Even if treating psychiatric symptoms with drugs were finally and unequivocally proved to be effective (which it has not even come close to), the question of whether it is ethically right to do so would still be problematic.

The easiest way is not always the best way, especially when dealing with such a complex system as a human persona in the web of its societal interactions. Very few people actually go to a psychiatrist “to fix the flat tire”, that is with only one specific easily fixable symptom in mind. And even when they do seem to have only one symptom, in the course of therapy the picture may prove to be more complicated.

Sometimes it may become apparent that this symptom is only a superficial “patch” – a distractor by means of which the real disturbances are concealed from other people or the subject himself. It is not uncommon for people to pretend, and actually believe, that their problem is simple and solitary, and that the only thing they need is a quick-fix of some kind. Nobody likes to think that they are seriously mentally disturbed, or be reminded about some unpleasant intentions or memories they have chosen to suppress.

For example, if a young mother suddenly finds herself wanting to kill her baby, she will be, for obvious reasons, quite apprehensive of revealing her desire to anyone including herself, and instead will unconsciously channel her frustration in the form of seemingly irrelevant psychological symptoms, such as obsessive-compulsive behavior or hallucinations. It will make very little sense to try and get rid of her behavioral issues with a quick-fix, because the underlying problem will not be recognized or explained, and will produce other issues in replacement for the fixed ones.

But even if our patient really has only one specific symptom, he would not have come to see a psychiatrist unless this symptom has been causing him a considerable discomfort for some time. Not only the symptom now needs to be removed, but the patient may need help with repairing his disrupted environment, or adjusting to a new one. For example, if a man prone to anger outbursts comes for therapy after his wife divorces him, then not only we have to deal with his anger per se (suppose we have a quick-fix for that), but also help him survive the loneliness and sudden financial difficulties that he will have to endure even after his anger is gone.

It is especially apparent in children. When a child has some behavioral or psychological problem, the task of whoever is taking care of it is not only to treat the problem, but also to help the child in his further development. The development of a child into a mature independent adult is unimaginable without his learning to deal with difficult situations and find the way out of them by own effort. By giving the behavior-altering drugs to children we educate them instead to seek easy external solutions, and thus, no matter how helpful and time-saving those drugs may be in relieving symptoms, the developmental aspect of our care will be severely hampered.

And not only this approach saves the patients the effort, it saves the carers one too. I always feel very sad in the hospital when some kid is having a hard time, because the best thing to do would often be to give them a hug and let them cry on your shoulder, but it would of course be “unethical” to do so. To hell with the hugs, but the nurses usually don’t even talk to the kids anymore. What they do is make a compassionate face and say: “M-m, you’re sure having a hard time… Would you like something to help you cope with it?”

The extensive use of drugs has corrupted the whole idea of psychological help, ridiculed the importance of a therapeutic relationship, and stimulated people to be dependent and weak rather then productive and creative. Even if drugs really worked, they wouldn’t be my treatment of choice.