... newer stories
Dienstag, 19. Juni 2012
emotional enhancement
bijana, 03:10h
das funktioniert selbstverständlich mit serotonin wiederaufnahme hemmenden psychopharmaka, die einen weitläufig als normal betrachteten Serotoninlevel ermöglichen, wodurch der Mensch sich wiederum besser fühlen soll.
In general: es geht um die Frage, ob man Psychopharmaka einnehmen würde
My answer would be no.
I'd rather want to be treated as a human being with deviations from normal behaviour than as a mistake.
As a whole I'm the sum of my abilites and my disabilites, if one of this side is deleted, a part of me is missing. To change my faults, it is necessary that I was given the chance to alter my inabilites previously with the result that this new way in thinking changed my attitude and therefore changed me. Whereas in the other case ( where people just are on a drug) (I presume) people will fall back into old patterns as soon as the medical treatment will come to an end.
At the same time it should be the aim of the treatment to make the patient independent of his medicine. Perhaps it should me mentioned, that exactly this is a goal of a process which is long in duration, but provides a good success rate as it does not stop medication immediately but in steps - always one at a time.
The strongest counterargument of Miss Kramer was that "natural" substances like wine would cause a similar effect as wine does or for example a song which you adore and therefore you feel like you are in hog heaven once you have heard it. In conclusion it would be impossible to distinct between an artificial and a natural feeling of happiness ( the medicine and the wine would lead to the same state of the person).
Wouldn't the strongest evidence against her counterargument be, that a depressed person could not reach the same state with wine as a "normal" person does? To establish clarity: isn't it the case, that a depressed person has to bring her level of "happiness" ( via antidepressants or something else) to the one of her "normal" fellow at first, before they both would reach a higher level of amusement by drinking some wine?
Taking an antidepressant means also to admit not to have any mental power at all. One is not able to solve ones problems solely but wholly depends on the impact of the treatment.
( It would be quite interesting to examine the impact of placebos on that desease. The world-known magazine "Die Zeit" states there is no any substantial proof for the impact of an antidepressant. This leads me to the question, why not? Either depressed people have not as much serotonin in their synaptic cleft as thought before or the active agent does not work properly. I think the second option is more plausible)
http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article1726426/Antidepressiva-wirken-kaum-besser-als-Placebos.html
In general: es geht um die Frage, ob man Psychopharmaka einnehmen würde
My answer would be no.
I'd rather want to be treated as a human being with deviations from normal behaviour than as a mistake.
As a whole I'm the sum of my abilites and my disabilites, if one of this side is deleted, a part of me is missing. To change my faults, it is necessary that I was given the chance to alter my inabilites previously with the result that this new way in thinking changed my attitude and therefore changed me. Whereas in the other case ( where people just are on a drug) (I presume) people will fall back into old patterns as soon as the medical treatment will come to an end.
At the same time it should be the aim of the treatment to make the patient independent of his medicine. Perhaps it should me mentioned, that exactly this is a goal of a process which is long in duration, but provides a good success rate as it does not stop medication immediately but in steps - always one at a time.
The strongest counterargument of Miss Kramer was that "natural" substances like wine would cause a similar effect as wine does or for example a song which you adore and therefore you feel like you are in hog heaven once you have heard it. In conclusion it would be impossible to distinct between an artificial and a natural feeling of happiness ( the medicine and the wine would lead to the same state of the person).
Wouldn't the strongest evidence against her counterargument be, that a depressed person could not reach the same state with wine as a "normal" person does? To establish clarity: isn't it the case, that a depressed person has to bring her level of "happiness" ( via antidepressants or something else) to the one of her "normal" fellow at first, before they both would reach a higher level of amusement by drinking some wine?
Taking an antidepressant means also to admit not to have any mental power at all. One is not able to solve ones problems solely but wholly depends on the impact of the treatment.
( It would be quite interesting to examine the impact of placebos on that desease. The world-known magazine "Die Zeit" states there is no any substantial proof for the impact of an antidepressant. This leads me to the question, why not? Either depressed people have not as much serotonin in their synaptic cleft as thought before or the active agent does not work properly. I think the second option is more plausible)
http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article1726426/Antidepressiva-wirken-kaum-besser-als-Placebos.html
... link (0 Kommentare) ... comment
... older stories
