Ladies, we are walking incubators.
Oct. 28th, 2012 07:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
raincitygirlJust to take people's mind off of Hurricane Sandy, here's something infuriating, gakked from legionseagle, all about how women of childbearing age shouldn't be allowed to take anti-depressants. Because 50% of pregnancies are unplanned and anti-depressants harm a developing fetus, no woman who could possibly become pregnant should use these medications.
And are these words of wisdom coming from some politician in Texas? (no offense to Texans, but you produce your fair share of political loonies) No, they are coming from Professor Louise Howard, head of women's mental health at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, University of London. Note to self: if I ever move to England, I will avoid treatment at that institute like the plague. Professor Howard clearly doesn't suffer from clinical depression herself, or I doubt she'd be saying such things. Speaking as a woman of childbearing age who relies on anti-depressants to hold down a job, function in society, etc etc, I am none too thrilled.
I am well aware that anti-depressants can be dangerous for a developing fetus. In the event that I became pregnant by accident, I would probably seek out an entirely legal option that doesn't seem to have occurred to Professor Howard.
Edited to add: In comments,minim_calibre points out that this article may be a case of Daily Telegraph out-of-contextitis, going for the sensational lead and obscuring what Professor Howard was actually saying. Upon deep-breathing and then re-reading the article with deliberate calm, I think Minim may have an excellent point, and Professor Howard's advice may have been misrepresented. Or at least distorted by selective quotation. There's a whole lot much more reasonable-sounding stuff down at the very bottom of the article. Yes, I read the whole article the first time, but I was sufficiently enraged by the first few paragraphs that I didn't really consider the possibility of selective quotation. Minim also points out that the article makes no distinction between SSRIs (which are considered reasonably safe) and other drugs like lithium which are very risky.
I would certainly feel a WHOLE lot better if this were just a case of a sensationalistic journalist quote-mining, as opposed to the considered views of an expert in women's mental health.
legionseagle, all about how women of childbearing age shouldn't be allowed to take anti-depressants. Because 50% of pregnancies are unplanned and anti-depressants harm a developing fetus, no woman who could possibly become pregnant should use these medications. And are these words of wisdom coming from some politician in Texas? (no offense to Texans, but you produce your fair share of political loonies) No, they are coming from Professor Louise Howard, head of women's mental health at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, University of London. Note to self: if I ever move to England, I will avoid treatment at that institute like the plague. Professor Howard clearly doesn't suffer from clinical depression herself, or I doubt she'd be saying such things. Speaking as a woman of childbearing age who relies on anti-depressants to hold down a job, function in society, etc etc, I am none too thrilled.
I am well aware that anti-depressants can be dangerous for a developing fetus. In the event that I became pregnant by accident, I would probably seek out an entirely legal option that doesn't seem to have occurred to Professor Howard.
Edited to add: In comments,
minim_calibre points out that this article may be a case of Daily Telegraph out-of-contextitis, going for the sensational lead and obscuring what Professor Howard was actually saying. Upon deep-breathing and then re-reading the article with deliberate calm, I think Minim may have an excellent point, and Professor Howard's advice may have been misrepresented. Or at least distorted by selective quotation. There's a whole lot much more reasonable-sounding stuff down at the very bottom of the article. Yes, I read the whole article the first time, but I was sufficiently enraged by the first few paragraphs that I didn't really consider the possibility of selective quotation. Minim also points out that the article makes no distinction between SSRIs (which are considered reasonably safe) and other drugs like lithium which are very risky. I would certainly feel a WHOLE lot better if this were just a case of a sensationalistic journalist quote-mining, as opposed to the considered views of an expert in women's mental health.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-29 03:51 pm (UTC)