The point of the entry was not to be so literal (yes, the word psychotherapy was mentioned once), but to point out that the entire premise of the article was a shaky nad possibly dangerous one:

“As a result, there has been renewed interest in finding nonpharmacological approaches to treating depression other than psychotherapy, which psychiatrists say is often ineffective by itself.”

Which psychiatrists say this? And why just psychiatrists, what about family therapists? Psychologists? Licensed clinical social workers? Better yet, what does the *research* say? Well, the research says that psychotherapy is often effective in and of itself, and more so when combined with an antidepressant. But author dismisses the research altogether in this article because it doesn’t help her with her article.

So instead of writing about the *most effective* treatments for depression, one of which is psychotherapy (especially when combined with a medication), the author takes a detour down some scary treatment options.

TMS? Sure, it works for some people, but no more than psychotherapy. Surgery? Wow, I mean, that’s not even a mainstream procedure or treatment for depression 3 years later. Light therapy? Great for seasonal affective disorder, not so great for mainstream depression. St. John’s wort or exercise? Really the only two self-help methods that have solid research backing and are readily accessible by most consumers.

You’re right, though, my reaction to the article was over the top and definitely could’ve been better written. Hindsight is 20/20.

You write, …”not a single word is mentioned about the most common non-drug treatment, psychotherapy.” Obviously this is not true, nor is your description of the article’s subject accurate. In the first paragraph, which you even quote, it is clearly stated that as a result of side effects of pharmacological antidepressants:

“… there has been renewed interest in finding nonpharmacological approaches to treating depression other than psychotherapy, which psychiatrists say is often ineffective by itself.”

It IS true that depressed patients often require both psychotherapy and drugs. And the author clearly states the intent of the article is to explore non-pharmacological alternatives OTHER THAN PSYCHOTHERAPY. She does not say psychotherapy is bad or useless or doesn’t work, in fact the implication is the opposite. But she is writing about a completely different subject. There are plenty of articles, after all, about the benefits of therapy; not so many about non-drug or non-therapy adjuncts/alternatives to standard treatment.

That is not a “slap in the face.”. It is not an insult to write, in effect, “well, we’ve got drugs, and we’ve got therapy, and those work a lot of the time…but when they don’t, what else have we got?”

Your urging people to write Business Week and the author ….”and let them know that you know what? Treatment of depression involves a lot more professions than simply psychiatry” consequently is ridiculous. Your last sentence also doesn’t make sense in the context of the article, since both light therapy and exercise are discussed, neither of which is “psychiatry” to my mind. Those are the sorts of things people try in order to avoid seeing a psychiatrist or psychologist And they, too, often work.

Perhaps a little less judementalism and fewer knee-jerk reactions would be in order? You exhibit both, particularly the former, in so many of your essays that it is getting to be a bit disturbing, to me anyway. Conclusions need to be based on facts, not uninformed opinion or emotional jumps…or misreading of short, simple, articles by business journalists.

Cheers,
Karen

Jennie Sheriff
Montana