Authors' reply

By mentioning the use of steroids in asthma, Dr Stern highlights an important contrast between our understanding of how drugs work in general medicine and how drugs work in psychiatric conditions. In general medicine the effects of drugs can usually be understood by their actions on some level of the pathological process that generates the symptoms. Thus, steroids reduce the inflammatory response that gives rise to some of the symptoms of asthma. In contrast there is no evidence that drugs used in psychiatric conditions act on specific neuropathological processes. No specific physical pathology has been established for any major psychiatric condition and other evidence that drugs might be specific is lacking. Instead I have suggested elsewhere the alternative hypothesis that psychiatric drugs do not correct pathological brain states or chemical imbalances but create them (Moncrieff & Cohen, 2005, 2006). These drug-induced states might sometimes prove useful in psychiatric conditions, but the negative aspects of such states are often likely to outweigh the benefits that can be gained. However, drug companies and the psychiatric profession have presented psychiatric drugs as disease-specific treatments that correct chemical imbalances. This view helps to downplay the disadvantages of long-term drug use and may help to create the context for the expansion of markets for psychiatric drugs.

As far as antidepressants are concerned, there is little evidence that they have specific antidepressant effects (Moncrieff & Cohen, 2006) or that they are ‘life-saving’ in terms of reducing suicide (Moncrieff & Kirsch, 2005). There is no evidence that there is a chemical imbalance in people with depression, and I do not understand how we can be justified in persuading patients to see their problems in this way. Doing so runs the risk of undermining patients' own coping mechanisms and thereby increasing chronicity, dependence on services and use of prescribed drugs.