Blog

  • Painkillers for the mind

    Pills in need of popping. Photo: David Richfield.
    Pills in need of popping. Photo: David Richfield.

    Once upon a time as a 14 year-old I became very depressed. I was told I had depression, a serious illness that I would have to treat by taking antidepressant medications for the rest of my life. I started taking Paxil (a drug since linked to increased suicidality in young people) and it seemed to help me feel better.

    A year later, I wasn’t feeling so well—Paxil’s shine had worn off, and I was depressed again. So the doctor switched me to Zoloft. Aha, relief! But six months later, I wasn’t feeling so well anymore, and they increased the dosage. Then again. And again. Until I arrived at the robust dosage of 250mg a day—that’s a quarter of a gram of mind-altering, liver-assaulting SSRI goodness daily.

    I stayed at that dosage for a long, long time. I was not cured—I was still depressed and lived in a doldrums of grey-blue numbness. I also began taking a drug for anxiety—Klonopin, a benzodiazepine. I took that drug for some six years. (Long-term use of benzodiazepines is associated cognitive impairment.)

    From the very beginning of my experience with psychiatric treatment I was taught and believed that my sufferings were caused by intrinsic problems with my brain chemistry, and that the solution lay in the ingestion of mind-altering substances. I wondered what past generations had done who had not had access to modern wonder drugs like Zoloft and Klonopin—how had they survived? But I accepted the premise: my brain was the problem, and drugs were the answer.

    But drugs were not the answer. Not even close. Each new medication, each new dosage gave me a high and let me forget my problems for a while. But eventually the stimulating effects diminished and I was back where I started, depressed and anxious, living in a tumultuous life with no idea how to make things better.

    It’s taken me half my life, but I have come to see depression in a very different light than that showed me by the doctors of my youth. I can sum up this new viewpoint in five simple words:

    Depression is not an illness.

    Sertraline, my old frenemy
    Sertraline (Zoloft), my old frenemy

    I used to see depression as an illness, as a biochemical disorder whose causes and cures had little to do with the agency of the sufferer and everything to do with neurotransmitters. In this paradigm, depression is a random happening, much like cancer or kidney disease may seem. You don’t choose to get depressed, it just comes upon you. It’s beyond your control. That was almost the point.

    The idea of depression-as-illness hinges upon a belief that depression originates when serotonin and other neurotransmitters in the brain of the sufferer are “out of balance.” I genuinely believed as a teenager that I suffered a serotonin deficiency that had to be corrected by medication. Yet the science does not bear this up, and in the absence of a clear “chemical imbalance” to correct, the rationale for antidepressants is weakened.

    “But,” my informed reader protests, “randomized controlled trials have proven the efficacy of various antidepressant medications, so regardless of whether they correct any imbalances, we know they work.” Good point, Informed Reader—there have indeed been numerous randomized, placebo-controlled experiments that seemingly show the efficacy of the drugs. But the studies in question are, in fact, highly suspect, for a variety of reasons.

    First, the vast majority of drug studies in the United States and Europe are funded by the drug companies themselves. In other words, an organization with a vast financial interest in achieving a positive outcome for their drug—“blockbuster” drugs make billions of dollars annually, after all—is financing the study. The researchers they work with are dependent on the drug company for access to medications and data, and thus they are incentivized to provide favorable outcomes as well. The drug companies often retain editorial privileges over the research and can even block the publication of results that they do not approve of.

    Thus the published studies are only a sample of all those performed—the “unsuccessful” studies have been omitted from the literature completely. And wealthy drug companies with a huge interest in the outcome are willing and able to perform these studies over and over again until the randomized controlled trial dice come up sixes.

    Second, the placebo control in studies of antidepressants is faulty. Antidepressants are known for a number of fairly obvious side-effects, from dry mouth to erectile dysfunction. Inert placebos have no such side-effects, and thus study participants can often discern whether they have been given the drug or the placebo. Studies performed using “active” placebo (a placebo that mimics the side-effects of the drug) greatly narrow the advantage of the drug over the placebo.

    There are numerous other reasons the “proof” studies tend to be flawed, anywhere from experimental design to statistical analysis. The point is that apparently, when you dig into the science, very little has actually been proven regarding the “antidepressants” other than that they induce a strong placebo effect and that drug companies will do almost anything to get them approved.

    Without a causal mechanism, and without robust evidence that psychoactive medications are any more effective than placebo in treatment of depression, the idea of depression as illness appears suddenly shaky.

    If depression is not an illness, then what is it?

    I can’t answer that question definitively. Nobody really can. Depression is actually very many things—an emotion, an experience, pain, suffering, personal transformation, spiritual struggle, and so on. Here’s the one that makes most sense to me:

    Depression is psychic pain.

    Sadness
    Sadness. It’s an emotion. Photo: Vassil.

    I experienced intense physical pain when I broke my collar bone at age 17. The pain made it clear that something was wrong, that I needed to get to a hospital for treatment, and that I should not use my left arm until the bone healed. Physical pain is a vital signal, and we ignore it (or numb it) at our peril. Suppose that upon breaking my collar bone I just took some drugs to make the pain stop and then went back to what I had been doing. I would still have been at risk of shock. By continuing to use my arm, I would have greatly worsened the fracture. Perhaps the next day I would have noticed renewed pain, and taken more painkillers. The bone might have never healed. Nerve damage could have occurred, and who knows what else. All because I ignored my body’s messenger: pain.

