There are people who are just "anti-drugs" - where "drug" is a very specific definition that doesn't logically make much sense. If you take sugar cubes and put them in a prescription bottle, and have a doctor give it out, it's considered a "drug" to these people, but if you take a flower out of the ground, it's not a drug. Or it IS a drug if it's illegal. Again - no logical sense. Where do you draw the line between which mind altering substances are considered "drugs"?
There are other people who are pro/against some types of drugs. Maybe pro-"natural" drugs - also doesn't make much sense. Anything man-made might be considered evil to these people - DESPITE the fact that many hobbyists, scientists, and everyday people throughout the ages have devoted their entire life and energy into discovering things and trying their best to help out humanity. Don't worry that this synthetic chemical has a thousand years of history behind its discovery or function - if it's synthetic, it brings up images of a lab run by bureaucrats who's only intention is to poison you and make profit.
Some might be pro/against drugs based on their effect, or more specifically, just on its marketing. Prozac is evil because it's marketed to make you happy. If you take LSD, smoke pot, or drink a beer or have sex to be happy, it's OK. But if you take a drug specifically designed to Up your mood - it's a bad thing. Maybe it's a public admission that you NEED the drug to be happy?
My POINT in the above 2 paragraphs is this. Let's NOT talk about the dangers of the drug, or about marketing or politics. The drug companies WANT to make money. That's the purpose of a company. It's not a bad thing.
Before we get to the argument, let's make some assumptions. I am trying this because everytime I start a thread like this on other forums, we begin delving into arguments about politics, the FDA/drug companies/etc.
Assumptions
1) Depression exists. It might be due to God, or due to bad nutrition, lack of exercise, a chemical imbalance, or what-have-you. We don't agree on the cause but we agree that it is a possible (broad) mood that many people may experience.
2) We also agree that depression is debilitating. HOW to fix it isn't the argument per-se.. let's just agree that it's a bad mood that nobody wants to be in. It's counter-productive and it leads to many ills.
3) There IS a stigma surrounding anti-depressants, depression and psychiatry.
4) We agree that the brain is made up of different "departments" that handle different functions. We agree that there is a part or process in the brain responsible for vision, smell and other senses, as well as a part responsible for memory, dreams, and different physical/personality aspects. We agree that if we take a needle and open up a brain, and begin poking around physically, we can theoretically alter a person's personality. Phineas Gage is the railroad worker who had a huge metal rod shot into his skull. He lived, but his personality was altered drastically afterwards. one can argue that having a metal rod shot into the skull will make anyone bitter
- but my point is that from his case, we began poking into the brain and we can now electrically stimulate different parts to alter a person's mood.
5) Let's assume for this argument's sake that God may or may not exist, but that a person's mood is not affected by Gods or spirits or demons or jins. I also want to assume that we all believe in evolution. Evolution doesn't conflict with God. It's just a process that we can see on a micro and macro level in every aspect of life. Things "evolve" based on previous knowledge. An Ipod might be designed by a man, but that doesn't mean that any man can just wake up and design an Ipod. It was a process. Things had to be discovered and tinkered with for hundreds of years before an Ipod could be created. Can we say an Ipod "evolved" from more primitive components? Sure. Nobody is saying an Ipod was not intelligently designed, but the design was based on components and knowledge from previous devices. That's all I am going to say about evolution. I will start another thread about this shortly.
6) We know that people are born with birth defects. A defect is a relative term. Without getting into DNA or biology or physiology, a "defect" in one culture might be a benefit in another culture. People are genetically tied to their environment. A person who prospers physically in one environment (birth place, country, household, diet, etc) may not do well in another, and may have deficiencies.
If Joe and his entire generation of people were born in the United Empire, a place that only has 10 kinds of food and barely any calcium, then Joe and his family might have a genetic mutation that allows him to absorb calcium more efficiently than most people - because he NEEDS to to survive. If Joe moves to the CalNation, a place where people naturally eat a lot of calcium due to the crops that grow there, he may have trouble with calcium toxicity simply because of his genetic makeup. This is basic and a very watered down description of a very very complex topic. I hope we can all agree to this somewhat without getting into an argument on biology.
7) Let's also assume that all drugs are free so that we don't argue cost. In the real world, COST is a BIG PROBLEM. Some GENERIC drugs cost over $200 a month if you don't have insurance, and the threat of not being able to afford medicine IS SERIOUS. But that's another argument!
8) Let's assume that drug companies are heavily regulated. They aren't of course and I will be the first to say that a lot of corruption exists and will always exist. but I don't want to get into arguments about buying drugs meaning that we support the evil drug companies. Yes it's true, but let's not argue this. Let's assume that all drugs in this thread are made in a bathtub or are from non-profits. I'm interesting in arguing the ethical issues.
