Evaluation of New York Times Stories and Puppies

Ok so this guy Richard A. Friedman is an absolute stud in the psychology world and wrote, "Teenagers, Medication, and Suicide" for the New York Times. Oh yeah and did I mention he's  a professor of Clinical Psychology at Cornell's Medical College, he's the attending psychiatrist at New York--Presbyterian Hospital, and he's the freaking director of pharmacology at the Payne Whitney Psychiatric Clinic? I am seriously so starstruck writing this right now, I need to calm down.

• In his article, the protagonist is any teenager/young adult that's struggling with a mental illness and would really benefit from antidepressants. Actually, I guess antidepressants could also be seen as the main character too. I am loving this new take on antidepressants being portrayed as the lifesaving medicine that they are (I can feel my inner social justice warrior coming out so try to bear with me). Thank you Friedman for setting the record straight you beautiful man you.

• There's not really a "where" that Friedman discusses, but more of a "when." He mentions studies that found that after the FDA's initial black-box warning on antidepressants in the early 2000s, teen suicide has actually increased with a decrease in antidepressant use. Coincidence? I think not! 

• There is definitely a disagreement going on: Friedman is calling for the recall of the FDA's black-box warning stating that by taking antidepressants as a teenager, you may be subjected to judgment by your peers. No I'm just kidding, the warning states that there may be an increased risk in suicide if you take it. This warning has successfully decreased the number of teenagers on antidepressants. However, 90% of teen victims of suicide had a diagnosable mental disorder that antidepressants could've helped. So really, what good has this warning done?

Another article that is actually pretty interesting (but a lot darker in my opinion) is on the topic of the morality of Physician-assisted suicide with patients who are incurably ill. Five states in America has passed this law, with certain regulations of course, and Clyde Haberman wrote "Stigma Around Physician-Assisted Dying Lingers" in response to all the buzz surrounding the moral dilemma. 

• I am tempted to say that the story's main characters are the doctors who are struggling with this moral dilemma, but then that would be taking the spotlight away from the heart of the matter -- the patients who are struggling with a terminal illness. This debate wouldn't even be taking place if it wasn't for these people who want to die with at least a little dignity. 

• This story takes place in every hospital where physician-assisted suicides are allowed, but the fact that only five states have legalized this procedure says a lot about how the public morally view this debate. However, the people who are voting against this bill are people who are not struggling with the reality of a terminal illness.

• Heck yes there's a debate, it's the biggest debate there is, how much power should doctors hold in their hands? If they can make the call to take a patient off life support, why can't they help terminally ill people die with a little dignity before they start to deteriorate even more? Sure it would be so difficult for any doctor to know that they are killing their patient, but isn't the doctor's first job is to think of their patient? And if the patient wants to bring an end to their suffering shouldn't they be allowed to do so? 

Federspiel, Manuela. "Dogs, Cute, Chihuahuas." 10/25/15 via pixabay.com. CC0 Public Domain License.

I know the last article was pretty dark and depressing, but if for some reason you find this debate super interesting, I have another article on it, but this time it's from a patient's perspective. It made me shed a tear, not even joking. So if you're looking for good cry then this article is for you. Anyway, here's a picture of an adorable, fluffy little puppy to make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.