    For me the same occurred with depression. Depression is psychic or psychological pain, telling us that something is wrong and needs to be fixed. Not a neurochemical imbalance, but something about our emotional and inner life. I grew up in a turbulent family where I had plenty to feel depressed about. Depression was telling me that something was wrong, that there was something that needed to change. But doctors and others, instead of helping me fix the real problems, gave me antidepressants—the painkillers of the mind—to numb my pain. The real issues stayed broken. I was told the drugs were the solution, but though they may have played a helpful role for a moment, drugs were ultimately part of the problem.

    I can’t prove that this is the right paradigm, but it makes sense to me. Though I’ve heard objections that there really are people with wonderful lives, loving families, fulfilling careers who feel inexplicably depressed, I stand by the belief that depression is pain telling us something is wrong. The inability of the sufferer to immediately identify the thing that is wrong (like I was unable to as a teenager) does not make it less true. After all, physical pain very often comes in advance of our awareness of its cause—why shouldn’t psychological pain as well?

    There are so many things that could be getting people down, from relationships to diet to the inhospitable surroundings of modern urban life, unrealized ambitions, unmourned losses, lack of exercise, lack of love, and whatever else. Maybe there isn’t a chemical imbalance, but there are many other ways our lives can become imbalanced, and I believe depression can help us to notice when this happens and set it right.

    Next time you encounter somebody feeling depressed (maybe it’s you), sure, give them some antidepressant “painkillers” for their sorrows if you have to, but don’t leave them with those numbing drugs indefinitely. Help them get to the bottom of the pain. Healing and transformation are so much harder, but so worth it in the end.

  • Mark I Bread Prototype

    Mark I Bread

    My first attempt in recent memory at cooking one type of what may be the world’s oldest food: bread! Lessons learned:

    1. Cooking bread with olive oil maybe works. At first the bread tasted strange, but by the next day it tasted quite good. I think next time I’ll try using butter or vegetable oil to see how that turns out.
    2. Use bread flour, not all-purpose flour. The “crumb” of the bread (the stuff inside the crust) didn’t develop very well and I blame it on the low gluten content of the flour.
    3. If you start baking at 9:30pm then nobody will be awake to enjoy the results with you when they’re done!
    4. Don’t trust the kitchen timer to reach your ears all the way upstairs.

    In the end the bread was good but not great; the experience gained, though, was definitely worth the effort.

  • There is no fear in love

    Palouse Barley Fields, by Victor Szalvay.
    Palouse Barley Fields, by Victor Szalvay.

    You might say I’m something of a late bloomer. At least, that’s how I feel sometimes. As a teen and through much of my twenties I was so hunkered down just trying to survive that I never really learned how to thrive. Still trying to figure that part out.

    In any sort of love story there’s the guy, the girl, and the problem—the thing that gets between the lovebirds. It might be a rival getting in the way. It might be a secret engagement, or a terminal illness, or (most often!) plain old miscommunication. In a sense it doesn’t really matter what “the problem” is. It just represents the possibility of love being unrequited, the possibility of being disconnected, lost, and alone.

    I find that in my own love stories, when there is no apparent problem dividing us, I simply invent one. Why on earth would I do that? Because as much as I might fear that disconnection and aloneness, I fear more what will come with closeness. My gut tells me the wildest things about the women that I date: “If you get close to her, you’ll be punished for expressing preferences or ideas that she doesn’t like.” “If you get close to her, she’ll become sick and dependent and you’ll have to carry the burden of all her problems.” “If you get close to her, she’ll only love you for what you do for her, not for who you are.” In the stories I tell myself, these things are “the problem.”

    Except that they aren’t. Not at all. I’m blessed to date amazing women. Really, truly, I am always more impressed the more I get to know them. And not a single one of those things my gut tells me, is true about even one of them. They are fears, plain and simple, left over from a trauma long past, but intruding cruelly on the beautiful present. And so I’m left in the ironic situation where the closeness, the intimacy I yearn for is also the trigger of painful memories.

    There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear

    We all want to be connected, to be close, to be in love, to love. I think it’s as vital to our souls as air is to our bodies. Without it, we suffocate.

    But sometimes we fear. Sometimes we’re afraid to breathe. One way to read the scriptures is that once we have perfect love in our lives, such as the love of God, then fear will be cast out. Another way to read it, though, is that casting out fear is a prerequisite for love. We cannot love until we cast that fear out of our lives. Until our ability to trust, to have faith and hope in God and others and ourselves, is greater than our fear. Until we accept that we cannot control every outcome, that we must accept risks, but that it is worth doing so.

    Do I believe this? Do I believe that the wonderful people in my life are worth the risk? Is it worth some small chance of the worst happening, to be able to join my heart with somebody wonderful and build something beautiful together? It’s a bit of a step into the darkness, I suppose. But once we’re willing to step into that darkness, we are no longer mastered by our fear of it. I think it’s worth the risk.

    P.S. What do barley fields in eastern Washington have to do with anything? While I can imagine a deep metaphor relating Ice Age floods and agriculture to relationships, basically I felt this post needed some kind of a visual—any visual—and that’s what I came up with!