[MUD-Dev] Virtual World Theory

[Jeff Kesselman]

At 08:52 AM 9/2/97 PST8PDT, you wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Sep 1997 19:08:22 PST8PDT, Jeff Kesselman
><jeffk at tenetwork.com> wrote:
>
>>Simple fact: Psyhcopharmacology works.
>>Its still in its infancy but the undisputable fatc is that where we HAVE
>>been able to isolate the emchanisms invovled and chemcily treat-- cheifl in
>>teh area s of Chronic Affective Disorder and Psychotic patients, there
>>results have been remarkable.
>
>There are a lot of remarkable results, and a lot of spectacular
>failures. 

No. Not according to the staistics taught to medical practioners.  As part
of my treatment I had to read 3 textbooks on the subject (acutally it was
fun if dry reading).  There is a large numerb fo peopel who respond 100%, a
smaller but still fair sized numerb who resond a good deal but not 100%,
and there is a fairly small but stil lstatisticly significant numerb of
peopel who fail to rewspond to treatment at all.

This was as of 10 years ago. With al lthe new optiosn and new drugs
available i woudl espect the result rate to have goen up, and certainyl not
down.

BTW.. an odl book (though it may be revised) but good one is called "Druges
for Mental Illness" if anyoen is inetrested oin the raw dry facts on these
things.

>A glance through the PDR will reveal that we know shockingly
>>little about how ANY of these drugs actually work. This disturbs me, and

Why?  How much do we know about how penicillin works?   Answer, LESS thenw
e knwo abotu the anti-depressants.  With the anti-drepssents we have
already isolayted the mechanisms, whcih all involve levels of a few specifi
neurotransmitters.  In time with continued study we will probably
understand WHy the mechanisms do what they do.

In the meantime, let me tell you that if I AM Charlie...  and I die from
this stuff in another 10 years, that will be 20 good years I wouldnt have
ahd otherwise and ill take it and be gald i had them.

>draws a much closer parallel to witchcraft than I am comfortable with.

Um. Where do you think most modernb medicatiosn came from?  All modern drug
comapneis to thsi day employ anthropoligists who work with chemists (or i
nsioem case are both) seeking active ingredients in traditional medicine.
 
>doesn't work; far from it. I'm saying that the field is not a panacea,

And neither did I...  Pan -- universal  Cea -- cure
I made a specific statement on specific problems and specific cures.  An
antideopressant wont cure your atheletes foot, it wont even cure you of
Psychotic epsiodes.  It is not a panacea.

But NO branch of emdicne is a "panacea", so why hold it to any different
standard then we do any other branch of medicine?

It is a enw scienbce but it IS a science,a s surely as any other branch of
medcine is a science.

>effective. Sometimes it's effective by turning the patient into a
>drooling idiot who is little more than a vegetable. And sometimes it's

Um.  Case pelase?  I have NEVER ina ll my readings heard of either an
ani-psychotic or an anti-depressant  doin this.

What DOES happen is in case of misdaignosis, the diagnosing doctor may
prescribe the worng medicatio nand the wrong medicatio ncan make things
worse..  anti-psychotics for instacne tend to really screw up depressives,
bt any good doctor monitors treatment and knows this when he/she sees it.

A legityimate comment woudl be that anti-psychotics are slow posions. So
far, or at elast the alst time I read abotu it, theyw ere all heavy metal
based and thus tended to cause systemic damage in other areas BUT any
psyhcotic seriosu enough to need such treatment will tell you they'ld
rather be on it and have a shorter life then off it and have NO life.


>
>Have you ever seen a close friend so doped up on Thorazine that he can
>barely talk? No wonder he's not a problem anymore. He's nothing. He's a

Sodusn to me like misdaignosis or mistreatment.  Celarly if his quality of
life was so bad off it he shoudl have gotten himslef a enw doctor and
gotten a different treatment regime.


>works sometimes. It doesn't work other times. But we should at least
>admit that it doesn't always work.


Absolutely, but again, hold it to the same standard as other branches of
medicine.  SOem peopel walk otu of the hospital on their own legs, some in
wheelchairs, and soem in body bags. And we accept that because we knwo the
alternativ eis that most to all woudl wakl otu in body bags otherwise.

Same thing.

>
>>There are 2 valid reasons in our scoiety to treat someone:
>>	(1) They wish to chnage their own lives.
>>	(2) Theya re a danger to others.
>
>The latter is meaningless without the former. Treating the unwilling is

True to a degree... I threw it in thouigh because we DO put peoepl under
duress to receieve treatment in our society.  We lock them up in a state
mental hospital and tell them they can onyl get otu if they get well.

I dont consider that unethical in the cas of (2), I woudkl otherwise.


JK
Jeff Kesselman
Snr. Game Integration Engineer
TEN -- The Total Entertainment Network -- www.ten.net

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
     Version: 3.1
     GCS/CC/E/IT/MC d+(++)@ s: a C++++$ ULSC+++(++++)$ P++(+++)$ L++ 
     E--- W++$ N++$ o+ K--? w++(+++)$@>--- O+(++)>$ M+>$ !V PS++ PE+ 
     Y+ PGP- t+ 5+ X- R+(++)$>+++* tv+ b+>++ DI+++ !D G e++ h r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ 

Speak Geek!
http://krypton.mankato.msus.edu/~hayden/geek.html