"Are we understanding of why people need to take medications for physical illnesses but not for mental illnesses?

Suzie, the topic is about use of antipsychotic medications as an <early intervention>. How early? Why Medications? What about Educational & Behavioural interventions. Our reliance on medications is like being lazy - changing our behaviour is too hard & takes too long, it's much easier & quicker to take a pill.

How is this going to interact with development? It much like the effect of genetically modified foods on our health.

Medications can become unaffordable, or inaccessible to some, who are then faced with having to deal with a condition that they have no real experience with when it comes to to handling the behavioural consequences that arise. It is food for thought that they side-stepped the term 'prevention'.

Yes people who are dysfunctioning due to a mental health disorder nede to take medication, but antipsychotic medication as early intervention? Sounds like an asylum in a pill. They cannot lock them away anymore, but suppress the symptoms with drugs. This is an over-generalised opinion, but that's the beauty of a forum.

I do acknowledge there are some disorders that are not preventable because of faulty body chemistry, or brain development, and an earlier form of drug-based interventions can have long term benefits on a psychosocial level. It's just not a blanket solution for all mental issues.

To condition people to rely on medication as the answer to their mental problems earlier, is not teaching them how to manage themselves. It's creating a whole new issue for the future. Much like the adage, 'give a [person] a fish, and you feed [them] for a day, but teach a [person] how to fish, and you feed [them] for a lifetime.' I say, Teach people how to manage the behaviours and promote community support, don't just prescribe a quick fix that has the transitory effect at the time, and leave the mess for future generations to pick up.

I'm neither for or against McGorry, I just don't agree with the concept.

Ms_Mistri,< "...an earlier form of drug-based interventions can have long term benefits on a psychosocial level. It's just not a blanket solution for all mental issues."
Was McGorry suggesting we use early drug intervention for all mental issues? I didn't see that suggestion.

I would suggest that McGorry knows more about psychiatric disorders than most people. Do you not think behaviour modification has been done to death already for many years?

It certainly helps some people, but usually in conjunction with drug therapy if it is a serious disorder.

If he can help people avoid the extreme onset of some psychiatric disorders, then more power to him.

I think I'm going to be unpopular here and say that I agree, mostly, with Dr. McGorry's stance. If you've ever seen someone with schizophrenia, you'll know that no amount of 'talk therapy' is going to help stop their delusions. It only really helps with coming to terms with their illness and the implications of it.

Schizophrenia is not the only mental illness. There is bipolar. Depression. Anxiety. Eating disorders. Personality disorders.

While I believe that medication should not be prescibed by anyone but a psychiatrist, and only after thorough assessment, I think that medication for early intervention is fine. In fact, I think it's better than allowing people to reach a point of desperation where suicide becomes an option. Besides that, doesn't early intervention mean that people are more likely to be able to manage their condition better, sooner?

This is a step in the right direction. For years we've had mental illnes pushed aside as general health's uninteresting little sister. Now it's finally getting some help and funding. We need to make the most of it.

I'd like to also ask the authors, what are your mental health qualifications? And what makes you so informed as to make decisions in regards to what psychiatrists are prescribing?

Know the stress involved from several known and diagnosed, along with others we believe yet still to be officially diagnosed, as suffering mental health problems.

Our main tasks are:

(a) identification of those at risk of suffering mental health problems;

(b) educating those at risk to their probable illness, with symptoms, risks, and ability to deal with likely "episodes" with minimal damage to their lives ;

(c) educating general community about common illness "episodes" with symptoms, risks, and how can react towards those with likely "episodes" so as to minimize damage to lives and relationships for those suffering an "episode" and those around them ;

(d) obtaining compliance with treatment plans of those suffering "episodes" ;

Do not support widespread commencement of "preventative medication" until do know more from studies concerning effectiveness of proposed treatment with clearly minimal contra issues.

Yet agree, mostly, with Dr. McGorry's stance.

Contact with persons experiencing "episodes" of schizophrenia or other mental illnesses, you soon realize 'talk therapy' rarely persuades sufferers to act in manner to help stop their delusions, reduce or prevent further "episodes", and to improve their health.

Their long term treatment requires them coming to terms with their illness and the implications of it.

Our national crisis response approach to mental health prolongs period of denial, delays effective treatment.

Even crisis response approach would be more effective it we more effective follow up treatment plans, with preventative action, with those treated in crisis clinics.

Soon enough non-compliant patients are re-admitted under the mental health act, then discharged, then re-admitted...

Centrelink has ability to apply pressure, to place people on reduced requirements, so rewards their "sickness", without requiring tests of compliance with court approved treatment plans to prevent re-occurrence !

The privacy act cited as preventing action.

David and Melissa's Article is important so as to get us thinking about Dr McGorry's position on a pre-emptive strike on the causes of mental problems.
It sounds good in theory but the extended use of any, let alone mind transforming medications, may well in some individuals, cause prolonged ,dangerous and debilitating insecurity.
Is "Labelling" say, 10% of people a perceived but not proven risk to themselves, or society, and supplying them with prevention drugs really a good idea ?
Will compulsory DNA testing be part of the idea ?
What happens to the individuals considered a risk ,if the drug supply for some reason is unavailable or it's cost becomes prohibitive?
Let him spell out how it would work in All stratas of Australian Society in all situation.