I think a distinction needs to be made between whether APs are as good at treating SMI as some people make them out to be, ie maybe they are not that efficient, and whether they are this highly dreadful ‘poison’(for want of a better word) that the antipsychiatry crowd make them out to be.
Certainly I think there is a case for arguing that they are over hyped but that is very different from saying they are dangerous and terrible.
I just think there needs to be realism about how good they are. That’s different from the antipsychiatry line of making out they are totally evil.
Perhaps if there is more honesty about their current limitations that will lead to better APs/better treatment for SMI in general.
@firemonkey I think that
A. the medications must treat cognitive symptoms to perfection,
B. they must be free of serious physical side effects like cardiac side effects, metabolic side effects, weight gain .
I do think there is an issue with many people thinking “well, if you just take meds, everything will be fixed” and of course it isn’t. That needs to be looked at realistically.
@Wave do you mean that AP bring you to 100 percent cognitive functioning?
That’s what I call work.
I feel that I had some impairment even in the premorbid phase.
Serious Mental Illness (SMI) is an umbrella term that includes, but is not limited to, psychosis, emotional and behavioral disorders. Antipsychotics are intended to treat psychosis, so they’re not going to treat emotional and behavioral disorders. It’s the same principle as a banana is not intended to be used in lieu of a hammer.
Seroquel is effective in treating my positive symptoms of psychosis.