Arguments
Here's my first argument. I am not PRO or AGAINST the "chemical imbalance" argument (I will say that I believe the term and definition of "chemical imbalance" are much too simple to describe human bio-physiology and neuroscience).
Is Happiness Hardwired?
If brain chemistry determines different aspects of personality, and people - based on their upbringing or genetic makeup - may be born with genetic mutations, physical birth defects and just different physical attributes, WHY can't people be born with different personalities?
There's no doubt that people are born with different memory, intelligence, etc. So why can't mood also be something hardwired? In fact - it probably is. At least according to a recent book I read titled "Happiness"
The book is a summary of dozens of long term studies done on mood/happiness/depression and their relation to money and life circumstances. I HIGHLY recommend the book, but the it basically says that why happiness itself is somewhat hardcoded (people who win the lottery eventually become as depressed or happy as they were before they won, etc), there ARE significant life events which may alter happiness. A marriage is one such event. Having a child in another. The book doesn't mention it, but taking LSD or shrooms or DMT is also a significant life event that may impact mood significantly.
Is taking anti-depressants bad if you're "healthy"?
What if somebody who feels happy, has a good job, has a loving and beautiful wife, etc, decides to take anti-depressants. Not for premature ejaculation, no any deficit, but strictly to feel better - they feel GOOD but they can always feel better right?. Is that OK? Some people (and I recommend it) take Wellbutrin because it improves energy, memory, focus, and overall mood. It's an expensive drug that is relatively safe (unless you're prone to seizures) - but it does alter brain chemistry, and though it is designed to be taken long term, but people's bodies are different and there are interactions etc that may pop up eventually. You aren't harming anyone, and you aren't putting anyone at risk of anything, except possibly yourself a decade down the road. Maybe you're taxing your liver. Is it ethically and socially wrong for this person to take this drug?
What would YOUR opinion be, of somebody who takes this drug even though they are not (or don't appear to be) sick in any way?
Is smoking weed daily OK for depression?
Depression can be serious or severe, but either way, you find that smoking weed daily is beneficial to you. You don't harm anyway. You may agree that smoking weed daily MAY be bad for some people, but you understand the risks, and you can afford this drug, and it doesn't impact your life. Is it OK to smoke weed daily? It may be hard with weed, but can you think of some negative aspects of smoking daily besides lung problems (assume vaping or eating)?
What would YOUR opinion be, of somebody who takes uses pot daily even though they are not (or don't appear to be) sick in any way?
Does it matter HOW anti-depressants work?
Does it matter if anti-depressant pills fix a chemical imbalance, or if they alter your brain chemistry unnaturally, or they are just placebo, IF they work?
Many people argue that the chemical imbalance theory is BS (rightly so - it's controversial), but does that really invalidate the anecdotal benefits of the drugs in question?
More serotonin makes you happy. Whether it's serotonin directly that's involved or some other process, we know that a drug like E which can cause a serotonin storm in your brain which results in you feeling fan-fucking-tastic.
So we design a "safe" E (E is already very safe, mind you) that one can take 24/7 with no long term effects. Marketers will say that low serotonin makes you feel miserable, and it does (Suicide Tuesday?) - but the brain is complex and there's more to that conclusion than just "low/high level of a specific chemical." But all the consumer knows is, that if he takes this pill, he feels good. He doesn't care much about ion channels and neurotransmitters and neuro-anything. In fact, he really just wants to finish his job, and go home and fuck his wife, and then watch TV and sleep. Eventually he wants to retire with no intention of every becoming an activist or a neurochemist. He feels that this fake-E-anti-depressant pill helps him do that. Should be be shunned for taking it?
Scenarios .. what's your opinion?
The Just-Functional Depressee
Joe has been depressed since childhood. He has a family history of mental illness including schizophrenia, bipolar, depression, drug addiction, and so on. He is suicidal sometimes, but is generally OK. He is FUNCTIONAL in that he can hold a job and somewhat of a social life. His friends don't think anything is wrong with him, and he can probably function enough to retire. He tried psychoanalysis and religion, and every other "natural" method with no luck. He just doesn't feel content.
Is it OK for Joe to take anti-depressants on a regular basis?
The Quarter Life Crisis
Lucy was never depressed. She felt great as a child and as a young adult. She had goals to graduate, and was generally on the right track. But after graduating with a BA in psychology - something he just chose on a whim but later discovered she wasn't that into - she feels uneasy about her future. She doesn't know what she wants to be, and is finding it harder and harder to cope with everyday stress. She hates her job at an advertising firm, though the pay is good. And she doesn't feel like she has many interests although she really hasn't traveled the world much and hasn't taken up many hobbies.
