XPost: alt.philosophy, sci.econ, alt.psychology   
   XPost: alt.politics.economics   
   From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com   
      
   John Jones wrote:   
   > sarge wrote:   
   >> On 9 Aug, 04:21, John Jones  wrote:   
   >>> Rod Speed wrote:   
   >>>> John Jones wrote   
   >>>>> Rod Speed wrote   
   >>>>>> John Jones wrote   
   >>>>>>> Immortalist wrote   
   >>>>>>>> (1) - Newer drugs, more social acceptance: It may be more   
   >>>>>>>> socially acceptable to be diagnosed with and treated for   
   >>>>>>>> depression. The availability of new drugs may also have been a   
   >>>>>>>> factor. (2) - Cost may be deterrent to talk therapy: Therapy   
   >>>>>>>> is as effective as, if not more effective than, drug use   
   >>>>>>>> alone,... out-of-pocket costs for psychotherapy and lower   
   >>>>>>>> insurance coverage for such visits may have driven patients   
   >>>>>>>> away from seeing therapists in favor of an easy- to-prescribe   
   >>>>>>>> pill.   
   >>>>>>> The reason for the presence and justification of antidepressant   
   >>>>>>> drugs AT ALL is due to the culturally driven, illness model of   
   >>>>>>> behaviour.   
   >>>>>> Wrong. Depression has always been around, most used stuff like   
   >>>>>> booze for it previously.   
   >>>>> Depression is part of the illness model of behaviour. There's   
   >>>>> nothing called "depression". It isn't even a fiction.   
   >>>> Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.   
   >>> "Depression" can't be physically substantiated. The term is itself   
   >>> unsubstantiated.   
   >>   
   >> It has a functional definition: Can I, the psychiatrist, give you an   
   >> anti-depressant without it being likely I will lose a subsequent   
   >> lawsuit?  If yes, then you are depressed.  Its about laws and habits.   
   >> The pharmaceutical company would have a different dovetailing   
   >> definition.  Unfortunately many 'clients' also have dovetailing   
   >> definitions.  This all has little to do with science.  Or, better   
   >> put, the science comes after all the ungrounded assumptions.   
   >>   
   >> If we assume _______________   
   >> and ________________   
   >> and _________________   
   >> then what we tested was _______________   
   >> and the test shows _________________.   
   >>   
   >   
   >   
   > AS I always said, "depression" is the name of a clinical regimen.   
      
   You're wrong. The problem has been around since LONG before there were ANY   
   clinical regimes.   
      
   Just as true of schitzophrenia and psychopaths in spades.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)