Category Archives: WIP

Persuasion Rough Draft

A younger man goes to see a psychiatrist because lately he’s been feeling down. The two sit and talk for half an hour, and at the end of it, the psychiatrist recommends the man begin taking an antidepressant and sends him off with a prescription. Quick, easy, and painless. In modern psychiatry, this scenario is common place- between 2005 and 2008, antidepressants were the third most common prescription taken by Americans of all ages (citation). Our culture of instant gratification is much more inclined to pop some happy pills than to go through the grueling process of working through our problems – and who can blame us? But with less than one third of Americans taking antidepressants having seen a mental health professional in the past year (citation), it would seem that we have taken this quick fix too far.

The temptation to fix our problems with a pill may be great, but antidepressants are not the best option for most people – they are simply not effective enough to be worth the downsides. And yes, there are downsides galore, including side effects like “may increase suicidal thoughts or attempts” and “may increase or worsen depression or anxiety” (citation). As it turns out, happy pills aren’t as happy as they seem.

Take an example: when I was younger, my parents divorced. My mother shortly there after was prescribed antidepressants to help her get through the trauma. In the beginning, they seemed to be working well – she wasn’t happy, but at least she wasn’t depressed anymore. However, within a couple weeks she began to feel entirely emotionally drained, “like a zombie,” as she put it. She stopped talking to her friends, stopped wanting to do normal things like make dinner or garden, and slept more than 12 hours a day. “I didn’t feel sad,” she told me, “but I didn’t feel human either.”

Eventually, she went back to her psychiatrist, who she had stopped after being prescribed the antidepressants. He recommended that she was on the wrong antidepressant medication, and prescribed her a different pill despite her expressing that she didn’t want to be on medication anymore. The new drug came with the same problems as the last, and after months of medication, my mother had had enough.

She decided to stop taking the pills entirely, without consulting her therapist (“he didn’t listen to me the first time,” she reasoned). At this point, she started experiencing brain zaps -an unpleasant and common side effect of coming off antidepressants too quickly. Brain zaps are essentially a moment of disorientation accompanied by a visual flash –  “like being woken up from a dream by a flashlight to the face,” my mother described it. Had my mother been more informed, she would have known that in order to get off of antidepressants she needed to wean herself off of them slowly to avoid some serious side effects.

Speaking of side effects, there’s a whole syndrome based off of SSRI (the most common type of antidepressant) withdraw, which includes such delights as vomiting, brain zaps, panic attacks/anxiety, insomnia, crying spells, increased depression, tremors, chills, fatigue, lethargy, headaches, dizziness, paresthesia (a sense of tingling or prickling with no apparent cause), and many more (citation). And this is not just for patients who attempt to quit antidepressants cold turkey – 20% of patients who go through a doctor-mediated plan for stopping SSRI’s experience withdrawal symptoms, according to Dr. Michael D. Banov, medical director of Northwest Behavioral Medicine and Research Center in Atlanta (citation).

Now, those are just the side effects for patients getting off of antidepressants. The list is equally long for patients currently taking them, including increased risk of suicide in younger patients, decreased sex drive (which can persist even after the patient stops taking the drugs), anxiety, weight gain, drowsiness, headache, nausea, constipation, and insomnia (citation).

And for all that trouble, many recent studies have shown that antidepressants are hardly more effective than a placebo, which raises the question of why they’re still one of the most widely overprescribed medications in America (citation). According to a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the FDA selectively published studies that portrayed antidepressants in a positive light and ignored those (with the exception of three) that showed that the drugs are ineffective (citation). So despite that according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 1 in 10 Americans aged 12 and up takes antidepressant medication, serious doubt is being raised about whether they even do any good at all (citation).

