I have had anxiety all my life, though it wasn't diagnosed as that until I was 18. Before then, I would get anxiety attacks and such every first day of school, so my parents took me to the doctor for tests on my stomach cause they thought it was an illness there. :P But nah. Anxiety. I had a tendency as a child to collect things (rocks, coins, stickers, anything I was interested in really) and organizing said collections (especially my Pokemon cards) to cope with it. Nowadays, I'd say my anxiety is pretty average. I have never taken medicine for it and just fight it myself.
I had clinical depression for most of 2011, as well. Also didn't take any medicine for that either. Looking back, I don't think it would have helped me. I think it would have made it worse so I'm more than okay with just taking it head on. It was a battle everyday and I feel like it will come back for another round someday, but I'm going to win that one, too.
this is exactly my point, for something like depression its not the best idea to use drugs. depression is crushing sadness, using drugs won't get rid of the cause. sadness, anger, happiness... everything has some psychological root that caused it and there's always something that can counter it. everyone has the capacity to overcome their emotions & control them or at least be able to fight them.
Those that are critical of psychiatric medication, and psychology in general, really hit a nerve with me. There have been clinical studies and trials which conclude that psychiatric medication is effective in treating mental illnesses. While there are potentially dangerous side effects (which are rare), it's up to the doctor, nurse, or pharmacist to clearly explain these to the patient and what to do if the patient experiences them. Those who dismiss psychiatry are disagreeing with years of research, studies, and trials which prove beyond a reasonable doubt that medication is effective in treating mental illnesses.
That being said, psychiatric medication, while not perfect, has side effects that can be significant to the patient. For example, some people who are prescribed olanzapine experience significant weight gain but at the same time the drug was effective in treating their symptoms. There can be a trade-off when the side effects aren't life threatening but it's the patient's choice whether or not to continue the treatment.
It's also worth mentioning that all mental health professionals that operate in the United States must adhere to the American Psychological Association's "ethics and code of conduct". Mental health professionals, just like attorneys and primary care physicians, can lose their license to work (and can open them up to a malpractice lawsuit) if it's proven that they have breached that code of conduct. There are rules and guidelines to follow, a professional cannot break these on a whim.
Please pardon my rant. Like I said, this really gets under my skin.
that "ethics and code of conduct" doesn't really mean much in a country that has legalized inhumane actions & conditions to mentally ill on multiple occasions due to the fears & blind prejudice of multitudes of people & is still doing so to this day.
most of the ones who break the rules either don't realize their doing so or do so in a manor that they can't get in trouble for it.
in the 90s, 2000s & even now days hundreds of kids where/are misdiagnosed with ADHD and autism. "oh look, that kid can't sit still in a classroom, it can't be that their just bored like any kid would be, lets throw a label on 'em & give 'em sedatives" mindset has taken over the minds of various psychiatrists.
most of the ones who do get misdiagnosed don't even realize they where misdiagnosed due to the nature of the drugs that get shoved down their throats.
i've seen many kids who are outright brain dead & can't even think for themselves due to these medicines. the pyschs & their very own parents don't even see it.
what i said ticks you off? why? pride?
cause you think that haven't read though all the data? you didn't say anything that i didn't already know. still not enough information to even tell how much of the research was made by biased people.
do you think that your judgements are always right?
or are you reading what i say with tone other then a monotone thus reading it out of context?
that wouldn't be to surprising if you where, a series of questions with 2 being answered is usually enough to trick the mind. various people have misread what i say as being far from what i said it as.