Dr. Helen links a post by ShrinkWrapped about the disturbing trend highlighted in a Drudge headline that read:

'1 IN 5' AMERICANS MENTALLY ILL

Here's ShrinkWrapped's analysis:

When I looked at the story my first thought was: How many of these people were unhappy rather than ill? How many were feeling terribly stressed rather than Psychiatrically disturbed? Then I noticed where the report came from: the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration or SAMHSA. I have no idea who they are but have two questions:

1) How do they define "Mental Illness"? It has become a protean concept meaning everything and anything from unhappy to abusive of Alcohol to committed to violent Jihad. Loose definitions of Mental Illness serve to decrease personal responsibility and justify expanded government intervention in order to ensure treatment to all these ill people.

Reading ShrinkWrapped, it's hard not to see a connection between the expanded definition and money:

Why don't we reserve the concept of Mental Illness for those who suffer from a serious definable Mental Disturbance that brings the person far out of the (wide) limits of normal human variability? I know this would decrease the income of some Psychiatrists, Psychologists, Social Workers, and various Counselors, but to be human is to function less than optimally much of the time, worse during periods of high stress. Pathologizing human variability and behavior is a sign of, dare I say, Mental Illness.

They will be given medication. Substances. Drugs, if you will. Most typically, the drugs they'll get will be in the SSRI (Selective Serotonin Uptake Inhibitor) category.

The main indication for SSRIs is clinical depression. SSRIs are frequently prescribed for anxiety disorders, such as social anxiety, panic disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), eating disorders, chronic pain and occasionally, for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Though not specifically indicated by the manufacturers, they are sometimes prescribed to treat irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), Lichen simplex chronicus and premature ejaculation.

All SSRIs are approved in the U.S. for use with psychiatric disorders as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV).

The number of people being treated with antidepressants increased from 13 million in 1996 to 27 million in 2005, rising from 6 percent to 10 percent of the population. More than 164 million antidepressant prescriptions were given out in 2008, generating $9.8 billion for pharmaceutical companies.

Interestingly, some doctors in England (long overdosed on socialized medicine) say that they feel "forced" to prescribe these drugs:

GPs know they are overprescribing antidepressant drugs such as Prozac and Seroxat, but believe the lack of other forms of help for those suffering from mild depression and stress leaves them no choice, a survey reveals today.

The survey shows that 80% of GPs believe they are writing too many prescriptions for the SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors), as the class of drugs made famous by Prozac is known.

The findings are alarming in the wake of a decision last week by US drug regulators to demand a warning that some people might become suicidal on them, and the decision last year by the British regulators to ban most of them from use in children for the same reason.

Sales of Prozac, Seroxat, Lustral, Effexor and other drugs of the class have boomed as mild to moderate depression, anxiety and stress have become acceptable diseases of the late 20th and 21st centuries, linked to fast lifestyles and taxing jobs.

They have mostly been handed out by GPs, rather than hospital consultants, often in response to crises like marriage breakdowns, job loss and bereavement. Last year 500,000 prescriptions were written for Seroxat alone.

Still, an article in Psychology Today used the term "overprescribing" in reference to SSRIs:

We often hear concern voiced about "undertreated populations," even though the same psychiatrists know that 5,000 Americans recently began a new course of Paxil every day. But how credible is such concern, and is it truly warranted or a convenient way of changing the subject about overdiagnosis? The International Review of Psychiatry reported in June 2005 that more than 67.5 million Americans--almost one-in-four of us--have taken a course of antidepressant medication. Which begs another question: When do we reach a number or percentage so sizeable that concern about undertreatment tips appropriately into unease about overmedication?

The data reported by the article make clear that the outcome we're facing as a country is extremely troubling. If 4-out-of-5 Americans are being put on antidepressants out of concern about undertreatment, then 70-80% of SSRI patients are risking mild-to-serious side effects for symptoms they have not produced, for an illness they do not have. That makes no sense at all; it doesn't begin to add up.

Or am I being cynical to smell a profit motive? Could an entire industry really have arisen with a vested interest in labeling as many Americans as possible "mentally ill" just in order to make money?

Are these drugs making Americans happier people and better citizens? Assuming that is the goal, is that the way the drugs work? I don't know but reading about what these drugs do to people makes me a little uneasy. If this piece by a psychiatric technician is even half correct, I don't think I would want to be on the stuff. He tried the stuff, and said it made him like an Eloi:

An initial mild euphoria took hold in twenty minutes as I continued to smell the roses. I sensed the medication's smooth absorption via the gastro-intestinal tract and insidious entry into the CNS. I hadn't tainted the results with prior research to self-administration. Everything felt free and easy, not a care on earth. Yet I could still make notes and identify plants.

The Paxil high got heavier an hour into the trip, with the thought: Are you anxious? Depressed? Obsessive? Uneasy with people? Then Paxil's the drug for you. One problem: You may never quit.

The absolute worst feeling I got from the drug, that is perhaps what most users embrace, was becoming an Eloi. The sensation was distinct and lasted for two hours. The Eloi are one of the two post-human races in H. G. Wells' 1895 novel The Time Machine. In the year AD 802,701, humanity has evolved into two sub-species: the Eloi and the Morlocks. The Eloi are the attractive upper crust living on the surface of the earth, while the Morlocks live underground, working and tending machinery that provide food, clothing and infrastructure for the Eloi. The Morlocks continue to support the world's infrastructure and serve the Eloi who have undergone drastic physical and mental deterioration. Having solved all problems that required strength, intellect and virtue, they have slowly become miscellaneous dingbats. It is revealed that the Morlocks are tending to the toiless Eloi's needs as a farmer tends cattle -- because the Eloi comprise most of the Morlock diet.

