Thursday, August 12, 2004
choosing mood control for yourself
today the fda rejected a surgical implant that had great potential to help those with chronic depression. although the fda's advisory committee gave the implant the go-ahead, it didn't pass muster with the fda itself. this issue brings up several dilemmas for free will. i haven't sorted them all out yet, so i'll think "aloud."
as for the device itself. fda-approved or no, utilizing an implant to control one's mood seems a drastic measure. i don't mean to be a luddite but it seems that this technology takes away critical choice for the individual, in that a mood is a kind of choice. of course thomas szaz or peter breggin would claim so. (i won't go into breggin's entire argument, but you can read it here.) it may be different for pharmaceuticals - although a pill controls mood during the time the drug is in the brain, that time span is much shorter. the individual has the choice to be drugged more frequently.
even if one surrenders to this line of reasoning (permanently drugged=bad), which is a stretch in itself, having free will to choose this is significant. can one opt to be a slave to a drug? certainly, esp. if the other choice is a life of despair or worse, suicide - good therapy is not an option either for philosophical or monetary reasons for some. the fda is withholding a possible - and possibly life-saving - remedy for a debilitating disorder. depression wrecks many people's lives, many people who for various reasons - including unstable lives and incomes - cannot take a pill every day.
is the fda being overly cautious? is it harming more than helping in this case, or would it be safer to wait and do more tests, risking the happiness and, not to be overly dramatic, lives of those who could benefit? to me it seems that the government should allow patients to make that cost-benefit analysis with a physician.
for more info on psychiatric drugs vs personal sovereignty, check out the group MindFreedom. i'm not associated with them in any tangible way, but they're interesting...
as for the device itself. fda-approved or no, utilizing an implant to control one's mood seems a drastic measure. i don't mean to be a luddite but it seems that this technology takes away critical choice for the individual, in that a mood is a kind of choice. of course thomas szaz or peter breggin would claim so. (i won't go into breggin's entire argument, but you can read it here.) it may be different for pharmaceuticals - although a pill controls mood during the time the drug is in the brain, that time span is much shorter. the individual has the choice to be drugged more frequently.
even if one surrenders to this line of reasoning (permanently drugged=bad), which is a stretch in itself, having free will to choose this is significant. can one opt to be a slave to a drug? certainly, esp. if the other choice is a life of despair or worse, suicide - good therapy is not an option either for philosophical or monetary reasons for some. the fda is withholding a possible - and possibly life-saving - remedy for a debilitating disorder. depression wrecks many people's lives, many people who for various reasons - including unstable lives and incomes - cannot take a pill every day.
is the fda being overly cautious? is it harming more than helping in this case, or would it be safer to wait and do more tests, risking the happiness and, not to be overly dramatic, lives of those who could benefit? to me it seems that the government should allow patients to make that cost-benefit analysis with a physician.
for more info on psychiatric drugs vs personal sovereignty, check out the group MindFreedom. i'm not associated with them in any tangible way, but they're interesting...
Labels: drugs, neuroscience, well being
the trackback URL for "choosing mood control for yourself" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/109233235731990826
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Post a Comment