Main, home of the dope ass bear.
THE MAIN RULE: ALL TEXT POSTS MUST CONTAIN "MAIN" OR BE ENTIRELY IMAGES (INLINE OR EMOJI)
(Temporary moratorium on main rule to encourage more posting on main. We reserve the right to arbitrarily enforce it whenever we wish and the right to strike this line and enforce mainposting with zero notification to the users because its funny)
A hexbear.net commainity. Main sure to subscribe to other communities as well. Your feed will become the Lion's Main!
Good comrades mainly sort posts by hot and comments by new!
State-by-state guide on maintaining firearm ownership
Domain guide on mutual aid and foodbank resources
Tips for looking at financials of non-profits (How to donate amainly)
Community-sourced megapost on the main media sources to radicalize libs and chuds with
Main Source for Feminism for Babies
Maintaining OpSec / Data Spring Cleaning guide
Remain up to date on what time is it in Moscow
view the rest of the comments
I'm sorry, I wasn't notified of your reply. But I'm not clear on where I said I don't want to treat people? Why are you talking about me "taking away" anything? My position is that psychoactive drugs are being recommended too much, especially in indications like anxiety and depression. And that's not even touching the subject of hospital care, where you will still see cases of sedative/anxiolytic abuse (from the doctors' side!) to better manage an unpleasant patient.
Other people in this thread have made claims that evidence of treatment efficacy is sufficient grounds to treat. If that were the case, we wouldn't need to have phases 1 and 2 of clinical trials. The critical axiom of medicine and healthcare is "do no harm", and that applies on a population level as well. Psychoactive drugs can have serious side effects and they shouldn't be viewed as pills you pop just to get some spring in your step.
To reiterate, I'm not against pharmacological treatment of conditions like ADHD, GAD, depression etc. As you say, sometimes it is the only viable option. But that was not my point; my point was that these are powerful substances that we don't fully understand and we should treat them with respect, not throw them at people from all angles.
E: I just realized, I disagree with the statement that there is no way to fight ADHD without stimulants. And I'm not talking about "just focus harder" or similar nonsense, rather prevention. Any medical professional worth their salt knows prevention is better than treatment, and there is good evidence (as far as I remember) that some chemicals, lifestyle factors etc. play a role in ADHD as risk factors.
I see, sorry for jumping to conclusions. It's a touchy subject for me.
No worries, glad to have cleared that up. I'm a bit miffed that I only noticed the debate three days later, because I would have something to add, but oh well. I'll limit myself to saying that I have a medical degree, and
has made me view pharmacological substances (in general, not just psychoactive) as a sometimes necessary evil. They can help people function, save lives even; but you should always think before you prescribe them. I think that's where a lot of the disagreement in this thread stems from. Me and some other people saw the text linked and thought "great, reducing unnecessary prescription is exactly what we want (in principle, RFK is not a great source)" while you and some other people thought "oh no, RFK's gonna try to take away access to needed medication".