Thorolfr:
I’m not completely convinced that the potential for harm is always “very small” when it comes to treatments for most other disorders. Take ADHD, for example, a disorder that I know a lot about. One of the most common treatments for ADHD is a prescription stimulant such as Ritalin or Adderall…
I was really hesitant to take a stimulant medication for my ADHD for a long time because I don’t know for sure what its long term effects on my brain will be or whether over an extended period of time it will significantly increase my risk of high blood pressure and heart disease. In the end, I decided (partly out of desperation) that the benefits of the medication outweigh the risks. I still don’t believe, however, that the potential for harm is “very small.”
I agree that regulatory agencies have failed with respect to some (perhaps even many) medications and therapies, especially those treating young children with ADHD, for example. That, however, points out a failure with society. The education system could not keep up with rapid changes in society – the breakdown of families being a principal one – and a desperate education system/single parents put pressure on psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical industry to solve the problem using chemistry that wasn’t one caused by brain chemistry. What could go wrong there?
That only reinforces my point that therapies – in all cases – need to fully understand the causes of an ailment before recommending a remedy.
By the way, this is a general problem with the medical community generally: treating symptoms rather than actual causes.