Hi Hops,
I agree with your post entirely. Anti-depressants have helped millions of people, and I’m glad they were invented. I will always remember one of my dear patients, decades ago, shortly before he died, laughing and telling me: “you should try one of these things!” (SSRI’s were new at that point). The drug made a big difference in his last year. But as you say, for many people there are other ways of changing the brain as well. I’m glad you found ways that work for you.
Hi tt,
You’re right, IMO. Everyone has to find what works for them. And sometimes that means (under Dr. supervision) altering the dose—or if your doctor will prescribe the meds experimenting with reasonable off-label uses. I’m glad you found what works for you, too!
Hi PR,
Most doctors (more primary care physicians are prescribing anti-depressants these days than psychiatrists) prescribe anti-depressants on a trial basis: give it a try, and if it works, good—if not, we’ll try something else. Because we know so little about brain “types” (and we can only speculate about how the drugs work), that’s the best they can do. Because the side-effect profile is so minor (in most cases), I think the trial and error strategy is appropriate.
Thanks for re-raising the issue of whether it is “normal” to be happy. Statistically speaking happy is normal. But so is positive self-deception (consider, for example, the recent finding that 90% of doctors believe they are in the top 10% of their profession—sorry, I don’t mean to pick on doctors!) Here’s a controversial extension of the debate: in yesterday’s Boston Globe there was a review of a book examining the positive effect of “mental illness” on leadership:
http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-03/ae/29847067_1_mental-illness-genius-and-insanity-crisisThe book,
A First-Rate Madness: Uncovering the Links Between Leadership and Mental Illness is by Nassir Ghaemi, and the review by Alice Gregory. Apparently, the point made by Ghaemi (I haven’t read the book) is that at least for some people (and certainly the opposite has also been true for many or most leaders), the attributes of mental illness allowed people to be better leaders. Could/would Lincoln have done what he did if he had not been severely depressed—and, thus, been such a “realist”? How about Churchill? (And as the author points out, neither would have gotten the chance today to serve if their depression became public.)
But back to the point. Is happiness “normal”? Should people be striving for happiness? Many people can “find” happiness through anti-depressants, but at what cost? Is the cost worth it (as teartracks asks and answers above)? For me, personally, these are not simple questions. For example, whatever value this website/message board may have, it would not exist if I were a person of “normal” happiness. I’ll stop here. What do you/everyone think?
Richard