There are even many psychiatrists who argue that antidepressants not only are ineffective at treating depression in a large portion of patients, but that they actually increase the chances that the patient will eventually relapse into severe depression (citation). According to a press release by McMaster University, the risk of a depressive relapse for patients taking antidepressants is 42%, compared to relapse rate of only 25% among those not receiving drugs (citation). In a different study of almost ten thousand depressed patients in Canada, it was found that over the course of 5 years medicated patients were depressed an average of 19 weeks per year, while non-medicated patients were only depressed for 11 weeks per year, leading researchers to come to the conclusion that “antidepressant treatment may lead to a deterioration in the long-term course of mood disorders” (citation).

This isn’t to say that antidepressants have no value at all – in some cases, they are the right option. Antidepressants should only be prescribed, however, to patients who demonstrate clear, chronic depression that is not linked to any recent trauma or trigger, like the death of a loved one or a divorce. Depressive moods linked to a recent trauma should be worked through, not patched over – medication can only act as a temporary fix, real traumas need to be tended to and fixed from the source, or else they will continue to be a source of trouble. Talking therapy can be extremely effective at treating both chronic and trigger-based depression, which is a great thing for anyone suffering depression as it’s completely risk and side-effect free. If time passes and therapy definitely isn’t helping, a drug may be considered to aid with regular visits to a mental health professional, but drugs in and of themselves are not the answer.

With more than 10% of Americans 12 and older currently taking antidepressant medication, and less than one third of those people having seen a mental health professional in the past year, the happy-pill craze has gotten out of hand (citation). Antidepressants carry heavy side-effects for medication that has been shown to be hardly more effective than a placebo, and are only temporary bandages to problems that more often than not need time and professional care to work through. The idea of a magical pill that makes depression disappear entirely sounds too good to be true because it is – the quick fix often leaves much to be desired.

 

I know I need to flesh out the response to counter-arguments part, and I might rearrange this all a little and add a couple statistics and quotes from psychiatrists/professionals, but what do you guys think?

Rough Draft (Partial)

A younger man goes to see a psychiatrist because lately he’s been feeling down. The two sit and talk for half an hour, and at the end of it, the psychiatrist recommends the man begin taking an antidepressant and sends him off with a prescription. Quick, easy, and painless. In modern psychiatry, this scenario is common place- between 2005 and 2008, antidepressants were the third most common prescription taken by Americans of all ages (citation). Our culture of instant gratification is much more inclined to pop some happy pills than to go through the grueling process of working through our problems – and who can blame us? But with less than one third of Americans taking antidepressants having seen a mental health professional in the past year (citation), it would seem that we have taken this quick fix too far.

The temptation to fix our problems with a pill may be great, but antidepressants are not the best option for most people – they are simply not effective enough to be worth the downsides. And yes, there are downsides galore, including side effects like “may increase suicidal thoughts or attempts” and “may increase or worsen depression or anxiety” (citation). As it turns out, happy pills aren’t as happy as they seem.

Take an example: when I was younger, my parents divorced. My mother shortly there after was prescribed antidepressants to help her get through the trauma. In the beginning, they seemed to be working well – she wasn’t happy, but at least she wasn’t depressed anymore. However, within a couple weeks she began to feel entirely emotionally drained, “like a zombie,” as she put it. She stopped talking to her friends, stopped wanting to do normal things like make dinner or garden, and slept more than 12 hours a day. “I didn’t feel sad,” she told me, “but I didn’t feel human either.”

Eventually, she went back to her psychiatrist, who she had stopped seeing after being prescribed the antidepressants. He recommended that she was on the wrong antidepressant medication, and prescribed her a different pill despite her expressing that she didn’t want to be on medication anymore. The new drug came with the same problems as the last, and after months of medication, my mother had had enough.

She decided to stop taking the pills entirely, without consulting her therapist (“he didn’t listen to me the first time,” she reasoned). At this point, she started experiencing brain zaps -an unpleasant and common side effect of coming off antidepressants too quickly. Brain zaps are essentially a moment of disorientation accompanied by a visual flash –  “like being woken up from a dream by a flashlight to the face,” my mother described it.

