Lifebite - Disorders Made To Order

[DemiDee]

Interesting piece - mentions asexuality and understands how the pharmaceutical industry creates a need out of something that isn't a problem in the first place.

http://www.lifebite.co.uk/index.php/home/detail/pill_popping_mania/

 

2017 Edit: The above link doesn't work anymore, but after an extensive research I've found this article here. For future reference:

PILL POPPING MANIA

Wednesday 3 February, 2010

How disorders made to order are creating a generation of pill poppers


By Dee Pfeiffer


A recent media investigation into our use of prescription drugs questioned how much they could be trusted and whether they do what they are supposed to.


Most of us are well aware that medication is often prescribed as an alternative to other more suitable treatments – Christian counselling, a course of non-medicated therapy or prayer, for instance. But it’s astonishing just how many medications are being used by people searching for an end to their depression, pain or suffering.


A woman featured in the BBC’s Horizon series had become so tolerant to codeine that she had to take at least 70 pills a day, just to get the same effect as what two would once have provided. Codeine is an opiate related to morphine and, aside from being an effective short-term painkiller, it has the added effect of making users feel very calm, but it’s not meant for that purpose. Unfortunately, you have to keep upping the dose to get the same effect and, before you know it, you’re hooked.


Of course, it is not the medical industry’s fault if people decide to abuse over-the-counter prescription drugs, and anyone who has suffered intense pain will be very thankful indeed that painkillers exist. But what of those who are being prescribed unnecessary medication simply because society tells them it’s the only way to a happy, contented life?


Viagra, originally marketed as a medication for erectile dysfunction in men, is now used as a lifestyle drug for those who simply want it to boost their sex drive or wrongly consider it an effective aphrodisiac. It is now used and abused by millions, and somewhat disturbingly, even women have tried it.


But it seems they might not need to experiment with the drug much longer since the medical industry has its eyes firmly fixed on females, and especially those with – shock, horror – a lack of desire.


Having seen the huge profits made from erectile dysfunction drugs, manufacturers have been desperate to find additional remedies to boost sexual desire. From a female form of Viagra to sprays and hormone treatments, it seems that the industries are falling over themselves to sex up our already over-sexualised generation. 


In fact, anyone who has studied medicine or clinical psychology will know that for many years now this lack of desire for sex has had its own name when it occurs in women. It’s classed as ‘female sexual dysfunction’. And ‘sufferers’ are now in need of a drug in order to make them function more ‘normally’. But a lack of desire is not a clinical disorder, and neither should it be treated as such.


It is interesting to note that homosexuality used to be classed as a dysfunction before relentless campaigns changed all that. But those who identify as asexual (no desire to have sex) continue to be seen as dysfunctional and, by default, are stigmatised. The idea that a lack of interest in sex should be ‘cured’ with a pill also means that any other contributory factors to a lack of desire – stress, issues with self-confidence, depression, an underlying medical condition – may well be overlooked.


The main players in the pharmaceutical industry aren’t interested in whether your lack of sexual desire stems from your general make-up, or whether it’s a side-effect of depression, grief or stress. They don’t care whether you are too tired, or just plain bored of sex. They certainly don’t want to know about those who have made a commitment to short-term or long-term sexual abstinence. After all, that would negate the need for The Pill, let alone pills in general.


In 2003 Dr Rosemary Basson, generously funded by Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, began promoting a new ‘disorder’ – none other than FSD (Female Sexual Dysfunction) – that only drugs could cure, suggesting that 43% of women ‘suffer’ from it. People like this are pulling dangerous strings, playing with our lives, our minds and ultimately our health. And if indeed 43% of women suffer from such a disorder, is it a disorder at all?


Interestingly, a little digging finds that this figure comes from a paid Pfizer consultant, Edward Laumann, who simply asked women, “During the last twelve months, has there ever been a period of several months or more when you lacked interest in having sex?” 


The media, including many health and science journalists, healthcare professionals and public relations bodies, have all contributed to a climate in which we have a society obsessed with sex and sexuality, and popular culture has greatly increased people’s expectations about the importance of sex to satisfaction.


The public is manipulated into expecting a ‘perfect’ sex life. They are told that sex is ‘natural’– that is, an automatic biological function – from which they can expect high levels of pleasure and a performance to match. Couple this with the fact that many today want a simple, quick-fix solution to problems and you have the perfect recipe in a pill.


The pharmaceutical industry is prescribing ‘cures’ for what is natural and normal, and those who don’t fit their mould will, through pills, be forced to do so. Men are taking Viagra in order to feel more like ‘real men’ and women are classed as dysfunctional if they don’t happen to want sex. No wonder so many people are unhappy with their lot. But all is not lost, for when the lifestyle pills and potions don’t fill that void, we can always turn to the industry’s favourite multi-million pound drug… the anti-depressant.

Edited April 2, 2017 by ithaca

[Siggy]

I had a negative reaction to this article.

To start, the website has an obvious Christian slant. That's not necessarily bad in itself, but it sets off alarms when the very first alternative they suggest for medicine is "Christian counselling". That first paragraph caused me to read the rest of the article critically. And when I read it critically, I find that it just repeats empty cliches about how people are overusing medicine these days. Little real evidence is cited to support the claim. The best piece of evidence cited is Rosemary Basson's claim that 43% of women suffer from FSD. The rest is fluff.

