The Myth of a Biochemical Basis of Diagnosis

[Guest guest]

The Biochemical Basis of Mental Illness

 

 

It has become generally accepted that if you are depressed or anxious,

restless or unfocused, you have a chemical imbalance in your brain.

The source of your psychological state is said to be that certain

substances (neurochemicals) in your brain are out of balance.

Adjusting the balance of these neurochemicals by taking psychoactive

medication (eg. Paxil, Prozac, Adderal, Risperdal, Effexor, tc.) is

like " taking insulin for diabetes " . This dogma is called the

biological or biochemical approach to " mental illness. "

 

The concept of mental distress being diagnosed as an " illness " came

about historically because professionals who dealt with the mind, as

opposed to the body, wanted to have the prestige accorded to `real'

doctors. So they advocated for the acceptance of mental pain as an

illness. Then, the concept was sold to the public as of way of

removing stigma which had attached to mental illness:

" It's not your mother, it's your brain. "

 

The " mental illness " concept actually enfolds a logical fallacy.

Physical diseases have physical causes and can be described in

biological terms. In spite of claims to the contrary, there are no

biochemical or genetic markers to the etiology of " mental illness " -

no neurological abnormality, no urine test, no blood test, no brain scan.

 

Further, the evidence that human emotions and/or behavior are governed

by neurochemicals is scanty at best. What evidence there is, is

manipulated and exaggerated for profit, prestige and power. True,

modern technological medicine can locate a molecule of serotonin and

trace its path in the brain. Relating that molecule to a mental,

emotional or psychological condition is appallingly bad science. It is

like saying that the electrical components of a TV set determine the

quality of programming.

 

Even when there is a correlation between a brain chemical and a mental

state, biochemical theorists confuse correlation with causation.

Researchers have found, for example, that meditation can cause

changes in the brain which can be detected on a brain scan. Depression

can also cause change physical structures in the brain. Hence,

whatever chemical changes take place in the brain could be the result

of a mental or emotional state, rather than the cause.

 

The relationship between the brain and the mind has tantalized

philosophers over the ages. The proponents of the biological theory

sidestep this thorny issue. They fail to distinguish between the

brain, a physical organ, and the mind, a non-physical phenomenon. To

say that we can understand the attributes of non-physical phenomenon

such as consciousness, thought, desire, wonder, anger, etc by

dissecting the physical components of the brain - the neurons, atoms,

dendrites - is to carry reductionism to an absurdity.

 

 

The biological approach fails to examine individual, relational or

societal sources of psychic pain. In fact, psychic pain is not an

indicator of a " broken brain " ; it is a result of conditions in our life:

Inept parenting, loss, trauma, or disappointment can result in mental

distress. So can the feeling that life lacks meaning, that we don't

feel connected to other people, that we can't find our place in the

cosmic order.

Often pill-takers say they feel like they " lost their essence. "

Biochemical treatment targets our uniqueness, they target the place

where meaning resides. Taking a pill means we will not look for the

source of our pain. Taking a pill makes it unlikely that we will ask

that most human of questions - what is my purpose?

Dr. Elio Frattaroli, author of Healing the Soul in the Age of the

Brain:Why Medication Isn't Enough, says " psychiatric symptoms

interfere with the empty pursuit of 'business as usual' and force us

pay more attention to what our culture encourages us to ignore: our

inner lives. "

 

At other times, in other cultures, being unhappy meant an existential

questioning of life's choices, or a questioning of society's

priorities. Now, such discussion is supplanted by a medical diagnosis

based on perceived symptoms. David Kaiser, MD, writes, " the very

meanings of unhappiness are being redefined as illness. "

 

Taking a pill reinforces the idea that we are alone in this world. It

prevents us from looking for the roots of psychic pain in lack of

community, in isolation, in rootlessness. Instead, the person often

acquires a self-identification, a life-long career as a " person with

mental illness " .

 

The biological approach arose at a time when Managed Care was emerging

as a force in health care policy. It was favorably received because it

allowed the psychiatrist to spend 15 minutes dispensing a prescription

rather than the longer time required by therapeutic methods. The

pill-based theory is obviously a boon for the pharmaceutical industry;

psychoactive products are typically the best-sellers of the drug

companies, generating billions of dollars of sales annually. In 1999,

for example, more than 25% of Eli Lilly's $10 billion in revenue came

from sales of Prozac.

 

The media is handmaiden to the pharmaceutical industry. Rather than

asking critical questions, the media accepts the biological theory.

Cover stories in Time and Newsweek present theory as if it were

established fact. Where there is no scientific evidence people use

anecdote. Athletes and celebrities speak glowingly about how their

life has been changed by a little yellow pill, without revealing that

they have been paid by the drug manufacturer.

 

Skepticism toward the biological theory is more appropriate than blind

faith. Critical thinking is needed more now than ever before and seems

to be in smaller supply. I am not sanguine about the future.

Americans are notoriously ahistoric and anti-scientific. While we love

technology, and eagerly lap up the latest, Americans generally do not

seek deep meaning, or try to understand the implications of our

advanced technology. We want easy answers and we do not want to think

too hard. Many people are so caught up in living their lives, they do

not have the time or energy to examine complex issues. It is easier to

influence people with a Pacman-like advertisement for the

antidepressant Zoloft, than with a discussion of the implications of a

pill changing one's personality. The pharmaceutical companies are only

too happy to oblige.

 

Thus is mythology created, not through debate but through sophistry. A

theory with very shaky scientific underpinnings becomes received truth.