this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2024
741 points (96.3% liked)
solarpunk memes
2827 readers
95 users here now
For when you need a laugh!
The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!
But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.
Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.
Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines
Have fun!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
it's not explicitly anti med. I'm pretty fundamentally anti med for a few reasons. Primarily just the fact that i believe environmental factors are the most prominent influence on day to day life, i think focusing on those to make yourself more productive, and functional is better than being hamstrung to a bunch of drugs, that might probably work, but they might stop working, or you might not be able to get them, or afford them, or they might have really bad side effects, or health insurance is a bitch, etc...
Interestingly, i've seen a lot of rhetoric along these lines (your post included) among people with ADHD, which i understand, but i have to wonder if that's due to dependence on the meds of some form. Which isn't exactly the fault of the individual, when paired with society and it's expectations, it's almost explicitly what you would expect to see, which is a little weird to me. It gives me vibes i dont quite jive with and im not sure how i feel about it.
So, I struggled massively with ADHD symptoms in my teens and 20s. Despite failing out of school, and struggling in all the classic ways, I was never diagnosed.
My folks "didn't want the kids on pills" and so despite needing help I was just called lazy and never received any help.
The best way to mitigate the symptoms is with stimulants. I self prescribed caffeine. If I was in a different environment that could have easily been something illegal.
I was never diagnosed and I wish I was, because if I could have focused on classwork in high school, I could have went to college, and I could have started doing work that interests me at the beginning of my 20s instead of the end of my 20s.
You need to examine your shallow attitude about medication. It's "I don't like it because other stuff is better", and a bunch of anxiety around what if what if what if.
What if you deny your child the one tool that actually allows them to reach their potential? You try these "better" options and waste their youth instead of using methods that are proven to be reliable?
You know it's not too late to still get a diagnosis right? I got mine at 21 or something, but I've seen people in their 40s or 50s get their diagnosis and finally get some relief or explanation for their symptoms.
I don't really need it at this point, it doesn't interfere with my job and I'm having less problems around it.
My life feels like it's getting easier and I feel more organised.
If I was still procrastinating a ton I absolutely would.
Anyone that feels like they are struggling and don't know why or how to make it better should talk to their doctor!
this is realistically a bigger problem though, your parents just didn't care about your well being very much.
i've examined it plenty enough, it's a personal opinion of mine. I'm not forcing it on others, and im certainly not having kids. You'll notice a lot of problems with them are as you said, what ifs, that's true. But i simply don't trust myself to maintain something like that, or for that matter, trust anybody else to maintain it for me. Doctors can be very helpful, but sometimes they aren't, or maybe they are but insurance just refuses to cover your meds because they decided that you did one too many instances of illicit substances in your past, or who knows what fucking reasons they have.
If i had a hypothetical child, it would be up to them, i unlike other people, give other people free will. If they believe that medication is going to be beneficial for them, who am i to tell them what to do. Ironically, you seem to be arguing that i should be supporting drugs unquestionably, which is objectively bad. However i'm not holding that against you, i'm just making my point here. There are certain problems, which most consider to be outweighed by the positives, i however, disagree.
I do not make the rules, i just exist in proximity to them. As does everyone else.
That's awesome.
Nonono, I'm supporting healthcare unquestionably. There's science behind best practices, and when it's drugs or therapy or surgery, best practices should be considered.
I get that science is improved all the time, and things like lobotomies and such are found to be more harmful than good... That harm is the exception, and getting more rare.
Scientists and researchers who make a career of examining these practices should be in charge of creating recommendations for changing these practices. It's too complicated a field of study to leave choices to legislators, parents and other layman.
i suppose so, but even then we still only think that drugs are helpful. Simply because we have no better solution, and i guess from that aspect it's true. But then again we also invented heroin as an alternative to morphine. Whoops.
There is certainly a place for drug advocation, but if you are supporting healthcare (or more accurately, medical science) as you say, there is also a place for discussing the potential downsides and negatives to them, without bias. Because otherwise, you cannot have a scientific environment. And you risk doing more damage to people than necessary, or worse slowing down the time of progress. Which is objectively bad.
I mean for example, it's well established practice and knowledge that not everybody reacts to the same drugs the same way. It's on an individual level basis. For some individuals, it would follow that the recommendation might be none.
No way, for other disorders therapy is very effective and non invasive.
Discussion is fine, but real prioritization needs to be done by impartial researchers that are considering harm reduction vs effectiveness.
The people that do not respond well to a treatment need to be classified vs people that respond very well.
i mean yeah, therapy is very functional. There are quite a few disorders that can both be treated with meds and therapy, anxiety is a good example.
I'm really just waiting for the medical field to stop classifying everything under a set of rules, because it's less than ideal and causes problems.