The ridiculous double standard is that we see physical devices -- glasses, hearing aids, canes, as corrective, but drugs that treat disabilities are seen as "crutches", which happens to also be a physical metaphor, but one that implies some transience, suggesting that eventually we'll get better and not need the drug.
Try telling a deaf or blind person that their assistance devices are "crutches" they'll eventually not need and see how that works out. Would you say a paraplegic in a wheelchair is an addict? Do you expect them to somehow magically grow legs and be able to walk, if they could just "give up" the chair?
That's what accusing people who need pharmaceuticals to function sounds like. It's implying they are morally inadequate for needing their drugs.
I think you might have been missing his point.
It came off to me that he was trying to defend drug addicts not shame people using drugs. Like if you have no money the way you might treat your anxiety is different than the way the wealthy developer does.
Someone might get a new prosthetic leg, but they might have to fight their asses off to learn how to not rely on their former chair or crutches and they’ll likely keep them around when they just need a break and will always have a cane.
Right now people like me with ADHD can easily get drugs. But why should I assume I might not be struck by misfortune. If I end up poor and on the street, unable to afford nice drugs.
If I have learned how to manage without a drug that would genuinely help me I’d probably be better off in that case.
Saying he is shaming those who use drugs is just covering your ears and wanting to pretend that there are no negative effects. Me saying if you learn to live without Netflix you’ll have more fun when the power goes out, isn’t meant to say Netflix is a wrong way to entertain yourself, simply that if you rely on it for entertainment it can be hard to find entertainment if the lights turn off.
Calling it an addiction, doesn’t mean that addiction is worse than the alternative. By reacting as you do, you paint addictions as something reprehensible and shame those who have them.
> It came off to me that he was trying to defend drug addicts not shame people using drugs
Perhaps, but it's a non sequitur -- A says "medication", B immediately says "addict"?? -- and especially with the first two sentences it presents like somebody with a "psychopharmacology is an evil conspiracy" axe to grind.
You read me right. We stigmatize low income people as “addicts” and throw them in prison. People have pain and other issues which will cause them to seek drugs and other solutions. That’s a fact of human nature. We shouldn’t classify that as good or bad based entirely on a person’s access to healthcare. But we do.
My second point is that we have a system where the capitalist incentive structure is driving the drug seeking. People need these drugs to “function” only in the sense of attaining better wages or holding a job. That has nothing to do with medical need. It is capitalism perverting medicine, defining mental health as employability seems misguided at best.
>only in the sense of attaining better wages or holding a job
>nothing to do with medical need
>defining mental health as employability
I reject this entirely. The same meds give patients the ability to pursue their hobbies, self-care, and lifelong learning effectively, which can be vital for self-esteem, quality of life, and avoiding depression.
I am in favor of medication (and drug use) that improves quality of life. I am not in favor of using drugs for competitions, regardless of the domain, eg employment, sports, academic. I feel that many people medicate for the wrong reasons and that we are over medicated as often as we are under medicated, because of our competitive nature. We can do better if we had better reasoning about when how and why to medicate and didn’t draw the arbitrary line around legal substances (cocaine and opiates being less prohibited than marijuana).
Try telling a deaf or blind person that their assistance devices are "crutches" they'll eventually not need and see how that works out. Would you say a paraplegic in a wheelchair is an addict? Do you expect them to somehow magically grow legs and be able to walk, if they could just "give up" the chair?
That's what accusing people who need pharmaceuticals to function sounds like. It's implying they are morally inadequate for needing their drugs.