Originally Posted by Gem

I'm skeptical of the drug approach, though it could be one component of a more comprehensive plan. I don't think there is much evidence to show the 'chemical imbalance' existed in the first place, and individuals are certainly not diagnosed on that basis. In practice they diagnose behaviours subjectively according to DSM categories which are arbitrary and try different drugs and combinations until something seems to work. I was trained in holistic approaches which consider the whole scope of a person individually, socially and environmentally across their lifespan. There is more to a person than a brain which is affected by chemicals. Because we are very medical-brain focused in this particular historical era of this particular culture, we find people are over-diagnosed and over-prescribed in general, especially children. If initially ineffective, the typical progression is toward stronger drugs and multi-med treatments which become deleterious rather than beneficial.

The case for skepticism is widely discussed by mental health professionals and academics. Drugs seem to take the edge off in the shorter term for people experiencing severe symptoms, so that can work, but you have to find out whats going on with people and go over various treatment options with them so they can choose the road that they think would help them most.