I'm not reflexively frightened by this development, as much as I hate the Pharma takeover of personal health maintenance. We know that about 25 - 30% of the populace may be prone to long-term...
I'm not reflexively frightened by this development, as much as I hate the Pharma takeover of personal health maintenance.
We know that about 25 - 30% of the populace may be prone to long-term devastating mental illness in response to extreme stress. And I use "illness" to mean a state that's poorly amenable to self-correction. Depression, anxiety, and PTSD are usually effectively permanent, requiring indefinite management regardless of life circumstances.
So the question remains, why don't the other three-quarters develop these conditions? Yes, being poor, abused, exposed to violence, or otherwise stressed contribute to causation of mental illness, but why does anyone recover a functional range of emotional and intellectual resources? That's the question that Brachman may be in the process of answering.
I don't believe there's any evidence PTSD improves the quality of policing, soldiering, or healthcare. The evidence that depression and anxiety aid people in changing their life circumstances for the better isn't there, either. [From personal experience, I can say that depression has deformed my life, and the episodes haven't made me more effective at much of anything besides empathy for others similarly afflicted. YMMV.]
The idea that there are biological mechanisms which improve healthy mental resilience is absolutely fascinating. I've got skin in the game - I've got an underlying immune condition that's probably been contributing to depression all these years. I'm happy to find that there's now a research synthesis tying together all the new understandings in neurochemistry, immunology, and endocrinology.
I understand all the fears of societal engineering, Pharma hiding or ignoring side effects in the name of profit-taking, and so on. But I'm choosing to see this research as a hopeful, serendipitous development and eagerly looking forward to any provable improvement in a field that's been stale for too long.
There are two people living in a dysfunctional, broken society. They have roughly the same material conditions. One is chronically depressed and one is well-adjusted. Which of those two people is...
There are two people living in a dysfunctional, broken society. They have roughly the same material conditions. One is chronically depressed and one is well-adjusted.
Which of those two people is more likely to see the dysfunction in society and help fix it? Who is the one whom should recieve medication to do so?
That depends on how strictly you adhere to the clinical definition of "depressed" - not simply a state of discontent, but rather of learned helplessness and utter despair. It's likely your typical...
That depends on how strictly you adhere to the clinical definition of "depressed" - not simply a state of discontent, but rather of learned helplessness and utter despair. It's likely your typical depressed person will do nothing or engage in self-harm, rather than being able to see a means of opposing the forces of oppression. There's nothing in this state that resembles romantic ideas about tortured artistic, scientific or political genius.
By the same token, some apparently very well-adjusted people in terrible regimes have overthrown them - take Mohandas Gandhi and Mikhail Gorbachev as among many historical examples. They had unflagging energy and were former social intimates of the hierarchs they were attacking. They could keep long-term goals in mind and rallied repeatedly from drastic setbacks.
Again, sample size of one here, but I know I would have had far more ability to raise appropriate hell if I didn't have to go away to recover myself on a recurring basis. Yes, there's nasty history of authoritarian states using psychotropic medication to silence people making too much noise, but that's far different from voluntarily choosing to take a medication that might make one resilient and capable.
But it's also hard to recognize the need for social change when you're immune to the negative effects of existing structures, too. We already have the concept of survivorship bias, how would a...
But it's also hard to recognize the need for social change when you're immune to the negative effects of existing structures, too. We already have the concept of survivorship bias, how would a treatment like this not do anything but exacerbate that tendency within people? One of the people who contributed to my own CPTSD used her growing up in a war zone as an excuse to invalidate my own mental health and situational struggles, just because I was in better material conditions than she had, and in fact would use it as an excuse to exert more physical and emotional violence against me. Inoculating her against her own trauma is something that I don't think would have removed that impulse or softened it.
I don't enjoy the effects of my trauma, and yes, I'm definitely less productive than I would be without it, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with thinking of a world where I was inoculated against it but still dealt with the actions that created it regardless-- the "well you weren't technically harmed long term from it, so why would you think their actions were wrong?" attitude. It has me scared of a world where, just like now in a way, they just give you a pill and say "here you go, all better!" without addressing the material conditions that necessitated my mother putting me in the hands of her physically and emotionally violent mother because she couldn't afford childcare any other way, and had to work too much to keep us housed and fed to do it herself.
