Prozac as Pancea
Better Living & Better Attitudes Through Drugs
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
The benefits of antidepressants have been receiving more and more press coverage during recent years. This is justified because they can do quite a lot of good for people suffering from chemical imbalances in the brain, allowing them to lead happier and more fulfilling lives. This public attention also helps to alleviate the negative stigma which has long been associated with mental illness.
The increased coverage which these mood-lifting medications receive and the increasing numbers of people who regularly take them raises an interesting question: if they are so great at improving a person's mood, why don't we all take them? Don't we all feel a little down from time to time? Wouldn't it be beneficial for us so-called "normal" people to take chemicals to make us feel better - and as a result, live a little better?
Well of course there is a reason not to take these chemicals, and that is their side effects. The most common include headaches, diarrhea, and sexual dysfunction. Taking such medications isn't fun, and those who do so regularly need them just to function in their daily lives. This isn't something you want to do on a whim.
Nevertheless, this is an interesting issue, so let's stipulate that all of the negative side-effects could be completely and safely eliminated. All we have left is a pretty little pill which, when taken regularly, lifts our mood. We feel better, we work better, and our lives experience a general improvement in their overall quality.
What's wrong with that?
Certainly there is nothing inherently wrong with feeling better, but if you have any problems in your life, then you aren't taking active measures to fix them. For example, if you are feeling down because of a bad relationship or a job you don't like, then taking your pills might improve your perspective on things, but you aren't seeking a better job and you aren't working to heal the rifts in your relationship. A happy smile isn't the sole or even the best means to living better.
Although a valid objection, this only really applies to people who have identifiable problems which are causing them to feel down and so are using chemicals to feel better. What about everyone else who, most of the time, doesn't have any particular problems, doesn't feel particularly down or depressed, and is simply interested in using a pill to feel a bit better than they already do?
This is an interesting problem, because there isn't anything clearly wrong with a generally okay person who is simply interested in being even happier than they currently are. On the other hand, most people have an almost instinctively negative reaction to someone who wants to achieve that goal through a pretty little pill.
Is it because we abhor the "quick fix?" Perhaps, but that seems odd because going for the "quick fix" is such a common means of getting things done. This is true especially when it comes to questions of "personal improvement"; we spend billions on pills and devices we are told will make us stronger, thinner, healthier, and more beautiful - and all in 30 days or our money back, guaranteed.
It never works, of course, but objections to people doing this focus more on their gullibility, not on the idea that there is anything immoral with trying. If we really could spend a little money to become stronger, thinner, healthier, and more beautiful in a short period of time, lots of people would do it and few ethical eyebrows would be raised. But why is mood different?
I think that it comes back to the same reasons why mental illness has always been a subject of social stigma in ways never applied to physical illness. It's okay to take chemicals to fix a physical problem, but not a mental problem. Why? Perhaps because people still fail to see that mental problems are physical in nature. Depression is a chemical imbalance, much like a thyroid problem.
Even though most people do finally understand this, at least in theory, there is still the popular perception that attributes like your mood, personality, character, etc. stem not from your physical brain but from some immaterial soul. Your soul, of course, cannot be "fixed" by physical chemicals; any attempt to so do can at most result in a superficial alteration which only changes how your soul is expressed, not its essential nature. There are no "quick fixes" for the soul and trying to find one is immoral.
There can be more secular objections to mood-altering chemicals as well. If who we are is fundamentally dependent upon our personality, then anything which alters our personality also alters our identities. Is that something we really want to do when we don't have any overt problems? Why would you want to be a different person - don't you like who you are?
There are also troubling social questions which could result from the existence of a "happy pill" which is free from side effects. For example, if you could take a pill which made you happier and work better, could you be forced to do so by your employer? At the very least, wouldn't you feel great pressure to do so in order to stay competitive with coworkers and thus have a better chance at keeping your job? What happens if insurers and employers start requiring people to take happy pills instead of paying for more expensive therapy to help them overcome their problems?
These are all valid considerations, but in the end I believe that people's immediate and visceral reaction against the use of such pills lies in the far simpler idea that it conflicts with their religious beliefs. They don't believe that this pill would "really" work because it can't change a soul; but if it actually did work, then their ideas about souls would have to change, if not disappear. Neither option is comfortable and the prospects will quite naturally incline people to argue against the widespread use of such chemicals, even if they aren't quite sure why.
-->