Would it be OK for her to go to her doctor and talk about things? Would it be OK for her to take anti-depressants if her doctor suggests them?
Let's assume Lucy knows how evil the Big Bad Corps are and knows that the doctor is getting a fat check for every Rx of Gozac or Jozac that she prescribes. Lucy _knows_ this but decides that she wants to try anti-depressants because she wants a kick in the right direction. Is that OK?
Totally Against Meds
Herbie is completely against "drugs." He has never needed drugs before and he doesn't feel like he needs them now. He feels he can fix things on his own, and has been trying to do so for a long time. The problem is, Herbie is probably clinically depressed. He can't hold a job, he can't hold a relationship, and he can't get much of anything done.
He's miserable, but he refuses to see a doc. Why? Because he follows the negative stigma doctors and medication have. He also isn't into psychedelics or _any_ mind altering substances. He doesn't even use band-aids because he feels it would be better if his body naturally repaired itself.
Herbie might or might NOT be "depressed" but should he seek a doctor's advice?
Should Herbie take medication if his doctor recommends it?
Assuming Herbie takes the medication and prospers - gets a great job, begins enjoying things, and has an overall personality change (he becomes nicer, more open, etc), should he continue taking the meds?
Herbie hangs with a circle of people who are anti-drugs just like him, and see that the drugs have "changed him" - They don't like it, and tell him openly. He also might feel that the productive, nicer person is "not really" him - should he seek new friends or just quit the meds?
Natural/OTC drugs
Is it morally acceptable to you, to go to CVS and buy SAMe or St. John's Wort, just so you can feel great and be productive? What if you take these drugs every single day for years. You might be addicted or not, but you feel like you can't function without them - and frankly, you don't see why you would want to. Assuming these and other natural/OTC drugs internally work the exact same way as pharmaceutical Rx-only anti-depressants, is this OK? Some of my friends take these and would never touch Zoloft or Wellbutrin, even though these drugs might work the same way and even be cheaper than OTC pills.
No such thing as chemical imbalance
A study came out tomorrow that said that there's NO such thing as a chemical imbalance, and disproved every benefit that Pfizer puts on Zoloft. The CEO of Pfizer gets arrested and anally violated.
But Jack and Jill have been taking Zoloft for a decade and lead functional healthy lives. They feel good on it, and know from their own experience that Zoloft helps with depression. Should they stop taking it after this news Why?
There are other people who are pro/against some types of drugs. Maybe pro-"natural" drugs - also doesn't make much sense. Anything man-made might be considered evil to these people - DESPITE the fact that many hobbyists, scientists, and everyday people throughout the ages have devoted their entire life and energy into discovering things and trying their best to help out humanity. Don't worry that this synthetic chemical has a thousand years of history behind its discovery or function - if it's synthetic, it brings up images of a lab run by bureaucrats who's only intention is to poison you and make profit.
Some might be pro/against drugs based on their effect, or more specifically, just on its marketing. Prozac is evil because it's marketed to make you happy. If you take LSD, smoke pot, or drink a beer or have sex to be happy, it's OK. But if you take a drug specifically designed to Up your mood - it's a bad thing. Maybe it's a public admission that you NEED the drug to be happy?
My POINT in the above 2 paragraphs is this. Let's NOT talk about the dangers of the drug, or about marketing or politics. The drug companies WANT to make money. That's the purpose of a company. It's not a bad thing.
Before we get to the argument, let's make some assumptions. I am trying this because everytime I start a thread like this on other forums, we begin delving into arguments about politics, the FDA/drug companies/etc.
Assumptions
1) Depression exists. It might be due to God, or due to bad nutrition, lack of exercise, a chemical imbalance, or what-have-you. We don't agree on the cause but we agree that it is a possible (broad) mood that many people may experience.
2) We also agree that depression is debilitating. HOW to fix it isn't the argument per-se.. let's just agree that it's a bad mood that nobody wants to be in. It's counter-productive and it leads to many ills.
3) There IS a stigma surrounding anti-depressants, depression and psychiatry.
