> You say that, but from my experience medication is the first line treatment. Often there isn't even any other type of treatment that comes with it. You just try a whole bunch of different ones and hope for the best.
I should have expanded on that particular point. It's widely understood in the research side that medicine should be a back up, but the practicing side of psychiatry is often completely detached from the current research, so it takes far too long for the body of knowledge to propagate into the practicing side. The impact of research on application is a far cry from where it should.
> Considering what happened the last time psychiatrists fiddled with people's brains I find it fascinating that anyone is willing to try this. Lobotomies were done for years by actual physicians, yet it was pretty much the worst possible horror show imaginable. Did they get it right this time?
The safety of TMS has been studied for a few decades now and its safety (and efficacy) is also being further understood with scanning someone with fMRI while simultaneously stimulating with TMS, which is pretty difficult since you're blasting a magnetic pulse at the same time that you're imaging using magnetism.
As with most medical interventions, there is a risk. More specifically, there are two primary risks: triggering a seizure from an epileptic patient by using too high of a pulse near the motor cortex or exacerbating a patient's current hypomanic/manic symptoms. It's much less invasive and much safer than things like ECT and DBS. Once again, this is a last resort and used for people things like treatment-resistant depression or PTSD. It's used after trying multiple medications, not because it's riskier, but rather because its effects tend to be acute in lasting anywhere from a few months to a few days after a session.
> I think the greatest problem with it is its adjacency to psychology and patient care. It removes some of the rigor from the treatment that the patient gets, because most of the time the patient is not interacting with doctors or even nurses. It'll be social workers of some form that may or may not have some training in trying to help people with mental health issues.
I agree that this where a lot of work needs to be done. In my opinion and in terms of widespread issues like depression and anxiety, psychiatric treatment should sought or referred after clinical psychologists have exhausted most or all of their options and should be taking on the brunt of those problems, not social workers and counselors. Too much rides on the latter's shoulders due to the barriers a lot of people face getting access to effective mental health professionals like clinical psychologists and psychiatrists. It doesn't help that a lot of general physicians will try to play the role of psychiatrist as well.
I should have expanded on that particular point. It's widely understood in the research side that medicine should be a back up, but the practicing side of psychiatry is often completely detached from the current research, so it takes far too long for the body of knowledge to propagate into the practicing side. The impact of research on application is a far cry from where it should.
> Considering what happened the last time psychiatrists fiddled with people's brains I find it fascinating that anyone is willing to try this. Lobotomies were done for years by actual physicians, yet it was pretty much the worst possible horror show imaginable. Did they get it right this time?
The safety of TMS has been studied for a few decades now and its safety (and efficacy) is also being further understood with scanning someone with fMRI while simultaneously stimulating with TMS, which is pretty difficult since you're blasting a magnetic pulse at the same time that you're imaging using magnetism.
As with most medical interventions, there is a risk. More specifically, there are two primary risks: triggering a seizure from an epileptic patient by using too high of a pulse near the motor cortex or exacerbating a patient's current hypomanic/manic symptoms. It's much less invasive and much safer than things like ECT and DBS. Once again, this is a last resort and used for people things like treatment-resistant depression or PTSD. It's used after trying multiple medications, not because it's riskier, but rather because its effects tend to be acute in lasting anywhere from a few months to a few days after a session.
> I think the greatest problem with it is its adjacency to psychology and patient care. It removes some of the rigor from the treatment that the patient gets, because most of the time the patient is not interacting with doctors or even nurses. It'll be social workers of some form that may or may not have some training in trying to help people with mental health issues.
I agree that this where a lot of work needs to be done. In my opinion and in terms of widespread issues like depression and anxiety, psychiatric treatment should sought or referred after clinical psychologists have exhausted most or all of their options and should be taking on the brunt of those problems, not social workers and counselors. Too much rides on the latter's shoulders due to the barriers a lot of people face getting access to effective mental health professionals like clinical psychologists and psychiatrists. It doesn't help that a lot of general physicians will try to play the role of psychiatrist as well.