that a psychologic effort is an essential component to curing any depression, even though it's not the only component. When the meds are not working, it can lead the depressed person to not do that effort (because it would obviously go to waste). This reasoning might be true for the worst depression, those where meds are absolutely necessary, but I fear this reasoning hampers the personal motivation of the mildly-depressed people too.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Thanks for having completely ignored my last paragraph.

I am saying that meds should be used, when they provide a help toward curing the depression.

[Lord Avalon]

Meds can be helpful, probably best in conjuction with therapy. Which is why IMO they're best prescribed by a psychiatrist - a regular doc probably doesn't have enough time to spend with a depressed patient to properly treat them.

Also, there's a process of adjusting the dosage. And also a person may not respond to one med - they may need to try another.

And then there's the problem of certain meds not being covered by insurance (not in the "formulary"), but that's another story.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Thanks for having completely ignored my last paragraph.

I am saying that meds should be used, when they provide a help toward curing the depression.

I realize youre saying that. Im not sure what i said that you take issue with, or which paragraph you felt ive ignored.

While I very much support nonpill approaches, I also doubt the notion that every depression could be cured without pills.

Or that the origin is primarily sociocultural, if that implies that depression is largely a function of the current organization of society in developed countries.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor
My main problem with the use of meds is the way they are perceived by those depressed I got to meet.

I don't know if the doctors tout their meds as a mircale cure (I think not), but regardless, I've seen enough people increasing their feeling of depair because their meds had no effect. In some way, the lack of effect "proves" that their brain is FUBAR, and that there's no hope.

Besides, I think we all agree that a psychologic effort is an essential component to curing any depression, even though it's not the only component. When the meds are not working, it can lead the depressed person to not do that effort (because it would obviously go to waste). This reasoning might be true for the worst depression, those where meds are absolutely necessary, but I fear this reasoning hampers the personal motivation of the mildly-depressed people too.

That med disappointment is a problem is true - but that applies to talk therapy, or any other proposed cure as well. Which is worse, to be trying your third different medication, or your third different therapist.

and then there are the times you get a good therapist, and he/she leaves cause of a career change or whatever.

I also question the assertion that it is only the worst depressions for which meds are necessary. Thats a widely held assumption, but AFAIK its NOT scientifically demonstrated that more severe depressions are more responsive to meds than "mild" depressions are, and its not demonstrated that mild depressions are always responsive to talk therapy.

Note well - im NOT suggesting that any use meds without talk therapy - or that there are depressions that are not responsive to drugs, that are responsive to talk therapy.

I just find that alot of people, in attempting to stake out a middle ground, say things like "my depression is situational therefore meds wont help" or the like that have no particular basis.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

I realize youre saying that. Im not sure what i said that you take issue with, or which paragraph you felt ive ignored.

While I very much support nonpill approaches, I also doubt the notion that every depression could be cured with pills.

OK, we're in agreement then

Or that the origin is primarily sociocultural, if that implies that depression is largely a function of the current organization of society in developed countries.

I really have that impression actually. At least, if we're talking about what is commonly referred to "depression" (i.e longlasting feelings of hopelessness, with a possibility of suicidal tendencies, in which it is hard to develop a positive outlook on life again).

This year, I got to get acquainted with several cultures and subcultures I didn't know. In my past, I've also seen many different microcosms with their specific cultures as well. And I can say that I have seen very different worldviews (that were shared by most members of the culture / subculture / microcosm), and many different "happinesses" as well.

My impression is that there were really some cultures were sadness, unfulfillment, and even despair were more common than others. Now, of course, it's not because one feels down that one is depressed. However, as IIRC you said yourself, such feelings can result in affecting someone so deeply that he becomes depressive.

As a result, I really think there are societies where the worldview helps preventing effects such as depression. Just like there are societies in which the culture helps preventing obesity.

[Kuciwalker]

Or that the origin is primarily sociocultural, if that implies that depression is largely a function of the current organization of society in developed countries.

psst he's a commie

[NeOmega]

Originally posted by Lorizael
quote:
Originally posted by NeOmega
wtf? When did I say I reject talk therapy? Could you find me a quote on that?


quote:
Originally posted by NeOmega
...I reject talk therapy...

That was really lame, Lorizael.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor


This year, I got to get acquainted with several cultures and subcultures I didn't know. In my past, I've also seen many different microcosms with their specific cultures as well. And I can say that I have seen very different worldviews (that were shared by most members of the culture / subculture / microcosm), and many different "happinesses" as well.

My impression is that there were really some cultures were sadness, unfulfillment, and even despair were more common than others. Now, of course, it's not because one feels down that one is depressed. However, as IIRC you said yourself, such feelings can result in affecting someone so deeply that he becomes depressive.

As a result, I really think there are societies where the worldview helps preventing effects such as depression. Just like there are societies in which the culture helps preventing obesity.

Actually Im quite aware of the distinction between sadness and depression. Something depressed people need to learn to escape depression. I dont think i said that sadness leads to depression = i said stress does.

Im also not deny that depression may be more common in some cultures than others. But my strong impression is that there is no culture where it does not exist.


