A COMMON belief about psychiatric drugs is that they are chemical cures or magic bullets that correct the chemical imbalances that supposedly cause mental distress.
This is not the case.
Reconsidering how these drugs work has important implications for helping people make informed choices about their use.
Psychiatric drugs have become firmly established within modern medicine, and their use is now widespread throughout society. Anti-depressants, anti-psychotics, mood stabilisers and anxiolytics are routinely prescribed for various forms of mental distress and are the treatment that people experiencing such distress are most likely to receive.
Many factors have contributed to this situation. Central among them is the narrative about how these drugs work, and this is often invoked to justify and encourage their use. This narrative presents psychiatric drugs as sophisticated, precision medicines that selectively target the biological dysfunctions that are said to cause mental distress.
To illustrate this narrative, an analogy is often made with the use of insulin in diabetes. Similar to how insulin works by compensating for the body's inability to produce sufficient amounts of that hormone, it is claimed that psychiatric drugs address the bodily dysfunctions that supposedly lead to mental ill-health.
In contrast with insulin, the dysfunction that psychiatric drugs are claimed to correct are chemical imbalances in the brain. In a 'lock and key' type of relationship, each drug is said to target particular neurotransmitters, the brain's chemical messengers, and reestablish the proper functioning and balance of those chemicals.
However, while this narrative has come to dominate the discourse around psychiatric drugs, there is no compelling evidence for it. Many practitioners and researchers working in the field of psychiatry - such as Joanna Moncrieff, David Healey and Peter Breggin have consistently exposed the weaknesses in its claims.
As they point out, a variety of unwarranted assumptions, logical flaws and methodological problems characterise the research and literature used to support these claims. Despite its bold assertions about chemical imbalances, and the ability of psychiatric drugs to correct those imbalances, the evidence is unconvincing, misleading or simply non-existent.
Some may consider this a controversial position: doesn't the widespread acceptance of the established narrative about psychiatric drugs, both within and beyond the medical system, demonstrate its legitimacy? As the so-called 'covid pandemic' has revealed, narratives around health and medical products can become established for reasons that have little to do with their effectiveness.
For example, it has been suggested that the image of psychiatric drugs as sophisticated medicines is a result of deficiencies in the education and training of medical staff. Others point to the seductive simplicity of this narrative, which allows it to be readily accepted and perpetuated through society by patients, practitioners and the media.
Some recognise that the pharmaceutical industry, in a bid to maximise sales, has relentlessly marketed the idea of chemical imbalances and chemical cures. While others highlight the political expediency of these claims in diverting attention away from the need to tackle the wider social and material conditions that contribute to mental distress.
In contrast with the familiar rhetoric about psychiatric drugs which these factors have helped to create, the reality is very different. Rather than being sophisticated medicines that selectively target a chemical imbalance or dysfunction, the drugs prescribed for mental distress are imprecise tools or 'blunt instruments'.
Instead of insulin, a more appropriate way to illustrate how psychiatric drugs work is to draw an analogy with alcohol. As a powerful psychoactive drug, alcohol acts on the brain in a non-specific way by affecting many neurotransmitters. This generalised disruption of the brain...
This is not the case.
Reconsidering how these drugs work has important implications for helping people make informed choices about their use.
Psychiatric drugs have become firmly established within modern medicine, and their use is now widespread throughout society. Anti-depressants, anti-psychotics, mood stabilisers and anxiolytics are routinely prescribed for various forms of mental distress and are the treatment that people experiencing such distress are most likely to receive.
Many factors have contributed to this situation. Central among them is the narrative about how these drugs work, and this is often invoked to justify and encourage their use. This narrative presents psychiatric drugs as sophisticated, precision medicines that selectively target the biological dysfunctions that are said to cause mental distress.
To illustrate this narrative, an analogy is often made with the use of insulin in diabetes. Similar to how insulin works by compensating for the body's inability to produce sufficient amounts of that hormone, it is claimed that psychiatric drugs address the bodily dysfunctions that supposedly lead to mental ill-health.
In contrast with insulin, the dysfunction that psychiatric drugs are claimed to correct are chemical imbalances in the brain. In a 'lock and key' type of relationship, each drug is said to target particular neurotransmitters, the brain's chemical messengers, and reestablish the proper functioning and balance of those chemicals.
However, while this narrative has come to dominate the discourse around psychiatric drugs, there is no compelling evidence for it. Many practitioners and researchers working in the field of psychiatry - such as Joanna Moncrieff, David Healey and Peter Breggin have consistently exposed the weaknesses in its claims.
As they point out, a variety of unwarranted assumptions, logical flaws and methodological problems characterise the research and literature used to support these claims. Despite its bold assertions about chemical imbalances, and the ability of psychiatric drugs to correct those imbalances, the evidence is unconvincing, misleading or simply non-existent.
Some may consider this a controversial position: doesn't the widespread acceptance of the established narrative about psychiatric drugs, both within and beyond the medical system, demonstrate its legitimacy? As the so-called 'covid pandemic' has revealed, narratives around health and medical products can become established for reasons that have little to do with their effectiveness.
For example, it has been suggested that the image of psychiatric drugs as sophisticated medicines is a result of deficiencies in the education and training of medical staff. Others point to the seductive simplicity of this narrative, which allows it to be readily accepted and perpetuated through society by patients, practitioners and the media.
Some recognise that the pharmaceutical industry, in a bid to maximise sales, has relentlessly marketed the idea of chemical imbalances and chemical cures. While others highlight the political expediency of these claims in diverting attention away from the need to tackle the wider social and material conditions that contribute to mental distress.
In contrast with the familiar rhetoric about psychiatric drugs which these factors have helped to create, the reality is very different. Rather than being sophisticated medicines that selectively target a chemical imbalance or dysfunction, the drugs prescribed for mental distress are imprecise tools or 'blunt instruments'.
Instead of insulin, a more appropriate way to illustrate how psychiatric drugs work is to draw an analogy with alcohol. As a powerful psychoactive drug, alcohol acts on the brain in a non-specific way by affecting many neurotransmitters. This generalised disruption of the brain...
You're reading a preview of
The Light (Digital) - 1 Issue, Issue 35: July 2023