And though the article seems asex-positive at first, it isn't really.

The idea that a lack of interest in sex should be ‘cured’ with a pill also means that any other contributory factors to a lack of desire – stress, issues with self-confidence, depression, an underlying medical condition – may well be overlooked.

The author appears to believe that the most likely causes of lack of sexual desire are "stress, issues with self-confidence, depression, an underlying medical condition". The author does not believe asexuals should be left alone, she just believes they should be left alone by drug companies.

There's also a major error in the article. Female Sexual Dysfunction is much broader than lack of desire. It also includes things like arousal and pain. The other kinds of FSD are much harder to argue as being "fake" disorders invented by drug companies.

[unicorn3]

My reaction was somewhat similiar - because of the Christian stuff. Not that that is necessarily down-right bad but bringing that up in such a blatant way? And I don't think that 'Christian counselling' is the cure-all and panacea for everthing, sorry.

It did leave a rather bad taste, so to speak.

[DemiDee]

Well, it's a Christian site, so it is to be expected that Christian counselling and other forms of help might be mentioned, just as a LGBT site might mention forms of self help related to their communities. Unicorn, just out of interest, does it leave a bad taste in your mouth when you visit sites with a blatant pro-homosexual stance? I'm just curious. Siggy, why were you inclined to read the piece critically just because an offered alternative was Cristian counselling? Again, if it had been a LGBT site rather than a Christian site, would you have felt the same had they mentioned 'counselling with an LGBT approved counsellor' for example?

Please don't be offended by my questions. I'm just trying to assess why the word 'Christian' seems to provoke such a negative reaction on here, mainly because I identify as a Christian myself.

[ily]

I can't speak for the other posters, but I think part of it might be that to a non-Christian, Christianity has nothing to do with our sexual orientations or our health. (And I'm sure this is the case for some Christians as well.) However, LGBT-related counseling would, to most people, clearly relate to an issue of orientation. I know that at least in Christian Science, prayer is seen as a more effective method than medication for an illness. It seems like this is the stance the article is taking. However, people outside of Christian Science wouldn't agree with that assertion. In the piece, Christian counseling wasn't portrayed as an alternative, but as a "more suitable treatment". That's more than just the word "Christian", which I've not seen anyone on AVEN take issue with. I do agree that the pharmaceutical industry has far too much say in what is considered "unhealthy" and "healthy".

[Siggy]

Siggy, why were you inclined to read the piece critically just because an offered alternative was Cristian counselling? Again, if it had been a LGBT site rather than a Christian site, would you have felt the same had they mentioned 'counselling with an LGBT approved counsellor' for example?

I believe in reading all articles critically, though I may not always live up to that ideal.

I certainly did realize that Lifebite is openly Christian media, and I can definitely see how Christian counseling can be viewed positively by its main audience. But that's irrelevant to me, because I am not Lifebite's main audience. The article discusses the problem of over-medicating as a problem in the general population, and suggests Christian counseling as a possible solution. Maybe it's a solution in Lifebite's audience, but it's not a solution for the general population. In particular, it would be a poor solution for me, and most people I know. I have no problem with a counselor who is Christian, but I would have a big problem with someone who offers "Christian counseling". I daresay most Christians would also be better off with regular counseling, for a variety of reasons.

You should not infer that my negative reaction comes entirely from the Christian slant, which was only mentioned in that one sentence anyways. Clearly, I am also a shill for Big Pharma. :P

Question: Are you the author of this article? In my previous post, I was guessing the author's intentions, but if the author is present, we might as well ask her directly.

[eidolon]

I'm curious to know how much "digging" they really did, because in ten minutes of research I found several holes in what they're saying.

This Basson individual found fault with her own terminology just a year after coining it, but the article still demonizes her.

They suggest that a single question was used to arrive at the figure of 43%. I couldn't find a source for that, but if it's true, it was extremely irresponsible and diagnostically invalid. The DSM specifies three conditions for this disorder:

A. Persistent or recurrent inability to attain, or to maintain until completion of the sexual activity, an adequate lubrication-swelling response of sexual excitement.

B. The disturbance causes marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.

C. The sexual dysfunction is not better accounted for by another Axis I disorder (except another sexual dysfunction) and is not due exclusively to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition.

They make it sound like the company is scrambling to tailor a drug to this disorder that they just invented. Actually, Basson herself suggested a treatment as soon as she came up with the definition: low-dose testosterone.

I echo the other posters' skepticism in re the religious aspects, but I understand it's a Christian site. The whole anti-medication slant still bothers me, though. Some people (myself included) really do need medication. For these people, the best treatment is medication PLUS counseling.

[DemiDee]

Thanks to everyone for your enlightening and helpful responses to my questions. I really appreciate that you've taken the time to explain, and feel quite reassured. Dialogue like this is useful, if only to help us all to understand each other. Asexuality is something that reaches across all boundaries and it's great that even if we don't see eye to eye on certain aspects, we can all correspond in a dignified and responsible manner. I'd like to say more in response to some posts above, but I'm writing in haste and have no time right now. Just wanted to come back here to thank you all for taking the time to reply.