"Some type of mood disturbance, which may require clinical attention, affects 20% of women and 12% of men during their lifetime. These figures largely represent unipolar major depressive disorder and its variants. Although the incidence of bipolar disorder in the general population was estimated at < 2%, new estimates are closer to 4 to 5%. Depression affects twice as many women as men; bipolar disorder affects the sexes equally, but depressive forms predominate in women and manic forms in men. Bipolar disorder usually begins in the teens, 20s, or 30s; unipolar disorders begin, on average, in the 20s, 30s, or 40s. Persons born in the 2 decades after World War II have higher rates of depression and suicide, often associated with higher rates of substance abuse, than those born earlier. Female sex is the major demographic risk factor for depression; social class, culture, and race have not been consistently associated with depression. However, bipolar disorder is somewhat more common in upper socioeconomic classes. Cultural factors seem to modify the clinical manifestations of mood disorders. For example, physical complaints, worry, tension, and irritability are more common manifestations in lower socioeconomic classes; guilty ruminations and self-reproach are more characteristic of depression in Anglo-Saxon cultures; and mania tends to manifest itself more floridly in some Mediterranean and African countries and among black Americans. Economic factors, such as unemployment and sudden financial reversals, have been linked to increased suicide rates in men."

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Actually Im quite aware of the distinction between sadness and depression. Something depressed people need to learn to escape depression. I dont think i said that sadness leads to depression = i said stress does.

Indeed

Im also not deny that depression may be more common in some cultures than others. But my strong impression is that there is no culture where it does not exist.

I agree on that. It's just that I think depression varies widely across cultures, even though no culture has a zero (or near-zero) depression rate.
In any case, the extraneous causes for depression should be adressed, and there are quite a few cues our societies should take from these cultures were depression seems much more uncommon.

[loinburger]

.

[phoenixcager]

Just to add fuel to the fire..here are the thoughts of two famous opponents of the medical model for psychological disorders...

From William Glasser, MD

But in the last twenty years, my profession, psychiatry, has changed. Psychiatrists, aided and abetted by huge drug companies with their advertising clout, will convince you that your unhappiness is a mental illness. If you suffer from some of the common symptoms of unhappiness like depression or anxiety almost all the psychiatrists you or your family members will see, will diagnose you with a mental illness you do not have, treat you with possibly harmful brain drugs for this nonexistent illness and tell you there is nothing you can do to help yourself. These and more are the hazards of psychiatry. What they won’t talk to you about is what you most need to know: How to improve your mental health.

Supported by reams of evidence, my book will explain that you are not mentally ill, there is no pathology in your brain and you can do a lot to help yourself. Psychiatrists are the only physicians who diagnose illness when there is no pathology to support their diagnoses. There is no medical test to prove the existence of pathology in any of the 465 mental illness they claim exist.

http://www.wglasser.com/new_page_2.htm

Interview with Thomas Szasz, MD
"Is Depression a Disease?,"March 31, 1998

[lord of the mark]

But in the last twenty years, my profession, psychiatry, has changed.

This is odd, as Psychiatrists since Freud have acknowledged mental illness that cant be physically diagnosed.

Psychiatris aided and abetted by huge drug companies with their advertising clout, will convince you that your unhappiness is a mental illness.

Actually the current accepted definition of depression strongly differentiates it from normal sadness.

If you suffer from some of the common symptoms of unhappiness like depression or anxiety

and again, depression isnt unhappiness. And anxiety per se is not a mental illness. There ARE anxiety related disorders, including the classic, Obsessive compulsive disorder. Is this guy really claiming OCD is not a disorder?

ost all the psychiatrists you or your family members will see, will diagnose you with a mental illness you do not have

Actually, no, if you dont have the DSM symptoms they wont.

treat you with possibly harmful brain drugs

All docs treat you with possible harmful drugs.

for this nonexistent illness and tell you there is nothing you can do to help yourself.

Blatant lie. No decent Psychiatrist, none that I know, would suggest you rely on meds alone. Most will insist you also be in therapy to learn ways to solve your problems, reduce stresses, etc. This makes the rest of this guys quote rather lacking in credibility.

These and more are the hazards of psychiatry. What they won’t talk to you about is what you most need to know: How to improve your mental health.

See above.

There is no medical test to prove the existence of pathology in any of the 465 mental illness they claim exist.

Once again, it took decades to develop the medical tests now used, and even so doctors spend lots of time asking patients about their symptoms. Given the complexity of the brain, its hardly surprising medical tests for mental disorders are in their infancy.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by the second link in the post above
SZASZ: If you are willing to give up all coercion in psychiatry, then I might come over to your side, but not for a minute earlier.

KRAMER: All right, well. I'm willing not to discuss coercion in psychiatry. I don't know if that's enough to make you come over to my side. I'm discussing whether depression is a disease.

LEIFER: There's no other use for the word disease.

KRAMER: There's no other use for the word disease than . . .

SZASZ: That's like not discussing coercion in Auschwitz.

KRAMER: Auschwitz? We're in Auschwitz all of a sudden? . . .