Had my mother been more informed, she would have known that in order to get off of antidepressants she needed to wean herself off of them slowly to avoid some serious side effects (there’s a whole syndrome based off of SSRI (antidepressant) withdraw, to put it in perspective).

Here’s where I’m getting the majority of my technical research:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1290402/Lives-destroyed-happy-pills-As-use-antidepressants-DOUBLES-decade-experts-say-thousands-given-dangerous-drugs-dont-need.html

http://visual.ly/depressing-statistics-about-anti-depressants

http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/astounding-increase-in-antidepressant-use-by-americans-201110203624

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db76.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070815085425.htm

http://www.madinamerica.com/2011/11/depression-2/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/depression-medication-why_b_550098.html

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa065779

 

Let’s go Persuade some Bitties.

So, I’m still pretty sure I’m going to write about why I think western medicine’s tendency to prescribe antidepressants as a first option is harmful. Here’s some of my initial thoughts and ideas about the topic and how/where I’m gonna get some more info to work with. Let me know what you guys think – like if you think a point sounds great or if you think it’s weak, if you have an idea I haven’t thought of, a valid counterargument that came to mind….etc.

For a personal/anecdotal aspect to my paper, I’m including one of a few possible stories:

1) My Mom’s severely depressed and has been on antidepressants intermittently and is now strongly against them, as she feels she turns into a zombie while taking them and does not feel that they make her less depressed, they just make her not care that she is depressed. She’s also a Biochemist and has some other relevant input about what that kind of drug does to your brain.

2) My best friend through high school (and her entire family) has been on antidepressants for around 6 years (ever since her cousin committed suicide). They don’t go to regular therapy, they were simply prescribed antidepressants as a “treatment” over grieving for a lost family member. As a result of this, I’ve noticed that no one in the family has moved on from the cousin’s death, since they’ve never really faced it, just avoided it with pills. It’s really put a strain on all of them and they’re scared to get off of the pills because they don’t know how to cope with that kind of negative emotion after so long of relying on anti-depressants

3) I dated this guy who was on antidepressants and decided he wanted to stop taking them, but his psychiatrist put up a huge fuss and kept telling him he should stay on them (he’d been on them for a year or so), even though he was never a danger to himself or others. He tried to stop taking them cold turkey, but experienced a whole ton of terrible side effects, including scarily frequent brain zaps, which is essentially this thing where your mind goes totally blank for a second and you get disoriented. I’m more hesitant to use this story since I can’t really go back and talk to him because we ended things pretty recently and that would just be hella awkward.

4) I’m also definitely going to be talking to students here and CAPS people and stuff like that to get more opinions on the subject.

I think aside from the personal component, I’m going to talk a lot about the side-effects of anti-depressants, how they’re difficult to come off of, how they change your personality, etc., as well as discussing why it would be better to hold off on prescribing pills unless it’s shown that the case is an emergency or the patient doesn’t respond to any other form of treatment. (I don’t have enough research done here to include anything major, but that’s the general direction of what I was thinking)

Persuasion Essay Idea

For my persuasion essay, I think I want to talk about antidepressants/anti-anxiety medication, and why western medicine seems to rely on them as the first, rather than last, resort. To me, antidepressants should be a last resort, as they have hefty side effects (friends and family members who have been on them complained of feeling like zombies, etc), and are extremely difficult to get off of once you are on them (it takes a long time, as you can’t just stop taking them cold turkey without serious health risks). Many people end up on antidepressants for years of their lives, when such drugs have been shown to significantly alter your personality. To me, it doesn’t make sense to make someone dependent on a drug like that unless absolutely every other form of treatment has been tried and proved unsuccessful.

In my opinion, antidepressants should only be used after extensive therapy does not help. They’re kind of like putting a bandaid on the issue – whatever was causing the depression isn’t gone, it’s just covered up in the antidepressant haze. In many eastern cultures, depression and other mental ailments would be treated with spiritual healing, meaning extensive time would be spent looking for the true cause and addressing that, rather than taking the easy route and prescribing a drug that only gets rid of the negative emotions.

