JSlayerXero wrote:I can see where you're coming from. I've already posted my source as to why I'm against them. To offer a counter-question, is it really worth risking people potentially getting affected by homicidal or suicidal ideation; both of which not only stop them from resuming normal lives, but can result in the ending of life? The source I posted also mentioned the only reason for ADHD pills, stated by the person who came up with it, was to starts kids on drug addiction. The pharmacy has a history of being malicious, even if the doctors and psychiatrists aren't. They might not even know any better because they were taught prescribe drug Q when patient has illness V. Although I can't remember whether I read that myself or listened to some one around here doing research on big pharma. Whether it would require winning the lottery for the negatives or the positives, I'd rather not risk it in general when it comes to pharmaceuticals. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm an idiot. Maybe I'm right. My opinion doesn't mean anything unless you want it to.
We live in an age where minor medical miracles happen every other day, where technology can become outdated in a matter of weeks. It's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical. Skepticism is the intelligent move, when there are so many people with shady motives and no easy way to sift through.
That being said, your counter-question is akin to asking if we should go outside to enjoy the sunlight- knowing fully well that UV radiation from the sun is well known for causing cancer without the proper precautions.
I appreciate warm summer days as much as the next guy. Sure, the sun's UV rays might not be something you'd want to sit in for days on end. Sunburns suck, and they're relatively minor. But who doesn't enjoy spending a day at the beach? Sunlight generally makes people happier. It's also been proven that humans synthesize vitamin D from it, which is a crucial part of calcium metabolism (among other things, including roles in the immune system and lowering risks of heart attack). These things have been investigated, and there is convincing evidence for them. Of course there is still a risk of skin cancer, but my answer (along with the majority opinion) is that we should go outside and enjoy the sun anyway.
Why? The last two words of that second paragraph: proper precautions. If you're going to be out in the sun for several hours, you'd wear a hat, sunglasses, sunscreen. Things that minimize that risk. When sunbathing, you rotate to ensure you don't burn. People intuitively seek shade and water when it's hot out. These things don't entirely eliminate the risk, but they dramatically reduce the chances of negative side effects.
Similarly, while there are risks to such medications, they can also be sharply decreased with the right preparation. If a drug is expected to make you feel differently, get the doctor to explain how it does so. What side effects are likely? How long will it take to "kick in"? What things are not normal? Are there any less invasive/more effective alternatives? If the condition worsens, you wouldn't just wait around and hope it passes, you'd go back to the doctor and figure out why, to set things right again. Research online. If nothing else, you'd verify that the doctor is trustworthy and knows what he's talking about.
Which brings us to the final point- these things do not eliminate the risk, only reduce it as much as possible. This is why such treatments usually include a medication component (temporarily fixing the issue), a therapy component (targeting the underlying cause, so that medication will ultimately become redundant and discontinued) and ideally a support component (friends and family who would be understanding and most importantly get help if for some reason there's an adverse reaction to any of the above). I did check your source, and while unfortunate, a majority of the cases brought up in the video seem like they could have been preventable. (It only mentioned the medication component, and while I would not feel confident in saying that the other two more important parts were absent, the implication is there.) Friends, teachers, and parents especially should have noticed something off in behavior patterns (no improvement, worsening depression, new tendencies toward violence, etc.) even if the individual himself did not come forward. Killing another human is very extreme and there tend to be warning signs leading up to such acts.
I do not mean to disrespect you, Xero, but we will never have a perfect society- if we did, such treatment would be unneeded. The best we can do is find the most effective means and then try to reduce the innate risk as much as possible. We would not forsake the sun and its benefits, we would limit our exposure and take precautions when that isn't possible. Similarly, I do not believe it is wise to ignore a treatment that has helped many based solely on the actions of a few well-publicized incidents. We should instead be aware of our roles, both as doctors/pharmacists/therapists, as patients, and as individuals who interact with others on a human level every day to take every possible precaution against such things happening in the future.
I see this has become a wall of text again, so perhaps we should continue this via private messaging or
Doram's topic. I do enjoy a good debate, but multiple paragraphs tend to be intimidating, and this seems to be going off on slight tangent.