When do meds make the difference?


Whendo meds make the difference?

Whendo meds make the difference?

Thisstudy points out that therapy is as quite a good medication as drugprescriptions are in the treatment of psychotic ailment conditions.The study presents several supporting evidences from previousresearch findings in order to indicate this supposition. It indicatesthat combining drugs and therapy in treatment of psychotic disordersis proving to be effective in most cases as research on nonpsychotichave revealed. The results on research that is focused on developingthe fact that a combination of these two medications are the besthas, however, produced mixed results. This inconsistency has led tothe lack of any conclusive claim from these definitive researches. Itis however clearer in depression treatment, when compared to anxiety,that a combination of the two is an excellent medication solution forthe disorder. The researches conducted on the depression disorderunanimously shows that the combined treatment results tothree-quarter positive respondence, when compared to the 48 percentfor each individual treatment option. Similar studies on anxietydisorders differ from these results indicating that the combinationis not as quite effective. It is however observed that, thecombination is more effective as an enhancement to drug medicationsin such disorders.

Theauthor makes the argument of if either the use of drugs is betterthan that of the use of therapy. He also goes ahead to give asuggestion of both of the methods. In a large view, there arestrengths that the author brings out. He gives a suggestion of thetwo treatment methods where he has an advantage of giving thetherapist and medical personnel a huge clue of how they should do thetreatment. He brings up the idea of the combination of the twomethods at the same time. There are strengths such that, the authorenlightens them on the existence of the two methods. This enlightmentgives them a choice on which one to use. On the other hand, there arethe weaknesses that the author poses. He does not come up with anoverall conclusion on which of the two methods should be used. Hedoes not give an encouragement on any of them or provide a generalview that both should be used at once. This dilemma gives thepsychologist a hard time to get a choice on which way to go. He goeson to quote what is said by Klein where the speaker gives a fact thatthe use of drugs has go side effects to other individuals that areinvolved. This poses a great weakness.

Therapyhas emerged as an important treatment for psychotic conditions andalso as an augment for the psychopharmacology medication treatmentsthat have been in use over the history. The combination of the twotreatments is been endorsed in the industry as the most effectivetreatment for these disorders. The psychiatrics have been advocatingfor more trained therapists to take up their roles in augmenting themedications that have been in use over history. The results that havebeen in existence over the treatment history reflects this fact ofeffective treatment. The current treatment systems have endorsed theuse of these two methods in combinations as the most efficientcondition for treatment. While therapy is still being considered asthe most important treatment, many patients quotes that it is costlyand also not as flexible as the drug medications. This issue reflectsa matter of personal decision and also professional availability ofthe treatments for psychotic disorders. I think that if moretherapists are trained on managing these disorders, then it caneventually be resolved that therapy treatment be endorsed as theultimate treatment for the ailments which are most receptive to thistype of treatment. This does not however curtail the use of drugs asobserved from the study, therapy is augmentative to drugs. Acombination of the two stands as the best treatment solution forpatients.

Thewriting process has in a big way enlightened me on my side. It hasgiven and brought out a definition of the two methods and givenknowledge that there is the existence of the methods. The writing hasgiven a relation to the real life where the author gives Matranganotes where he says that the whole process of therapy is more costeffective which brings up the thinking that the whole thing iscostly. Most of the people in the current society do not afford thetreatment process due the financial issues that they areexperiencing. The author has also given a conscience into my mindwhere there is the added knowledge that the drugs and therapy shouldhave more assessments to bring up its pros and its cons. This hasgiven to me the motivation to do more research in an aim to give outa result of whether it has more pros or more cons. This study shouldbe upon me to give out to the others the best choice that should betaken for an effective treatment procedure to be followed.