My main questions would be: Why do psychiatrists in western society prescribe antidepressants and anti-anxiety pills so readily? What do people who have taken/currently take antidepressants think about the issue (as in, do they regret the decision to take them or do they feel it was necessary for them)?

Moderating Philosophy: Rough Draft

When it comes to moderating, I’m of the belief that less is more. If the conversation is moving in a good direction, the moderator’s job should  just be to sit, listen, and maybe take note of interesting points to go back to in case the deliberation reaches a pause. Of course, if anyone is being too silent or dominating the conversation too much, the moderator has to subtly jump in and ask the opinion of one of the quieter members of the conversation. Otherwise, if the deliberation is working, there’s no need to try to fix it.

In those cases where deliberation reaches a stand-still (a thread of conversation ends, consensus is reached early, people are hesitating to talk or don’t know what to say, etc.), I think the best move for the moderator is to introduce something new and thought-provoking to the conversation. This could be as simple as asking a thought-provoking question about an aspect of the option that has not yet been discussed, or bringing up a previous point that had not been fully discussed. It could also mean playing devils advocate if a consensus is reached too quickly; I found that many times an issue with our deliberation set-up was too much like-mindedness, which made it difficult to get any true deliberation accomplished. Discussion would peter out quickly due to the group reaching agreement too early without fully discussing the points: in this case, it is the moderators job to interject and bring in the opposing viewpoint (this is easiest to do if the moderator presents this not as their own opinion, but an alternate view to consider).

Personally, I tried to follow this strategy, but found it difficult at moments to keep myself from interjecting when I didn’t agree with the points being presented. I think my struggles with impartiality led to some unnecessary moderator comments,  as I was often tempted to move the conversation in a direction I thought would be more relevant. As the conversation was already moving in a productive direction, this violated my moderating philosophy that less is more. I did, however, feel that I did a good job with moving the conversation in new directions when it died down for whatever reason.

Sustainability

I think to talk about sustainability, we have to put a solid definition on it first. So what is this “sustainability” everyone’s been talking about?

The best definition of sustainability I’ve ever come across was during a distinguished faculty event that dealt with organic vs inorganic farming techniques. There, we agreed that sustainability was best defined as a way of meeting current needs that did not detract from the ability to meet future needs (i.e, not using up all the fossil fuels and leaving future generations to deal with the consequences).

The issue, however, is finding this happy median between obtaining what we need today without negatively impacting our supply for tomorrow. Well, I suppose it might be more accurate to say finding the median between what we want today and what we want/need tomorrow.

By nature, humans are impulsive creatures, and Americans have seemed to take this natural impulsiveness and maximized it. We’re all about immediate gratification – we’re the birthplace of wonders like the fast-food restaurant, after all. And with this gotta-have-it (and right now, thank-you-very-much) culture we live in, it’s kind of hard to create any semblance of sustainability. We want what we want, when we want it, damn the consequences. (How many of you still buy bottled water when it’s more convenient than finding a water bottle? Drive home alone rather than take the time to find a way to carpool? Leave lights on because you don’t feel like walking over to turn them off? See my point?)

And all of this clearly detracts from our ability to meet future needs – we are depleting our fossil fuels, filling up landfills, cutting down more forest than we can afford to, contaminating scarce water, and polluting the only air we have to breathe. But we don’t really think about that when we toss a water bottle in the trash because there isn’t a recycling bin within arms reach, do we?

It is very hard to develop any sense of sustainability in this impulse, convenience-driven culture. I think it is unreasonable to assume that people will magically be convinced to give up the luxury of  extreme convenience in lieu of a more minimalistic, sustainable lifestyle – materialism is a way of life in American society, we can’t abandon that overnight.

