Psychotherapy and its alternatives: Commentary on a critique

In this commentary, Michael Rustin reviews the articles in the symposium, outlining their main aims and arguments. He goes on to provide some critical reflections, asking questions about the key concept of the ‘therapeutic state’. He notes that little attention is given to psychoanalytic or other psychological theories of the mind, as distinct from the biological models which are the main object of criticism in the symposium. He argues that just as it is justifiable and useful to take account of theories of the mind in considering issues of mental health and therapy, so it is desirable also to take account of the structures of society which have responsibility for generating conditions of mental well- or ill-being, and to reflect on how these may be changed. The commentary argues that the counter-cultural and somewhat ‘post-modern’ critical approach which informs the symposium can only form part of a sufficient response to the problems which the symposium identifies.

Do GPs and psychiatrists recommend alternatives when prescribing anti-depressants?

This study explores whether a partial explanation for high antidepressant prescription rates is the failure of prescribers to recommend alternatives. 1,829 New Zealand adults were asked which of six non-pharmacological treatment approaches were recommended when prescribed anti-depressants. The majority (82%) received at least one recommendation and 32% received three or more, most commonly ‘Counsellor/Psychologist/Psychotherapist’ (74%) and Exercise Schedule (43%). It cannot, therefore, be concluded that failing to consider non-pharmacological treatments is a major cause of high prescribing rates. Being younger and more severely depressed were both positively related to number of recommendations. Psychiatrists made significantly more recommendations than GPs.