A Cure for Poverty?
May 9, 2001 4:20 PM Subscribe
posted by jcterminal at 4:38 PM on May 9, 2001
I've put that guy's book on my wish list.
posted by kindall at 4:46 PM on May 9, 2001
1) It assumes that depression is the root cause of all poverty, or at least that all people living in poverty are clinically depressed. Neither of these things are even slightly true.
2) It is often not nearly as easy to cure or treat depression as we are told in all the PSAs. Some people have to go to their doctors for many many years, trying dozens of different combinations of antidepressants (each of which has to be taken for four to six weeks to test its effectiveness), before they find what works for them. Random airdrops of Prozac in the projects would not help more than a few lucky ones.
This is an interesting concept, and it would undoubtedly help some people get the emotional stamina to work their way out of poverty. But not many.
posted by aaron at 4:50 PM on May 9, 2001
Quote from the article: "According to one recent study, about 42 percent of heads of households receiving Aid to Families With Dependent Children meet the criteria for clinical depression." I would say that if you could wave a magic wand and make nearly half of poor parents non-depressed again, it would make a huge difference. But as you say, it's not always easy. While I did well pretty quickly on a small dose of Paxil, I have a friend who is currently on two antidepressants (a horse-dose of Paxil and I think Wellbutrin) after trying dozens of other combinations and being in therapy for years.
But I think it's a worthwhile avenue to pursue. If you can help even some of these people, you may be able to keep their children from getting sucked into a self-defeating mindset and perpetuating the culture of poverty by default.
posted by kindall at 5:01 PM on May 9, 2001
In any case, I think mental health care should be 100% equal to physical health care, so any state or federal health programs these people are part of ought to be on the lookout for this sort of thing anyway. They usually aren't, though.
posted by aaron at 5:11 PM on May 9, 2001
Gee, I wonder why.
posted by lagado at 5:16 PM on May 9, 2001
posted by lagado at 5:20 PM on May 9, 2001
I suppose George W. Bush is wealthy because of, say, his cheery disposition?
What a load of crap. Being poor is depressing, but depression doesn't cause poverty.
posted by Doug at 5:40 PM on May 9, 2001
that being said however, I do see a lot these days attempting to marginalize the poor in the manner you're implying. Shove 'em into something labellable, and we don't have to worry about them anymore...
posted by DiplomaticImmunity at 5:52 PM on May 9, 2001
posted by matteo at 5:55 PM on May 9, 2001
I love being a GAMMA
posted by Dillenger69 at 5:58 PM on May 9, 2001
Now I LOVE my job-have held it over a year, and can function!
I know there is such a thing as laziness and apathy......but I was surprised to discover that my problem was simply misbehaving brain chemistry......and for the first time in my whole life I have been able to know what it is like to LIVE.
posted by bunnyfire at 6:33 PM on May 9, 2001
Hard work is never easy but that's exactly what is needed to get out of poverty. I can see how this may be demoralizing on an individual, and in this respect, the article makes a valid point: depression should be addressed.
posted by Witold at 6:35 PM on May 9, 2001
Hey, I think its working!
My girlfriend is watching the Country music awards right now. I am SSSOOO depressed right now. Good thing I have Unreal Tournament to turn to in times of need.
posted by a3matrix at 7:13 PM on May 9, 2001
While SSRIs are not a magic cure, they are just as effective overall as older types of anti-depressants, with fewer side-effects, and almost no risk of suicidal overdose. They are not "happy pills". My own experience with Prozac was not that it made me feel happy; it was that I was raised up from a dull sense of pain everywhere to be aware of things around me including my own feelings, happy and sad alike. I also found, after a few weeks, that I was thinking much more clearly and making better decisions about my life.
Will treating the presently-untreated depression among the poor eliminate poverty? No, of course not. People experience poverty for a wide variety of reasons, and as recent MeFi discussions have noted, a certain amount of unemployment and underemployment is actually better for the economy than mythical full employment. But people treated for depression are much more likely to make better use of the resources available to them, from job-training to job-finding, and may be less likely to make bad decisions, like having more children they can't afford. I think this is clearly an important insight that should be followed up with practical studies to find out if treatment does, indeed, help move people off of welfare and other programs more quickly and more permanently.
posted by dhartung at 9:17 PM on May 9, 2001
We need another 20 posts arguing chicken vs egg theories.
posted by dogmatic at 9:18 PM on May 9, 2001
The second fascinating point to me, as a clinical psychiatrist, is the portrayal of the degree of coercive treatment some are interested in applying to the problem. Justifications range from simple compassion to the societal burden of not treating a remediable condition, but the degree of paternalism suggested is alarming, and usually reserved for patients found legally incompetent and an overt danger to themselves and others.
posted by emg at 9:50 PM on May 9, 2001
posted by emg at 9:57 PM on May 9, 2001
It doesn't matter what gets you into the cycle -- whether you're depressed because you have no prospects, or whether you can't see your prospects because you're depressed -- what matters is that once you're in the cycle, it is self-reinforcing and extremely destructive. Just breaking the cycle can improve your outlook immeasurably and allow you to explore opportunities you might have previously overlooked.
Obviously, not everyone who's poor is in some evil poverty depression cycle. But having had some personal experience with depression, I have no doubt many are in such a cycle, and that therapy (with or without drugs) might help enough of them to be worth trying on a large scale. Certainly I'd like to see a well-organized pilot program in a major city so we can all stop debating whether it'd help or not and examine the data to see whether it actually does.
I agree that there is a fine, fine line to be walked regarding coercion. But I think if it can be shown to work, you can go a long way without even starting down that path. You just have to let people know there is hope, and keep letting them know it, and let their friends and family know it, and eventually some will have a lucid day and decide to try it. If you can help just the ones who will try therapy voluntarily, I think you'll make a worthwhile impact on tens of thousands of lives.
posted by kindall at 10:20 PM on May 9, 2001
This, to me, is just another way of saying that the poor are lazy. And I don't buy that.
posted by Doug at 11:11 PM on May 9, 2001
It's about economics really.
posted by lagado at 1:11 AM on May 10, 2001
posted by bunnyfire at 3:34 AM on May 10, 2001
If 75% of the poor have diabetes, it doesn't matter whether the diabetes causes poverty or not, they need treatment for their diabetes! The real importance of this article is that there are a lot of poor people who are suffering from something we know how to treat, and they should get help, whether it "cures" their poverty or not.
posted by straight at 7:37 AM on May 10, 2001
posted by holgate at 7:51 AM on May 10, 2001
« Older Operation Probe: | Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I've had way too much first-hand experience with depression, and I have no doubt that treatment can changes one's entire life. If the conclusions drawn by this article are true, and if it is acted upon, it could indeed mean a major change for our entire society.
Pretty damned exciting, if'n ya ask me.
posted by frykitty at 4:24 PM on May 9, 2001