I think that perhaps the best way to build a more sustainability-driven society is to attack it from the side of the producers. That is, rather than telling the average consumer that they shouldn’t buy bottled water because it’s bad for the environment, push for more environmentally-friendly options to be created and pushed; make them stylish – if sustainability becomes a mainstream trend, it will make a difference.

And we’re already making moves in that direction – in recent years, a plethora of environmentally and consumer friendly products have emerged, providing more options for those who want to ensure a better tomorrow. The question is just how we can push this farther.

More Deliberation

I’ve been reading and commenting on the thread on the Huffington Post article “Don’t Write Men Off Just Yet,” and I’ve been noticing that more conversations are occurring relating to (or at least more closely relating to) the actual topic of the article: whether or not the rise in women empowerment is pushing men into relative irrelevance.

Some interesting threads that have come up are discussions on whether or not it is bad/negligent for mothers to work and send their kids to daycare, and others which discuss gender stereotypes and how they play into the matter.

Other people have brought up how some women are taking the idea of “empowerment” too far, to the point of being selfish or egotistical.

Aside from some obviously belligerent or off-topic commenters, I’ve been pleasantly surprised with the quality of the discussions taking place. Most people seem to be able to present clear arguments, and bring up interesting and salient points on the issue.

I’m also happy to see that discussion is still very active on the article, even though it’s over a week old now. I was somewhat worried that comments would have begun to die down by now. It seems a lot of people have things to say about this.

I’ve also seen a lot of pretty legitimate people commenting (people who have published other articles on the Huffington Post, people with doctorates, etc), which I find pretty cool since it adds a lot of legitimacy to the discussion in general.

To add to this fairly random list of observations, I like how the Huffington Post allows for people to “favorite” a comment, thereby showing support without having to actually comment. This adds an extra dynamic to the whole situation – like if you were in a group of people talking and someone was nodding in agreement with what you were saying without adding anything new themselves.

Deliberation, Deliberation.

I decided to join the conversation on a Huffington Post article called “Don’t write men off just yet,”

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-drexler/dont-write-men-off-just-y_b_2575031.html?show_comment_id=226377687#comment_226377687)

dealing with changing gender roles of men and women. I picked this particular article because it had a lively conversation going, ranging from the avidly feminist to the staunchly old-fashioned.

I found that both sides had the tendency to go a bit overboard – the traditionally-minded claiming that working mothers are the cause of the decline of the modern family, and the vehemently feminist attacking the article for reinforcing stereotypes by acknowledging them.

Here’s a couple of the posts I found interesting:

“It’s a shame nowadays in many families that both parents need to work in order to live and pay high taxes. This causes more women to enter the work force and is part of the reason why there are more in the workforce. When children are involved I believe it is best, if possible, to have one parent home to care for the children. My wife has worked at daycares and keeps telling me kids don’t always get the attention they need. Traditionally women have taken the role of taking care of the children … I realize that the role are reversed in some cases. I understand that women want to enter the workforce but when children are involved someone needs to do the right thing and look after the kids … be that the man or woman. In most cases the man makes more … that means the man provides and the woman cares for the children. If money is not an issue this is how it should be. Women should not thought less of for taking care of children and should not be thought revolutionary when they place their career ahead of family. Society today is suffering because the upbringing of families have been affected whether it be added income needed or career aspirations of either of the parents”

and

You realize that by focusing so much on mens’ earning power that you’re reinforcing negative gender stereotypes about women?”

Of course, there were plenty of good points out there too – on both sides. And it’s interesting to see people actually debating the issue at hand: Are men declining as women rise? Or are we simply reaching equality?

The biggest issue I’ve seen with the deliberation here is that too many posts deviate from the main point – it’s not a question of whether or not women SHOULD work, it’s a question of whether or not the rise of educated, successful, empowered women is causing the decline of male power.

