JoanOfArc
Hidden
Nah...i only think that its better to have depression than kidney dialysis-and what do you prefer?
return to valium
- Thread starter celibate
- Start date
JoanOfArc
Hidden
Bardzo mnie to cieszy
JoanOfArc
Hidden
Oops thanks i didnt see it-the bolded line i mean.I only saw this"
"
Moonbeam
Slackerbitch
What a ridiculous thing to say
JoanOfArc
Hidden
Why?I really do think so..At least you can drink more than 2glasses of liquids per day,go on holidays and dont spend 3days a week connected to the machines for few hours to clean your whole blood...And what do you prefer?
Stephen
Gemini
Narcotization (which is what it is) is sometimes the only release and saviour. People reach dead ends in life, and drugs can help to prevent it becoming a literal dead end. It's not perfect, and it can be detrimental, but it saves so many lives, and allows people to maybe, one day, see a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.
Last edited:
Moonbeam
Slackerbitch
Stick to talking about pharmaceuticals as you obviously have no idea whatsoever about mental health disorders.
SoVeryEntertainig
New Member
What makes you think so? Have you ever faced any of them?
None of them makes you go on holidays, believe me.
Sometimes people have to take certain medications despite the side effects. For example, steriods like Prednisone (sp?) have horrible and severe side effects but for people who suffer from ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease sometimes taking steriods is the only way they can live a halfway normal life.
Statements like this are the reason so many people with depression are misunderstood. By comparing depression to a debilitating health problem you are making it seem as if depression is not a big deal. Don't know if that was your intention, but coming from someone who has both depression and an at times debilitating illness (although not as bad as kidney dialyisis), I can tell you I don't prefer one to the other. They are both diffficult to manage and at times can hurt just as bad, although in different ways.
JoanOfArc
Hidden
Ohhhhh and you have an idea...im sure...
JoanOfArc
Hidden
Dobra nie dolaczaj tu do chorku,i jeszcze zaraz mi powiesz ze masz dializy i depresje jasne,to nie moja wina ze zrobilas blad w cytacie przy swoim podpisie daj se siana i zmien nazwe uzytkownika bo dalej masz blad z litera na koncu...i to by bylo na tyle
.
JoanOfArc
Hidden
Well im sorry for that,this must be really difficult.My mum has depression so i know how it feels.Well obviously my statment was an exaggeration to point out the fact what damage some medicine over use can do,Ive seen dialysis patients with permament venflons e.g.in the neck,through which they are connected to those machines,ive seen them in the summer 40C degrees and they are dying of thirst coz they cant drink more than 2glasses of water per day...i said it as a warning in my first post,then it was taken out of context,and reduced to absurd etc.etc...
Here is a decent overview of the issues being discussed in this thread, about which I think some of you could stand to do more reading, less writing. An undercurrent is the matter of how "scientific" modern psychiatry is or isn't.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20851
A quote:
There is, however, one rulebook that does place some constraint on what the drug makers can claim. This is the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Its four editions (plus interim revisions) thus far from 1952 through 1994 specify the psychological ailments that the whole mental health system has agreed to deem authentic. Although "condition branding" by publicists can make normal people feel like sufferers from a given malady, the malady itself must first be listed in the DSM in order for medical treatments to be approved.
Can we rely on this guidebook, then, for independent, objective judgment about the identification and treatment of mental complaints? The compilers of each edition have boasted that their named disorders rest mainly on research findings, and most physicians take that claim at face value, as do medical insurers, epidemiologists, and the funders of empirical studies. An acquaintance with the DSM's several versions and with the controversies that shaped them, however, suggests that they tell more about the shifting zeitgeist and the factions within the APA than they do about permanently valid syndromes.
