Brain's are characterized by imbalance. The only brains that are balanced are those of the dead. However, I've addressed this before:
[Here's most of the rest of that post]
Barker, P., & Buchanan-Barker, P. (2012). First, do no harm: Confronting the myths of psychiatric drugs . Nursing ethics.
I had many problems with this paper, but they reflect a certain disagreement between two camps that both reject the biomedical model. One camp perceives mental illness more as a way that society defines deviance in order to control it, in terms of social theory rather than theories within the medical and biological sciences, and in short a sort of entirely social "construct" with at best minimal basis in medical sciences. This viewpoint I reject. Rather, my criticisms of the biomedical model stem from the ways in which diagnoses were created/constructed based on serious symptoms that are not and should be thought of as somehow personal "flaws" one must overcome or "snap out of." The extent to which the diagnoses described in the two definitive reference guides match some set(s) of distinct pathologies is unknown, but was is known is that the evidence has provided far more against this view than it has for it. In particular, the "chemical imbalance" propaganda is as nonsensical as it is definable (i.e., completely).
Baughman, F. (2006). There is no such thing as a psychiatric disorder/disease/chemical imbalance. PLoS medicine, 3(7), e318.
Leo, J., & Lacasse, J. R. (2008). The media and the chemical imbalance theory of depression. Society, 45(1), 35-45.
Lacasse, J. R., & Leo, J. (2005). Serotonin and depression: A disconnect between the advertisements and the scientific literature. PLoS medicine, 2(12), e392.
France, C. M., Lysaker, P. H., & Robinson, R. P. (2007). The" chemical imbalance" explanation for depression: Origins, lay endorsement, and clinical implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 38(4), 411. [see upload]
The problem, however, isn't simply a matter of academic dispute or the fact that "all models are wrong, but some are useful." It's that, while many of those who equate mental disorders with cancer in a noble attempt at diminishing unwarranted and counter-productive stigmata end up potentially inhibiting recovery and treatment in at least 2 ways. The first is that the effects of the "mental disorders are diseases like any other" campaign doesn't seem to have destigmatized mental health issues, does seem to have hampered or made less likely recovery (Deacon, B. J., & Baird, G. L. (2009). The chemical imbalance explanation of depression: reducing blame at what cost?. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 28(4), 415-435.), all the while contributing to an industry fueled by a medical science applying a diagnostic model based upon subjective classification and clustering of symptoms among other arbitrary (and non-arbitrary) factors (Lacasse, J. R., & Leo, J. (2005). Serotonin and depression: A disconnect between the advertisements and the scientific literature. PLoS medicine, 2(12), e392.)
Mental health is a very (literally deadly) health concern. The answer is not to treat it as if we can rest assured that medical doctors (whose knowledge of the brain tends to be lesser than that of a beginning graduate student in various fields of psychiatry) are the authority simply because they not only defined the disorders into existence but did so claiming that they were illnesses like any other. After over 40 years of count-evidence without supporting evidence, it is time to recognize that the reality is far more complex.
...and many more. Mental health is an extremely serious issue, but so is prescribing meds that generally aren't that much more efficacious than placebos and that have increasingly become street drugs. This nonsense about chemical imbalance isn't just idiotically perverse, it stands in the way of understanding mental health issues largely so that psychiatry can retain its dominant position amonst mental health practitioners..
With the help of heroin, I've relieved depression and enjoyed life. I'm prescribed Adderall (amphetamine salts), as well as Valium (Diazapam, a benzo). I've no problem with the use of drugs such as these to cope with symptoms of diagnoses that are defined into existence. I have a problem with the outright lie that these "treat" some disease and that they do anything other than what they do when used recreationally.
It's true that I am not a psychiatrist (who receive little training as to the nature of the brain) nor a clinical psychologist (who receive far more). My field is neuroscience (and none of my research has more than barely touched upon clinical neuroscience). That said, any moron who asserts that ADD is exists hasn't read the latest editions of the DSM and ICD, let alone a basic grasp of neurobiology.
Surprising, given that it doesn't make "perfect sense" to clinical psychologists or in psychiatry.
Here my field actually does relate quite directly, and I can say quite directly that this is BS. It is flawed at the core.
I've no wish to diminish the import of understanding and treating mental health issues. Quite the opposite. Which is why I desire to rid the implanted notions from pharmaceutical companies and psychiatry such as "chemical imbalance" which is required for brain function.
