ught Kramer and what the drug itself taught him was that the effects of the drug would have to re examined and our sense of what is constant in the self to be revised.As earlier stated, Fisher and Greenberg disagree with the effectiveness of antidepressant drugs which is mainly due to the bias studies. As Fisher and Greenberg state, "no one actually knows how effective antidepressants are. Confident declarations about their potency go well beyond the existing evidence" (p.223). One of the main biases on antidepressant drugs is that "patients learn to discriminate between drug and placebo largely from body sensations and symptoms" (p.225). Another point Fisher and Greenberg point out in their argument is that many doctor's strong beliefs in the power of a drug has a strong affect on the power it really has on a patient. Many of the testing that are done with antidepressant drugs are a lot of the times used with bias sampling. For example when testing the effects on newer drugs and older drugs, researchers are more bias to see a greater effectiveness in the newer drugs. As Fisher and Greenberg say, "the present double-blind design for testing drug efficacy is exquisitely vulnerable to bias" (p.228).In reading about the two sides of this controversial issue, my opinion on the subject became confused. On one hand I feel that if a person suffering from severe depression has tried everything accept for antidepressant drugs and nothing seems to help them, their doctor should prescribe Prozac. On the other hand I feel that there is too many instances that a person not necessary suffering from depression is prescribed this drug and changing themselves as a person. I guess, to sum it up, before I would prescribe Prozac to a patient they should under go many other treatments and a full evaluation on what the person is really suffering from and if it really is "clinical depression." ...
