sick people need more than drugs

Today, my writings are inspired by a rant.  :-)  Sidereal's post about modern psychiatry comes from the point of view of one whose education, experience and intelligent observation make her uniquely qualified to comment on the subject.  I'm an outsider whose introductory-level learning has only made me an interested witness ... but that doesn't keep ME from having an opinion on the subject.  Anyone who knows me would expect nothing less!

The "mental-health business" has always been a misogynist.  He's a self-centered, uppity jerk who (because he knows he's a quack and not a scientist), builds his sense of self-worth through acts of power over anyone he can dominate:  children, the sick, the weak, and -- even in the 21st century -- women.  (The history of "civilization" is full of men treating women as badly as they can get away with, pardon the grammar.  Look up the background of the word "hysteria" for more....)

The medical business, too, thinks meanly of us and our problems.  Built into its philosophy is a very materialistic point of view -- something VERY tangible is behind an imperfectly-operating human machine -- and if they can't get a handle on what that is (bacteria, poisons, viruses, excessive or non-existant hormones, a piece of metal imbedded in a tissue), they're completely lost.  Subtlety is out of the question for most doctors, and a woman's malaise is frequently of subtle origin.

Since the fall of Rome, the slow rise in importance of drugs in health-care, from the herbs of the wise woman to the monopoly of Big Pharma's influence on what is studied, and what information is dispersed, and what teachings medical-students (and graduates) are given, parallels the rise in knowledge of physics.  Unfortunately, the two are confounded in their degree of "scientific-ness" even though they're very different in practice.  The human body is NOT a machine, and you can't tinker with THIS mechanism without screwing up THAT one.  Too bad that medicine doesn't acknowledge ONE point the fields have in common -- if something seems to help at first but throws the system out of balance and causes more problems later, that practice is a non-starter.*

Certain drugs are amazing adjuncts to actual CARE.  Historical instances are told us of beautiful surgeries ... whose patients died of shock rather than sepsis or other causes, simply because anaesthetics were unavailable at the time.  Shock is much less of an problem now.  The Black Death, which decimated the population of Europe over and over again, is now a non-issue due to antibiotics.  Pain relievers, both for physical and mental causes, are a godsend -- can't be lauded enough!  But if the SOURCE of the pain isn't hunted down and eradicated, their value and usefulness is of a limited nature.  One needs to use these things as crutches till the actual healing is accomplished, then put them aside.

I once found written (and it drives me crazy that i can't find it again) a pithy statement about 20th-century western society seeking for "temporary relief" indefinitely:  this is EXACTLY what happens when one tries to use these patent medicines as they are too frequently used today.  Making an abused spouse emotionally numb does not solve the problem of abuse, providing insulin to a diabetic doesn't make cake-eating okay, and giving antidepressants to a woman who is malnourished and in a bad work environment isn't going to get her very far.  And don't get me started about hyping up a child with sugar and not letting him go out for recess....

The point is, unless something is done to fix what's REALLY wrong, which in some cases will actually take some TIME and EFFORT on the part of a doctor, drug use is a contemptible wimp-out.  The profession is spoiled and lazy.  They think they can order a blood test and write a prescription, and that's all there is -- well, it's NOT.  They're going to have to listen and think and research and reason, inspire and enable.  If they don't want to do what will actually HELP, they're in the wrong fucking field.
_____
*  "Stuart Chase tells the story of the plumber who wrote to the Bureau of Standards saying he had found hydrochloric acid good for cleaning out clogged drains. The Bureau wrote back 'The efficacy of hydrochloric acid is indisputable, but the chlorine residue is incompatible with metallic permanence.' The plumber replied that he was glad the Bureau agreed. The Bureau tried again, writing 'We cannot assume responsibility for the production of toxic and noxious residues with hydrochloric acid, and suggest that you use an alternate procedure.' The plumber again said that he was glad the Bureau agreed with him. Finally, the Bureau wrote to the plumber 'Don't use hydrochloric acid; it eats hell out of the pipes.'"  ;-)