4) We agree that the brain is made up of different "departments" that handle different functions. We agree that there is a part or process in the brain responsible for vision, smell and other senses, as well as a part responsible for memory, dreams, and different physical/personality aspects. We agree that if we take a needle and open up a brain, and begin poking around physically, we can theoretically alter a person's personality. Phineas Gage is the railroad worker who had a huge metal rod shot into his skull. He lived, but his personality was altered drastically afterwards. one can argue that having a metal rod shot into the skull will make anyone bitter
- but my point is that from his case, we began poking into the brain and we can now electrically stimulate different parts to alter a person's mood.5) Let's assume for this argument's sake that God may or may not exist, but that a person's mood is not affected by Gods or spirits or demons or jins. I also want to assume that we all believe in evolution. Evolution doesn't conflict with God. It's just a process that we can see on a micro and macro level in every aspect of life. Things "evolve" based on previous knowledge. An Ipod might be designed by a man, but that doesn't mean that any man can just wake up and design an Ipod. It was a process. Things had to be discovered and tinkered with for hundreds of years before an Ipod could be created. Can we say an Ipod "evolved" from more primitive components? Sure. Nobody is saying an Ipod was not intelligently designed, but the design was based on components and knowledge from previous devices. That's all I am going to say about evolution. I will start another thread about this shortly.
6) We know that people are born with birth defects. A defect is a relative term. Without getting into DNA or biology or physiology, a "defect" in one culture might be a benefit in another culture. People are genetically tied to their environment. A person who prospers physically in one environment (birth place, country, household, diet, etc) may not do well in another, and may have deficiencies.
If Joe and his entire generation of people were born in the United Empire, a place that only has 10 kinds of food and barely any calcium, then Joe and his family might have a genetic mutation that allows him to absorb calcium more efficiently than most people - because he NEEDS to to survive. If Joe moves to the CalNation, a place where people naturally eat a lot of calcium due to the crops that grow there, he may have trouble with calcium toxicity simply because of his genetic makeup. This is basic and a very watered down description of a very very complex topic. I hope we can all agree to this somewhat without getting into an argument on biology.
7) Let's also assume that all drugs are free so that we don't argue cost. In the real world, COST is a BIG PROBLEM. Some GENERIC drugs cost over $200 a month if you don't have insurance, and the threat of not being able to afford medicine IS SERIOUS. But that's another argument!
8) Let's assume that drug companies are heavily regulated. They aren't of course and I will be the first to say that a lot of corruption exists and will always exist. but I don't want to get into arguments about buying drugs meaning that we support the evil drug companies. Yes it's true, but let's not argue this. Let's assume that all drugs in this thread are made in a bathtub or are from non-profits. I'm interesting in arguing the ethical issues.
Arguments
Here's my first argument. I am not PRO or AGAINST the "chemical imbalance" argument (I will say that I believe the term and definition of "chemical imbalance" are much too simple to describe human bio-physiology and neuroscience).
Is Happiness Hardwired?
If brain chemistry determines different aspects of personality, and people - based on their upbringing or genetic makeup - may be born with genetic mutations, physical birth defects and just different physical attributes, WHY can't people be born with different personalities?
There's no doubt that people are born with different memory, intelligence, etc. So why can't mood also be something hardwired? In fact - it probably is. At least according to a recent book I read titled "Happiness"
The book is a summary of dozens of long term studies done on mood/happiness/depression and their relation to money and life circumstances. I HIGHLY recommend the book, but the it basically says that why happiness itself is somewhat hardcoded (people who win the lottery eventually become as depressed or happy as they were before they won, etc), there ARE significant life events which may alter happiness. A marriage is one such event. Having a child in another. The book doesn't mention it, but taking LSD or shrooms or DMT is also a significant life event that may impact mood significantly.
Is taking anti-depressants bad if you're "healthy"?
What if somebody who feels happy, has a good job, has a loving and beautiful wife, etc, decides to take anti-depressants. Not for premature ejaculation, no any deficit, but strictly to feel better - they feel GOOD but they can always feel better right?. Is that OK? Some people (and I recommend it) take Wellbutrin because it improves energy, memory, focus, and overall mood. It's an expensive drug that is relatively safe (unless you're prone to seizures) - but it does alter brain chemistry, and though it is designed to be taken long term, but people's bodies are different and there are interactions etc that may pop up eventually. You aren't harming anyone, and you aren't putting anyone at risk of anything, except possibly yourself a decade down the road. Maybe you're taxing your liver. Is it ethically and socially wrong for this person to take this drug?
What would YOUR opinion be, of somebody who takes this drug even though they are not (or don't appear to be) sick in any way?
Is smoking weed daily OK for depression?
Depression can be serious or severe, but either way, you find that smoking weed daily is beneficial to you. You don't harm anyway. You may agree that smoking weed daily MAY be bad for some people, but you understand the risks, and you can afford this drug, and it doesn't impact your life. Is it OK to smoke weed daily? It may be hard with weed, but can you think of some negative aspects of smoking daily besides lung problems (assume vaping or eating)?
