Posted by gardenergirl on April 6, 2007, at 15:42:46
In reply to Re: patients have been sold out » gardenergirl, posted by linkadge on April 5, 2007, at 11:44:03
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Link.
> I think it is important because ultimately, for those with particular biochemical disorders, the hope of more effective medications is key. To be under the impression that the advancement of this research is significantly hampered or skewed by money is disheartening.
I can see how that would feel bad. Hope is so important. And I can see if one had that impression, it would be hard to hope for a future, better med. I'd also suggest though, that it might be effective to focus on what's here now, and how best to use all the resources we have today, since none of us can predict what will come down the pike.
>
> I think it is judicious to be angry at those responsable for changing the direction of such important research.I can see how someone could feel angry about this and express that anger. But then what? What has someone gained from expressing it, and how is that helping the path towards wellness? I'm not saying it can't help. I'm just wondering what benefit is there? And I suppose that I also wonder if in some cases, focusing on the negative aspect of the business of psychopharm might serve some other purpose. I wonder if in some cases, focusing a great deal on external negatives serves to "relieve" someone of self-efficacy. I wonder if it makes it easier for someone to believe, "I can't get better because the med business is so F-d up, and they will never come up with anything useful for me," versus "Well, meds can only do this much given what's out there now. What else will this take, and what can I do to get there?"
And to clarify, I'm not suggesting anyone here, specifically or generally, fits that pattern.
> Think of it this way. If lithium were discovered today to be effective in bipolar disorder, it would never see the light of day. What drug company in their right mind would waste the time?I don't share this outlook. I suspect that how one frames their understanding of the business of mental health very likely is one factor in how they engage with and respond to various treatments--one of many factors, of course, with varying valence.
But if I go into it with the assumption that those I will be engaging with and all that are behind them, (i.e. the doc, the drug rep, the pharm co., etc.) are not interested in truly helping me, then I think that I'm going to be less likely to be helped. Whereas if I go into saying to myself, "Well, I have problems with this and that in this industry, but that doesn't mean that I should assume that this med is faulty in some way or won't work for me," I think I've created the possibility of a positive response. And I think that's important.
So yes, the negative aspects of Big Pharma surely squash hope, and that contributes to feeling worse. But, if we don't let that hope get totally squashed, and perhaps focus on the positives or on what we can control, I think ultimately we'll be headed in the right direction towards health.
I've often been accused of being too idealistic. And I know I am, even when the negatives of any reality ought to tell me otherwise. But you know, not letting the negatives change me or change my idealism...I think that's a good thing. I think it helps me keep going. At least for me, anyway.
Namaste
gg
poster:gardenergirl
thread:746993
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070402/msgs/747592.html