This I Believe Rough Draft

My brother is at that age. You know what I mean – that age where he’s too cool for emotion, too embarrassed to hug his sister, too unaffected to get excited over a christmas present. From the moment he entered middle school he copped this too-cool-for-school attitude; I guess it was his way of asserting to the rest of us that he’s not a kid anymore.

But last year, that broke down for a moment, when he road in an airplane for the first time. It was as the plane started rolling down the runway that my brother forgot to keep his cool. His eyes began to widen as he pointed at ground out the window; his voice rose with excitement, and he tugged on my sleeve to “Look, Kaitlyn! Look!” as the brown grass disappeared faster and faster out the small window pane.

The moment the sound of wheels on pavement faded away, my brother clenched my arm with one hand and his armrest with the other, and squealed as the plane made it’s way into the air.

“Look, Kaitlyn!” he continued to tell me, still pointing down at the ground, “how high up do you think we are? I think it must be miles and miles.” I couldn’t help but smile at his enthusiasm. After so long of seeing nothing but his too-cool facade, I was finally seeing the real Luke. It was something like magic.

I believe in first times – first time riding a plane, first time driving a car, first time seeing snow, traveling to another country – whatever it may be, there’s something raw and innocent about firsts. There’s a certain lack of expectation or assumption that manages to pull the latent child from adults and ignite the unadulterated excitement and passion of little kids. I believe in that innocence, in the magic of that moment when the sheer new-ness of something is enough to tear down the thickest defenses, if only for a second. It’s enough to remind us that we’re all human, all connected, all with the same basic desires and needs. It’s too easy to forget that sometimes – so I believe in the moments that remind us. If you’ve ever seen a child ride an airplane for the first time, there is something magical and inspiring in the way they can’t pull their eyes from the window, in their gasps of excitement and the way they point to every single object as it passes by, how their eyes are as large as eyes can be and their voices quick with excitement. It’s that innocence that can restore faith in humanity when everyone you meet seems jaded, broken, or cruel, a society of drones unwilling or unable to show emotion of any kind. It’s that excitement that reminds us what it’s like to really feel something. I believe in the magic of first times.

WIP – Civic Issues Blog/This I Believe

For my Civic Issue blog, I definitely want to do Gender, Sexuality, and Rights. To the more specific end, I’m not 100% sure what I want to talk about… possibly Media effects on gender and sexuality.

Now I’m awkwardly going to transition into my credo. And by “awkwardly transition” I mean there isn’t a transition at all. (Also, this is really rough).

I believe in first times – first time riding a plane, first time driving a car, first time seeing snow, traveling to another country – whatever it may be, there’s something raw and innocent about firsts. There’s a certain lack of expectation or assumption that manages to pull the latent child from adults and ignite the unadulterated excitement and passion of little kids. I believe in that innocence, in the magic of that moment when the sheer new-ness of something is enough to tear down the thickest defenses, if only for a second. It’s enough to remind us that we’re all human, all connected, all with the same basic desires and needs. It’s too easy to forget that sometimes – so I believe in the moments that remind us. If you’ve ever seen a child ride an airplane for the first time, there is something magical and inspiring in the way they can’t pull their eyes from the window, in their gasps of excitement and the way they point to every single object as it passes by, how their eyes are as large as eyes can be and their voices quick with excitement. It’s that innocence that can restore faith in humanity when everyone you meet seems jaded, broken, or cruel, a society of drones unwilling or unable to show emotion of any kind. It’s that excitement that reminds us what it’s like to really feel something. I believe in the magic of first times.

 

Anyway, for my TIB I’m considering a few topics:

– First times (I’d use a story about my brother riding an airplane for the first time…I would have started it for this but I wanted to make the credo more general)

– Questioning everything (the idea of true personal freedom and questioning societal norms and the power that gives you)

-Complete Breakdowns (the way they cleanse you and allow for a release you weren’t expecting)

– Awkward People (how they tend to be the realest, most genuine people you will ever meet)