“Do antidepressants work?” A humanistic perspective on a long-standing and contentious debate.

Abstract

Since the approval of fluoxetine in 1987, there have been contentious debates about whether antidepressants "work." A recent meta-analysis on the efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants reinvigorated debates about their effectiveness-debates that have important implications for both research and practice in humanistic psychology. This article briefly discusses the findings and identifies the limitations of this meta-analysis, and we show that using psychopharmacology as a routine first response is not evidence based and incongruent with the basic principles of humanistic psychology. Additionally, we argue that the question "do antidepressants work?" is reductive and undermines our responsibility to individuals who are suffering from emotional distress. Responding to the Cipriani et al. ( 2018) study from a humanistic lens (a) deepens our appreciation for the lived experience of individuals diagnosed with depression and our responsibility to them, (b) complicates assumptions about the ontological status of "depression," and (c) enhances collaborative, client-centered decision-making.

Institutional corruption in psychiatric research and practice: Implications for humanistic psychology.

“…Humanistic psychology developed as a "third force" in response to the acontextual and intraindividual paradigms of the medical model and behaviorism. Indeed, humanistic psychologists have provided philosophically robust critiques of psychiatric taxonomy (Jacobs, 2010), of the assumption that emotional distress is best understood qua mental illness (DuBose, 2016;Rogers, 1961) and of the "chemical imbalance" theory of depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia (Cosgrove et al, 2020;Keen, 2000). Unfortunately, the world that we live in is dominated by a medicalized approach, people who come to therapy in the U.S. have seen numerous direct-to-consumer (DTC) ads for psychotropic medications, and more people than ever are taking medication(s) for a mental health condition (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021).…”

Psychology and Surveillance Capitalism: The Risk of Pushing Mental Health Apps During the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…This is because one is always "found" in a mood, for emotions engage (or impede engagement) with the (intersubjective) world; Dasein is always immersed in a particular comportment toward the concerns of its everyday life and activities. (Heidegger, 1962; see also Cosgrove et al, 2019). Thus, measuring human-computer interactions as a proxy for understanding a person and predicting their moods reduces the subject to a collection of data points identified by computational systems, and fails to appreciate the fact that people are always "absorbed" in the world at hand-the world is the very fabric of Dasein's existence.…”

Priorities for future research on reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines using a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership: The PROTECT study protocol

“…This same study also found that 16% (n=279) of respondents had predominately negative experiences, whereby they found antidepressant treatment ineffective and experienced unpleasant side-effects 9 . It has been postulated that polarised discourse as to whether psychiatric medicines work can be unhelpful and even confusing for those experiencing mental health challenges and that the importance of initiating conversations about the meaning of medicines in an individual’s life should not be overlooked 12 .…”

“…It has been postulated that polarised discourse as to whether psychiatric medicines work can be unhelpful and even confusing for those experiencing mental health challenges and that the importance of initiating conversations about the meaning of medicines in an individual's life should not be overlooked 12 .…”