Human nature has not metamorphosed several times since 1952, but each DSM has included more disorders than the last. The third edition of 1980 alone, liberally subdividing earlier categories, purported to have unearthed 112 more of them than the second edition of 1968, and by the fourth edition of 1994 there were over 350, marked by such dubiously pathognomonic symptoms as feeling low, worrying, bearing grudges, and smoking. Those stigmata, furthermore, are presented in a user-friendly checklist form that awards equal value to each symptom within a disorder's entry. In Bingo style, for example, a patient who fits five out of the nine listed criteria for depression is tagged with the disorder. It is little wonder, then, that drug makers' advertisements now urge consumers to spot their own defectiveness through reprinted DSM checklists and then to demand correction via the designated pills.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20851
A quote:
There is, however, one rulebook that does place some constraint on what the drug makers can claim. This is the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Its four editions (plus interim revisions) thus far from 1952 through 1994 specify the psychological ailments that the whole mental health system has agreed to deem authentic. Although "condition branding" by publicists can make normal people feel like sufferers from a given malady, the malady itself must first be listed in the DSM in order for medical treatments to be approved.
Can we rely on this guidebook, then, for independent, objective judgment about the identification and treatment of mental complaints? The compilers of each edition have boasted that their named disorders rest mainly on research findings, and most physicians take that claim at face value, as do medical insurers, epidemiologists, and the funders of empirical studies. An acquaintance with the DSM's several versions and with the controversies that shaped them, however, suggests that they tell more about the shifting zeitgeist and the factions within the APA than they do about permanently valid syndromes.
Human nature has not metamorphosed several times since 1952, but each DSM has included more disorders than the last. The third edition of 1980 alone, liberally subdividing earlier categories, purported to have unearthed 112 more of them than the second edition of 1968, and by the fourth edition of 1994 there were over 350, marked by such dubiously pathognomonic symptoms as feeling low, worrying, bearing grudges, and smoking. Those stigmata, furthermore, are presented in a user-friendly checklist form that awards equal value to each symptom within a disorder's entry. In Bingo style, for example, a patient who fits five out of the nine listed criteria for depression is tagged with the disorder. It is little wonder, then, that drug makers' advertisements now urge consumers to spot their own defectiveness through reprinted DSM checklists and then to demand correction via the designated pills.
JoanOfArc
Hidden
Wow!Great article.Thank you for the link!
JoanOfArc
Hidden
I agree.
JoanOfArc
Hidden
Maybe...
SoVeryEntertainig
New Member
Dobra nie dolaczaj tu do chorku,i jeszcze zaraz mi powiesz ze masz dializy i depresje jasne,to nie moja wina ze zrobilas blad w cytacie przy swoim podpisie daj se siana i zmien nazwe uzytkownika bo dalej masz blad z litera na koncu...i to by bylo na tyle
Uzytkownikow znajacych polski jest tu wiecej niz mogłabys się spodziewac wiec uwazaj, bo piszac takie rzeczy wystawiasz sobie samej okreslone swiadectwo. Moj podpis - moj problem, moj nick takze. A co w ogole ma piernik do wiatraka? Ty sprawiasz wrazenie nie do konca zaznajomionej z zasadami interpunkcji, i co z tego??
Nie znajdziesz poparcia dla swojego toku rozumowania w miejscu gdzie wiele osob zmaga sie z problemami takimi jak depresja.
I to by bylo na tyle ode mnie
jamescagney
Stood at the urinal
I agree with everything you've said, but I'd replace the first word. Antidepressants aren't narcotics. Most of them don't dull or deaden you. Some of them give you more energy, make you more alive, more able to function, live, produce, create. (Don't include anti-anxiety drugs like valium, which aren't really anti-depressants.)
- Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman
Last edited:
CrystalGeezer
My secret's my enzyme.
"There is polish < poland > here rally Uzytkownikow znajacych wiecej niz mogłabys spodziewac uwazaj, because you expose (set out) such things piszac okreslone swiadectwo. Signature (subscription) Moj - problem moj, nick moj takze. Has what honey-cake in (to) for windmill but ogole? You cause for with principles of punctuation not acquainted (familiarize) wrazenie konca, what from it and?"
Based on this, as a sign, I fully embrace the theory that MUCH is lost in translation when it comes to seeing signs.
