For what it's worth I thought the post was fantastic until the last paragraph, which was a valuable anecdote (and obviously a very personally significant one), but very confrontational. Understandably so, but the tone probably makes it less likely that a person on the fence would come around to your point of view.
Re:The User Is Drunk
by Devthrowaway80 on Wednesday March 25, 2015 @02:05AM
(#9261518)
You're right, that last bit was a bit of uncalled-for ranting. I would edit it to remove it, but I think doing so would mess with some of the discussion that has gone on since my post.
Re:The User Is Drunk
by fennecfoxen on Wednesday March 25, 2015 @08:41AM
(#9262514)
Maybe the others are credible, but SAMHSA is staffed entirely with consumer/survivor-movement flunkies who believe psychiatrists are the enemy and consistently ignore the input from medical professionals on their advisory board. If they're right about a program, it's a stopped-clock-twice-a-day kind of right.
I considered that before I posted, which is why I mentioned other treatment options that appear to have better evidence for their efficacy. It seems to me that's the most ethical thing to do when it comes to a life-threatening condition.
Re:The User Is Drunk
by Devthrowaway80 on Wednesday March 25, 2015 @01:34AM
(#9261467)
Fair enough. The evidence you present is outdated and incorrect.
I'd like you to reflect on the fact that you are suggesting people avoid the primary form of treatment suggested by the National Institute of Health, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the American Psychiatric Association, the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System, and many other large organizations. You are recommending against a successful mode of treatment for people who have a problem that is potentially life-threatening, that destroys both their lives and that of their families.