Madam, - We would like to express concern about the response of six psychiatrists (November 16th) to Minister of State Tim O'Malley's questioning of the medicalisation of mental distress.
The psychiatrists' certainty about the benefits of antidepressant medication fails to account the ongoing debate in medical and service-user circles about the long-term balance of risks and benefits associated with these drugs. There is a lack of independent scientific research on antidepressants. Most of the studies indicating a benefit have been funded by the pharmaceutical industry.
Moreover, there is significant evidence of the drug industry's commercial interest in the debate about depression's status as a disease. Industry forecasts for the "lifestyle" drug market put depression at the top of the list of conditions that provide opportunities for companies to boost their value.
The accusation that the Minister is "singing off the hymn-sheets of vested interest groups" is most intriguing. Who are these vested interest groups? Are they service-user/advocacy groups? If psychiatry is not about the interests of service-users, then whose interests are served?
Perhaps we need to reverse the question and ask the professors to consider the hymn-sheets from which they are singing. Do they or their departments have links with the drug industry? Are they engaged in any academic and research activities funded wholly or partially by a drug company?
We think the response from the group of psychiatrists provides us with an opportunity to enquire into such vested interests and to open a debate that they themselves are trying to suppress. - Yours, etc,
LYDIA SAPOUNA, ORLA O'DONOVAN,
Department of Applied Social Studies,
KATHY GLAVANIS-GRANTHAM,
Department of Sociology,
University College Cork.