Alix Spiegel of NPR did a very nice story this morning on the serotonin theory of depression:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/23/145525853/when-it-comes-to-depression-serotonin-isnt-the-whole-story
She quoted a number of notable psychiatric experts, but sadly not our friends Jeffrey Lacasse and Jon Leo, whom we have cited here previously:
http://brodyhooked.blogspot.com/2011/01/what-do-we-really-know-about-depression.html
Anyway the news report covered most of the bases--that scientists believe that attributing depression to a deficiency of serotonin is at best overly simplistic and at worst flat wrong; that the low-serotonin narrative for depression caught on with the public (and physicians) because it's simple, and no equally simple narrative is available to take its place; distressed patients really like simple narratives that promise to fix the problem, rather than complex narratives that may be scientifically more accurate; and the serotonin narrative has had both pluses and minuses--the plus being that many no longer see depression as something to be ashamed of or hidden, the minuses being that everyone now seeks a pill for depression despite the fact that pills work badly and have major safety issues, and many non-pill therapies work very well for mild to moderate depression.
Ms. Spiegel left out only one factor--what was the role of pharmaceutical marketing in selling all of us on the nice, simple serotonin narrative? And in making sure we still believe it even after it's debunked?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment