Biological treatments for depression are probably the ones most people think of when talking about treating depression. The use of ECT is still widely used in hospitals for depression but drugs / medicine is the most popular treatment. The use of tricyclics drugs such as antidepressants vary in there action, but all act upon the neurological system of the body, often varying the amount of neurotransmitters, such as serotonin, a lack of which is associated with depression.
A study by karp and Frank comparing drug and non-drug treatment for depression shows some validity in the assumption that biological treatments work for depressed patients. The research reviewed concentrated on 520 women diagnosed with depression. Nine pieces of research were reviewed from 1974 to 1992. Patients either had single drug treatments, single psychological treatments, combined treatments and placebo treatments. It was found that for most of the studies adding psychological therapy did not increase the effectiveness of the drug therapy, and so they concluded from this research that it was be fair to assume that two treatments are better than one, the evidence does not show any better outcomes for patients offered combined therapy as opposed to only drug therapy – thus providing evidence for the effectiveness of drug therapy on depression.
However this study does have its weakness. One of the problems is with generalisability. For example, the fact that only females were used in the study would indicate a gender bias. Males and females may react differently to drug treatments and therapy.. Our biochemical make up is different and so as this study used females only it would be difficult to generalise to the wider population and include males in its conclusions. In addition to this piece of research the review study found ‘many ‘studies found that adding psychological treatments improved the effectiveness of the therapy. This could be due to individual differences, this study does much to highlight that not one treatment can be universal for all, and that the individual should be treated ‘holistically’, rather than the symptom alone.
Strength’s of the biological treatments is its usefulness to treat depression. For example evidence that drugs are reasonably effective for treating certain mental disorders such as depression and are readily available on the NHS, are easily administered and cost-effective. It can be easier and quicker for GP’s to prescribe drugs than to engage in counselling [for which they may not be trained]. However, there are problems of addiction and dangerous side-effects, such as addiction and the difficulty people may have in coming off the drugs. Furthermore drugs are not cures; they are short-term remedies that may become long-term problems.
Also, drugs do not necessarily provide a long-term cure, when the person stops taking the drugs, the symptoms may recur. They treat the symptoms but do not treat the problem. But people may prefer to take them because taking tablets are a familiar activity, unlike other psychological therapies, such as psychoanalysis or CBT which may be lengthy and incur financial burden. Furthermore drugs may have a placebo effect – the person feels that they are better because they are taking a pill, irrespective of what is in the pill. Has the drug helped, or has the person helped themselves? Hence, alternatively, the person may have got better without the drug.
Their improvement coincided with taking the tablet. Drugs may be effective because the patient believes that the doctor expects them to improve and this can affect their health. This again questions the validity for the person taking medication and of the biological treatments alone. In conclusion although evidence strongly suggest the effectiveness of drugs alone in treating an affective disorder such as depression, a more holistic approach looking at the individual and the ‘ problem’ may be more progressive.