Reply to comment

I agree fully and completely with the importance and validity of talk therapy. And I disagree wholeheartedly when Martin says:

"On the other hand, forms of talk therapy (with a medical proffessional) that are used as a continuous crutch for people throughout life is an unneccessary strain upon an already strained healthcare system. I think the type of support that people get via talk therapy when they don't really have an underlying problem can and should be found among friends and family."

I think that *almost everyone* has an underlying problem that can be helped through therapy. (I know we're trying to move away from the comparison between mental and physical health ... But to bring them together again, at the same time, I feel that there is no reason that people need physical health care -- a yearly physical, sick visits,  medication when sick -- and yet don't need comparable focus on mental states.) Terms like "crutch" and "underlying problem" are never used in reference to physical care. (In fact, we blanche when a physically healthy person says "I haven't been to the doctor in twenty years," yet consider it a "strain on resources" when a seemingly mentally sound person deems it necessary to talk to a professional about perceived psychological issues?)

And yet I found Antonia's comment about medication troubling too. If the view we are looking for a is a more nuanced one, our process shouldn't necessarily be about dismissing options that are viable ones for many people. Lots of people who go on medication don't go one it because it is the easiest answer, but because it is one answer that works (and for some people may work better than others). I would concede that medication is most effective in concert with talk therapy (though there are people who, I believe, may need to be on medication continuously, even if they may not always need to be engaged in talk therapy). Additionally, as Merry said, there are people who need medication in order to regain the motivation to get to therapy.

I don't disagree with Professor Grobstein that medication may end up masking a symptom, but I also think that curing a symptom can, sometimes, help a person work through their own narratives to reach cures for a problem. If a person is in an untenable situation, and gets depressed perhaps because of it (on an anti-medication site I looked at a someone brought up a story of a women who was given medication because of her anxiety about her husband's reckless investment of their money -- and then their husband lost of all of their money) medication may fix a symptom, putting the person into a mental state in which they feel able to work towards solving problems. 

I agree with Sophie that pathologizing can be a dangerous thing, and I think ADHD is one of those diagnoses that seems truly odd when looked at from other angles. (If 2,000,000 kids are taking ADHD medication, maybe the problem is school, not them.) Still, I worry simultaneously about balancing the process of de-pathologizing with a push to increase accessibility to mental health treatments. In the classroom I agree wholeheartedly. But, I feel like it has been such a battle to get people to recognize the severity of so many of these issues -- I know a few people whose necessary mental health care bankrupted them, and certainly there is still a stigma against mental health problems -- and I don't know how do-able this feels. Though maybe this practical worry is besides the point. (Isn't the motto of the week "Yes we can!"?)

Sarah's activity was fun ... Though I don't know if it seems particularly therapeutic to me (except in the sense that I think most examined actions can lead to growth and change -- which, I guess, is a pretty real sense, so, I take that back).