What would YOUR opinion be, of somebody who takes uses pot daily even though they are not (or don't appear to be) sick in any way?
Does it matter HOW anti-depressants work?
Does it matter if anti-depressant pills fix a chemical imbalance, or if they alter your brain chemistry unnaturally, or they are just placebo, IF they work?
Many people argue that the chemical imbalance theory is BS (rightly so - it's controversial), but does that really invalidate the anecdotal benefits of the drugs in question?
More serotonin makes you happy. Whether it's serotonin directly that's involved or some other process, we know that a drug like E which can cause a serotonin storm in your brain which results in you feeling fan-fucking-tastic.
So we design a "safe" E (E is already very safe, mind you) that one can take 24/7 with no long term effects. Marketers will say that low serotonin makes you feel miserable, and it does (Suicide Tuesday?) - but the brain is complex and there's more to that conclusion than just "low/high level of a specific chemical." But all the consumer knows is, that if he takes this pill, he feels good. He doesn't care much about ion channels and neurotransmitters and neuro-anything. In fact, he really just wants to finish his job, and go home and fuck his wife, and then watch TV and sleep. Eventually he wants to retire with no intention of every becoming an activist or a neurochemist. He feels that this fake-E-anti-depressant pill helps him do that. Should be be shunned for taking it?
Scenarios .. what's your opinion?
The Just-Functional Depressee
Joe has been depressed since childhood. He has a family history of mental illness including schizophrenia, bipolar, depression, drug addiction, and so on. He is suicidal sometimes, but is generally OK. He is FUNCTIONAL in that he can hold a job and somewhat of a social life. His friends don't think anything is wrong with him, and he can probably function enough to retire. He tried psychoanalysis and religion, and every other "natural" method with no luck. He just doesn't feel content.
Is it OK for Joe to take anti-depressants on a regular basis?
The Quarter Life Crisis
Lucy was never depressed. She felt great as a child and as a young adult. She had goals to graduate, and was generally on the right track. But after graduating with a BA in psychology - something he just chose on a whim but later discovered she wasn't that into - she feels uneasy about her future. She doesn't know what she wants to be, and is finding it harder and harder to cope with everyday stress. She hates her job at an advertising firm, though the pay is good. And she doesn't feel like she has many interests although she really hasn't traveled the world much and hasn't taken up many hobbies.
Would it be OK for her to go to her doctor and talk about things? Would it be OK for her to take anti-depressants if her doctor suggests them?
Let's assume Lucy knows how evil the Big Bad Corps are and knows that the doctor is getting a fat check for every Rx of Gozac or Jozac that she prescribes. Lucy _knows_ this but decides that she wants to try anti-depressants because she wants a kick in the right direction. Is that OK?
Totally Against Meds
Herbie is completely against "drugs." He has never needed drugs before and he doesn't feel like he needs them now. He feels he can fix things on his own, and has been trying to do so for a long time. The problem is, Herbie is probably clinically depressed. He can't hold a job, he can't hold a relationship, and he can't get much of anything done.
He's miserable, but he refuses to see a doc. Why? Because he follows the negative stigma doctors and medication have. He also isn't into psychedelics or _any_ mind altering substances. He doesn't even use band-aids because he feels it would be better if his body naturally repaired itself.
Herbie might or might NOT be "depressed" but should he seek a doctor's advice?
Should Herbie take medication if his doctor recommends it?
Assuming Herbie takes the medication and prospers - gets a great job, begins enjoying things, and has an overall personality change (he becomes nicer, more open, etc), should he continue taking the meds?
Herbie hangs with a circle of people who are anti-drugs just like him, and see that the drugs have "changed him" - They don't like it, and tell him openly. He also might feel that the productive, nicer person is "not really" him - should he seek new friends or just quit the meds?
Natural/OTC drugs
Is it morally acceptable to you, to go to CVS and buy SAMe or St. John's Wort, just so you can feel great and be productive? What if you take these drugs every single day for years. You might be addicted or not, but you feel like you can't function without them - and frankly, you don't see why you would want to. Assuming these and other natural/OTC drugs internally work the exact same way as pharmaceutical Rx-only anti-depressants, is this OK? Some of my friends take these and would never touch Zoloft or Wellbutrin, even though these drugs might work the same way and even be cheaper than OTC pills.
No such thing as chemical imbalance
A study came out tomorrow that said that there's NO such thing as a chemical imbalance, and disproved every benefit that Pfizer puts on Zoloft. The CEO of Pfizer gets arrested and anally violated.
But Jack and Jill have been taking Zoloft for a decade and lead functional healthy lives. They feel good on it, and know from their own experience that Zoloft helps with depression. Should they stop taking it after this news Why?