Paxil, and the stable of like SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) antidepressants, are hands down the most pathetic therapeutic craze I've witnessed since earning a Psych Tech Certificate two decades ago. By rendering a patient or citizen unwilling to make judgments and incapable of taking stands, there is no role for them other than in the vegetable garden of life.

It's the most amazing, most common prescription in the world. So many millions more could be dangerous if they get pointed in the wrong direction.

This touches on something I read recently about SSRIs in the context of Dr. Stephen Schneider, who was sentenced to prison for overprescribing opiates to patients.

M. Simon and I have posted repeatedly about a federal prosecutor's vindictive rampage against pain relief activist Siobhan Reynolds, apparently for publicly defending Dr. Stephen Schneider

Glenn Reynolds linked Jacob Sullum's latest Reason piece about the bizarre (IMO) attempt to censor Siobhan Reynolds. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case:

Reynolds unsuccessfully challenged Treadway's fishing expedition on First Amendment grounds in U.S. District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, and this week the Supreme Court declined to hear her appeal. Perhaps the Court was impressed by the 10th Circuit's reasoning. We can't judge for ourselves, because the appeals court's decision is sealed, like almost every other document related to Reynolds' case.

The extraordinary secrecy is far broader than necessary to protect the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings, extending even to a friend-of-the-court brief, based entirely on publicly available information, that was filed last December by the Institute for Justice and my employer, the Reason Foundation (which publishes Reason magazine). Furthermore, one of the main justifications for grand jury secrecy--that it protects innocent people who are investigated but never charged--does not apply in a case like this, where the target of the investigation wants transparency and the government is trying to hide what it's doing.

NOTE: That last link is misleading; the blacked out pages I'm referring to are here, and are referred to in Reason's brief. (I linked the discussion of it in my previous post.)

Perhaps I have too much natural curiosity, but I read through it over and over, and it just makes no sense. Sure, they wanted to silence Reynolds, but there had to be more to it than her contention that the government was persecuting Dr. Schneider.

In a news report about the case, I found a fascinating comment which offered an explanation:

The secrecy of the case isn't directly based on the chronic pain law suit against Reynolds, but rather, the cause of the patient's chronic pain injuries in the first place. The government is attempting to cover up a prevalence of injuries caused by SSRI antidepressant (induced Serotonin Syndrome) and other psycho pharmaceutical medications (induced Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome) that these medications have caused throughout the world over the last five decades. The state governments could be implicated for causing these injuries if it is revealed that patients are forced on these medications in juvenile detention centers, prisons, children in state care, and court mandated treatment. It would implicate the federal government as causing injuries to our military soldiers, federal prisoners, and enemy combatants. It would implicate hundreds of thousands of doctors, hospitals, psychiatrists, and nurse practitioners who have concealed these injuries. It is known as the "White Wall of Silence" when medication induced injuries are simply diagnosed as a newly contrived illness to prevent a patient from filing a medical malpractice lawsuit. If a thorough investigation would follow the money, it would implicate pharmacies, distribution centers, medical researchers, and pharmaceutical corporations who have hidden the adverse effects of these medications. It would implicate prosecuting attorneys, defending attorneys, and court justices who have refused to allow these induced injuries admissible in courts. It would implicate lobbyist, elected and appointed officials, and federal regulators who have received financial gain and created legislation to conceal these injuries or to prevent lawsuits. I wonder how many well know suspected medication induced suicides could be implicated as homicide when it is revealed that certain known combinations of medications can induce predictable suicidal tendencies. A recent report shows that the FDA has not tested medications for mitochondrial damage which a key element to these chronic pain injuries. It's a world crisis that would make our current economic crisis appear as minor setback. After all, what industry would gain the most from a world economic recession (depression)?

everything the poster said above my post is also true...Big bad story behind this whole thing..that is why the government went for such a BIG LIE with all the deaths...
And why they want it so hush hush...
Shhhh.......
Siobhan Reynolds
Pain Relief Network

What if it is?

What is Serotonin Syndrome? The term is mentioned in the Wiki SSRI writeup I mentioned earlier, but it doesn't get into specifics as to how it might be fueled by combinations. This article does:

Serotonin syndrome has been reported with a combination of an SSRI and pentazocine, morphine, tramadol and dextromethorphan (found in some cough mixtures). Case reports of serotonin syndrome have been described for tramadol and paroxetine (Egberts et al, 1997) and tramadol and sertraline (Mason & Blackburn, 1997).

If a combination of opiate type drugs with SSRIs can be deadly, and a patient is being prescribed both, then why would the authorities single out only one category of drugs? Is there an anti-opiate witch hunt? Clearly, some drugs are more favored than others. And if some drugs are more favored than others, might some overprescribing be more favored too?

It seems quite possible.

It might also explain why Dr. Schneider got 30 years in the joint while the SSRI community will get billions in tax dollars to treat millions and millions more of us Eloi.

UPDATE: I published this post just as I was running out the door, so I didn't catch the fact that one of the links did not go to the document I thought I was linking.

Corrected.

Commenter Charlie Martin notes that "One in Five suffer from a mental illness" doesn't imply that "one in five is depressed". I hope I didn't imply that it did.

At any rate, depression is only one of the conditions for which the SSRIs are prescribed.