Essay Help

[Taktiq]

My English professor has assigned us an argumentative essay to write, and considering that I work in mental health, I would really like to argue that most of the patients I deal with are heavily overmedicated.

 

I'm still searching the web, but could anyone here point me toward articles that I could utilize or that you feel may be useful or worth a read?

 

Thanks

[mooeypoo]

Wow, that's a toughy. If your argument is that most patients you deal with are overmedicated then you are the one with the data about it, and I am not sure you can have a lot of information about that online.

 

Maybe a better claim could be that many (most?) patients of mental health professionals end up being overmedicated. To get that claim, though, you can argue that the drugs that are given are suitable for certain conditions, and professionals - weather out of laziness or lack of time or belief in drugs, or whatever it may be - give those drugs too quickly to patients that might be doing well without them.

 

I am not too familiar with mental health but I have heard the claims that patients are often overmedicated. You should probably be careful of the extreme of that claim too, seeing as there are a few groups out there that don't believe in any form of mental health treatments and use drugs as a way to demonstrate (in an extreme, often unrealistic way) why the entire mental health profession is bad.

 

I used to have a few articles about this, I'm going to try and look them up again but I hope that helped a little even in terms of the direction you can take this...

[Taktiq]

Yeah, I suppose I should have worded that better. I meant to say, I feel that those who are labeled as mentally ill are overmedicated.

 

I am wondering if I should argue that Americans in general are overmedicated, but in my opinion, that debate's been beaten into the ground. I was hoping to aim for something more specific. I do intend to try and steer clear of the argument that psychiatric care is more harmful than helpful, as I sometimes do side with that opinion.

 

My general argument is that the mentally ill, or those diagnosed as such are generally medicated to alleviate the symptoms without much focus or aftercare on the cause, and then they're shuffled out the door until they return to start the cycle all over again. It seems that any claim is usually met with, "Oh well you have such and such. Here's a pill for that."

Edited November 8, 2009 by Taktiq

[iNow]

You might consider a discussion about our tendency to treat the symptoms instead of the source of the problem. While often medications are very warranted, and the patient truly needs them, more often medications are seen as an easy solution. In short, we take them because we are lazy and want instant gratification... immediate results without the hard work generally required to earn them.

 

You might explore that... Why do we always tend to treat symptoms instead of causes? Good luck whichever route you choose.

[mooeypoo]

There's also another issue here -- psychiatric care doesn't involve drugs alone. I have a feeling that a lot of he 'overmedicated' argument comes out of the misconception that the mentally ill are treated with medication alone. It might be that some doctors treat the symptoms instead of the underlying cause, but I know that at least where I come from (Israel, which works by the more european POV on that matter) the treatment involves psychotherapy along with drugs and other methods (such as changes to diets or exercise, and more). Overall, the view of the psychiatric treatment should (as far as I've read and understood) include more than the drugs themselves.

 

As iNow pointed out, the drugs are usually treating the symptoms, and those are usually given to allow for further treatment. The problem emerges when professionals don't continue with these extra steps and rely on medications alone to treat the illness -- something that might result in overmedication, or medicating someone for too long of a time.

 

I'll give a simple example from something I know up-close - Anxiety. I know it's not entirely a mental illness, but the method of dealing with it by professionals can be indicative of this debate. My ex had severe anxiety problems which were solved, initially, by drugs (don't ask me which, I have no clue), and the problem was initially solved but then repeated itself after a few months. The conclusion she reached was that the drugs were bad, and the doctor replaced them. It was solved for a little bit, and then it recurred.

 

Now, she's taking some lighter drugs while also going to a psychologist for therapy, and finally, it seems to be working much better than it used to. The drugs aren't the "solution" anymore, they're just a way to help reduce the effects so she can start learning how to better deal with her anxiety.

 

Another example is myself - I've had tendencies to get anxiety attacks all my life, usually "simple" headaches. I don't want drugs, I don't think I need them and I don't consider myself mentally ill (other than the obvious "omg I'm totally nuts!" fun but the way I dealt with my anxiety is by relaxation techniques that didn't involve drugs, namely a physical method of meditation. A few weeks ago, however, my "symptoms" changed to include heavy breathing - which totally ruined my chances to relax through meditation (in which breathing is 90% of the relaxation technique).

 

I went to my family doctor and after he did a full check-up and announced me perfectly healthy physically, I got calm enough to continue with my relaxation techniques and solve whatever it was that got me stressed out to begin with. Here again, the symptom was dealt with as to allow me to clear out the problem.

 

The entire issue of overmedicating people leads to this broader subject of whether or not psychotherapy and psychiatry is - in general - a good practice. I think that route is filled with fallacious thinking; the fact many doctors resort to treating the symptoms on the expense of treating the underlying condition doesn't mean the practice in general is a bad solution, it just means that the other methods this practice includes - many of them have nothing to do with drugs - should be put to use more often.

 

Watch out from this easy route of extremizing the subject; there's lots to discuss in it that may show why (or why not) many mentally ill patients are over-medicated without resorting to the extreme of saying the entire mental health institution is obsolete..

[CharonY]

There is better data for overmedication in well (or at least better) defined areas. That is, where risk-to-benefit balances can be relatively easily done. This include for instance epilepsy treatments. But in the area of mental illnesses it is hard to quantify benefits of certain medication.

[essyweb]

My general argument is that the mentally ill, or those diagnosed as such are generally medicated to alleviate the symptoms without much focus or aftercare on the cause, and then they're shuffled out the door until they return to start the cycle all over again. It seems that any claim is usually met with, "Oh well you have such and such. Here's a pill for that."

Cheap Essays

Edited February 18, 2011 by essyweb