I don't think anyone on this site likes antidepressants.

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/96...antidepressants.html

However, withholding treatment from women because of some hypothetical pregnancy that may or may not happen doesn't seem ethical. Also, the article mentions sodium valproate. People don't take that shit because they're feeling a bit down in the dumps, it’s for people who are seriously ill.

Also, as a 'mad' woman, I object to my status being relegated to that of a baby incubator rather than an actual autonomous human being. Tbh, I take a mood stabiliser, and if any doctor tried to withhold it from me because I'm of childbearing age, I'd sue the mother fucker.

I was told to consult my GP if I plan to have another child, so I can come off my medication safely. That’s good enough, and I’m quite capable of making my own reproductive choices thank you very much.

Putting someone's mental health before that of a non-existent child is outrageous imo, regardless of my views on antidepressants.

errm i think the doctotors have got it it wrong

LesleyPumpshaft wrote:
Err DR up the stregth ffs

It's kind of insulting that this doctor doesn't trust depressed women to use contraception.

LesleyPumpshaft wrote:
Well Lesley as a man the only thing I can say is, thank fuck im not a women. You all do seem to hve to put up with a lot of shit with regards to the body

entrangermercenary1 wrote:
Seems to be that way recently.

I'm happy to have a woman's body, I just get pissed off when other people try to control what I do with it.

What she's advocating is completely ridiculous. Imagine if someone said to her, "we're not giving you a form of medication, love, because you might be fucking around all over the place without contraception and accidentally get pregnant". I doubt Professor Louise M Howard BSc MSc MPhil PhD MRCP MRCPsych would react too kindly!

It is ridiculous. You're an intelligent person, and I'm sure you must be able to see that this is yet another example of women being dehumanised and having their status reduced baby pods.

This is offensive for two reasons. Firstly, I don't think they would withhold medication from someone with diabetes or a physical chronic illness. Secondly, I think it's outrageous that a woman becomes less important when pregnancy is factored into the equation. Some people seem to think that all of a sudden a woman's wellbeing, mental health and safety becomes secondary to that of an imaginary bundle of cells. The curse of the walking womb strikes again!

Women have been reduced to ambulent wombs for centuries.

But this is not about compassion for potential unborn babies, but rather more control.

LesleyPumpshaft wrote: It's particular ridiculous that a woman is advocating it. What she is in effect saying is that she herself shouldn't have been proscribed medication at a certain age because she can't be trusted to behave responsibly, but she can be trusted to make this decision for someone else. It doesn't make any sense. As she has six lots of letters after her name, she ought to be smart enough to see how daft this is.

I think there are gender issues here, but it's also an example of people's subconscious faith in authoritarianism and the extent to which people are indoctrinated into this way of thinking. It's completely obvious to me that an adult woman should be free to make her own decisions regardless of whether or not she's pregnant. But even though this is a ridiculous suggestion, some people will go for it, and accept it because of the cachet that we give authority figures. We ought to have learnt by now that authority figures frequently breach this trust, but of course there is a very strong system of social conditioning in place that makes people instinctively accept it.