Posted by seldomseen on January 21, 2009, at 11:56:26
In reply to Re: Risk of sudden death? » seldomseen, posted by Trans-Human on January 21, 2009, at 9:21:21
Oh, I think there is a lot of merit in symptom based treatment only.
I think the goal of these meds is to alleviate suffering. Do meds do that for some people? Absolutely. Therefore it is my opinion that this tree needs to be "barked up". Is it the only tree that needs barking - absolutely NOT!
Does therapy work for some people? Absolutely.
Do meds & therapy work better together? Absolutely.
As far as the angina example, well, it was an example to illustrate how effective and *essential* a symptomatic treatment can be.
You wrote:
"If taking Schizophrenia as having a primary psychogenic cause; which I believe to be the case - based on the evidence - then a purely biological understanding & treatment of it is plainly wrong & flawed."This sentence I think illustrates the primary points of our contention/agreement. I think it is too early to say that the cause of schizophrenia is purely psychogenic, or purely biological, or purely anything. At present, I think the field is still arguing over *what* schizophrenia actually *is*.
I think the *appropriate* use of medication in the suffering patient *is* indicated, if for nothing else than symptom relief. But neither therapy nor medication should be used at the exclusion of the other.
Remember, it was only in 1993 that the national institute of mental health re-joined the NIH. It was at this time that the NIMH launched its current research emphasis and funding initiatives to even explore the biological basis for mental illness. That's only 16 years. In research time and effort, this field is still in its infancy. It will take some time to acquire enough data to say anything either way.
I also hear you loud and clear that if a patient is successfully treated with medication, then that may reduce the impetus for either the physician, scientist or patient to pursue other avenues that might actually cure the condition. One has to work against the "standard of care" model and demonstrate efficacy above and beyond that current model.
However, as you pointed out, a lot of patients *aren't* successfully treated. But in those that are, would you advocate cessation of meds in order to pursue other treatments? Would that even be ethical?
Seldom
poster:seldomseen
thread:874659
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20090104/msgs/875278.html