Like many people, the authors of Selling Sickness believe that drugs for depression and anxiety are over-prescribed, that they are used to escape everyday emotions, and that this is terrible. Again, I wish they’d defined their terms better.
For example, it sounds ridiculous to give someone Prozac because they’re sad their mom died. That sadness is categorized as natural and healthy, in fact barring very unusual circumstances it would be viewed as sick not to feel sad at that point. But you only get anti-depressants for “being sad” if it lasts more than two years. Until then, anti-depressants are given only when negative emotions* start destroying a person’s ability to run their own life, and thus become self-reinforcing. It’s completely natural and healthy to still be morning your mom’s death two months later, but if you’re unable to shower or eat for that length of time it doesn’t matter that the depression has an obvious external cause, it’s hurting you and there shouldn’t be any shame in accepting medical treatment for that.
A common fear I hear around anti-depressants is that they make people tolerate situations which should be depressing, and thus impede their exit. That’s a real concern, and I think we should watch for it. On the other hand, there are lots of people who want to leave but are unable to do so because they’re so depressed, and anti-depressants give them the activation energy and hope in the future that lets them leave. And the same drug can have both effects in different people, or even the same drug at different times, because humans are weird and we don’t understand what we’re doing.
“We don’t understand what we’re doing” is not a great endorsement for something that’s screwing with the chemicals inside your brain. I do think we need to use caution, that the risks are poorly understood, especially by GPs, and that nutrition and exercise are underutilized as treatments. I also think that even when anti-depressants are the best individual decision, mass use of them can indicate a problem (I’ve heard 50% among PhD students, which cannot be okay). And there will always be room for debate- should you be expected to work productively a month into grieving? To work in a really difficult, dehumanizing office environment? Would you need anti-depressants to take care of your kids if you had better community support?
But big pharma is not the one creating those societal conditions, and destigmatizing mental illness because it benefits them financially seems like a success story to me. If we’re going to counter over prescribing let’s look closer to the problem (doctors) or further away (societal structure), not question the people receiving needed help.
*Not necessarily sadness. In fact in men depression often manifests as anger, which leads to under-diagnosis.