Argument from authority, this soon? You decided to smack heads with me once again, and this isn't ambiguous, so counterpoints shouldn't be something I have to beg for if I'm off on something, now should it..
Not an argument from authority at all, that is your self reflection again. But you made a statement that "Anyone who is having intrusive, suicidal thoughts without any justification should get evaluated, as what they are suffering from is most likely chemical depression. ". And i would state that the safe course without a comprehensive history, is that some one who is having intrusive thoughts of suicide should most likely seek evaluation. Not the thought of "I wish i was dead" is not what i would call suicidal ideation. The thought"I should kill myself" is suicidal ideation. Someone who has intrusive thoughts of suicide should seek help. Unless it is a persistant low threat pattern, in which case CBT would be recommended.
Suicidal thoughts can arise due to a fixed, low-set mood as a result of dysthymia/anhedonia, or situations.
And again are they suicidal ideation "I should kill myself." or are they vauge death wishes and thoughts like "I wish i wasn't here" ? There are different levels of risk for the two. And even people with long term dysthymia can reach a point where they are actively considering ending thier life. That is a situation with appreciable risk, if they form a plan it goes to high risk. Now there is the whole messy "peri-suicidal' behavior but we might want to avoid the boderline stuff for now.
I assume you know what this is like, otherwise there is no point in a decent exchange with you, as you can't relate, and further will make another mess for me to clean up trying to invalidate valid things I explain in a lovingly verbally abusive way.
I notice you don't want to debate your waking 'sleep claim' here in the Science forum, if you do i shall galdly debate. You are good at the rhetoric and arm waving and have a fine point with the dagger. If there is substance behind the front is another matter. More words mean less.
I have had times of what I thought was dysthymia but it was actualy not. I thought that I was in the category of "depressed more days than not" but when i got into the evaluation the assesor picked uyp that the days i thought were good days were not good days, they were just 'not as depressed days' and therefore they were not dysthymie, because there was a pervasive depression.
I'm saying that common situational depression ("Nothing is going the way it should.."), not to be confused with psycho-physiological depression, such as PTSD, requires therapy, not drug dependency, unless diagnosed with chemical depression.
I am not sure that is they way I would frame the distinction, depression is depression, even if it is situational. When i did assesment (always under an MSWs or LCLPC or LPHA supervision) I tried to help the person assess thier functional impaitment. Were they having physical symptoms, were they having impaired functioning in the realms of self care, employment , education and/or education? Then there are the five criteria that have to be met for depression (could be different) and I personaly went with the time frame (more than a month) and if they had a past history of depression.
If they began to meet the physical symptoms and they were more than transient, and if they had major impairment in at least one area of functioning or middling impairment in two then I would lean towards major depression. Then the key is when you ask them "Do you think you are depressed." If they all start to line up with each other than depression, otherwise an adjustment disorder.
It is dangerous to encourage anyone who is not suffering from chemical depression, especially if you are in a position of authority, into a dependency on prescription drugs - not therapy or a combination of the two with a primary emphasis on therapy.
My personal preference was to always suggest the therapy or counseling, if they had issues that could be addressed in that arena. But many, many people did not want that, they chose to see the doctor only, despite any careful advice i might give them.
And again you are using the dependancy word again. That is a source of contention, what evidence do you have for dependancy upon ADs.
You could argue this is standard procedure, but I see too many people on anti-depressants for the wrong reasons; what really bothers me isn't what they are prescribed, but someone made them think something was to be gained, rather than a price to pay by shoving things under the rug.
Now that is a thorny personal issue, if someone wants to deal up thier issues that is up to them. Certainly they should make life changes that will decrease thier stress. And CBT will benefit most people with issues. But i can't go for any psychodynamic mumbo jumbo. If they don't want to deal with the issues that generate the stress, then all you can do is give them the options and the recomendation for therapy or counseling.
These same people eventually discover another class of natural anti-depressants that inspired Huxley's Brave New World: the opioid kingdom, then discover the law of diminishing returns the hard way, and become heroes or statistics.
Ah, a gateway theory, i have never heard that one, that ADs lead to opiate addictions, I suppose it could happen. But it is not a common occurance, I sure met a lot of people who were already prescribed pain killers.
And for the quick shop method, it is more likely a GP than an mental health professional.