That can certainly be a problem. One thing to have in mind is that the absence of mental illness does not equate to an absence of subjective suffering, even trauma. Most people do not have mental...
That can certainly be a problem. One thing to have in mind is that the absence of mental illness does not equate to an absence of subjective suffering, even trauma. Most people do not have mental illnesses, and they suffer tremendously as well. The difference is that their brains enable them to react in a healthy way. Ideally such a treatment should be conducive to a healthy mind that is capable of subjective suffering, and not to a state of complete emotional detachment.
I agree with this completely. The responses my brain developed to cope with my trauma, while difficult to handle at times now that I'm no longer in a dangerous situation (at least of the same...
I agree with this completely. The responses my brain developed to cope with my trauma, while difficult to handle at times now that I'm no longer in a dangerous situation (at least of the same nature), are first of all the only reason I survived that situation, and second a core part of my identity; had I somehow survived that environment without these responses forming, I would be a completely different person. I don't think I would recognize myself.
There's an ethical argument to be made against inoculating soldiers and law enforcement against PTSD. If you're guaranteed not to face the prolonged, traumatic consequences of violent combat,...
There's an ethical argument to be made against inoculating soldiers and law enforcement against PTSD. If you're guaranteed not to face the prolonged, traumatic consequences of violent combat, wouldn't you be more willing to employ violence?
Not to mention, removing a means of people agitating for change in their lives-- if they're immune to what is an objectively depressing or anxiogenic situation, where does the motivation for...
Not to mention, removing a means of people agitating for change in their lives-- if they're immune to what is an objectively depressing or anxiogenic situation, where does the motivation for improving said situation come from? It just seems like they'll be used as an ersatz fix for systemic issues that trigger these disorders in people, without ever addressing the material conditions that lead there in the first place.
Even as someone with (C)PTSD, this class of drugs is absolutely terrifying for me to think of being in the hands of our current society.
As someone who's very familiar with both depression and anxiety, I'd say that those conditions are seldom conducive to change or anything positive. Much to the contrary, really. And life is full...
As someone who's very familiar with both depression and anxiety, I'd say that those conditions are seldom conducive to change or anything positive. Much to the contrary, really. And life is full of profound non pathological suffering and anxiety. In theory, such treatment should not create emotional zombies, but rather healthy individuals. My only concern, really, would be the weaponizing of it. But I might be wrong, I don't know much about PTSD.
True, but how do you innoculate against something that is caused by environment? Personally, I used to suffer tremendous anxiety and depression, on and off several meds for those in the process....
As someone who's very familiar with both depression and anxiety, I'd say that those conditions are seldom conducive to change or anything positive
True, but how do you innoculate against something that is caused by environment?
Personally, I used to suffer tremendous anxiety and depression, on and off several meds for those in the process. Both were alleviated tremendously with learning how to establish and enforce boundaries, and removing toxic people from my life.
I'd fear some sort of preventative measure would have just kept me surrounding myself with and enduring toxicity. Rather than addressing the root cause and removing myself from it.
Hopefuly there's a distinction to be made between chronic and non-chronic anxiety and depression. For some those can be chronic lifelong conditions barely mitigated by medication and other forms...
Hopefuly there's a distinction to be made between chronic and non-chronic anxiety and depression. For some those can be chronic lifelong conditions barely mitigated by medication and other forms of treatment, while for others they're merely existential predicaments which can be overcome by psychotherapy and behavior/environmental adjustments.
We already know there's a strong genetic component to mental illness.
And one should always be very careful with the serious possibility of suicide, which is sadly way more common among the mentally ill.
I check all of the 'genetically predispositioned to depression' checkboxes, and do struggle with various other disorders. But my depression was not chronic. But even I wouldn't have been able to...
I check all of the 'genetically predispositioned to depression' checkboxes, and do struggle with various other disorders.
But my depression was not chronic. But even I wouldn't have been able to tell you that except in retrospect.
I'm reminded of a quote along the lines of "judging a dolphin on how intelligent they are based on how well they climb trees."
I suspect modern mental illness is caused by, or at least exacerbated by, a society where there isn't much flexibility to do what and be what you want.
If you don't conform to societies expectations of you, then it is obviously you who has the mental illness. /s
We still know little about the brain. We most certainly live in flawed societies, but are we really more deprived than before? Before democracy and capitalism, what were the prospects of the...
We still know little about the brain.
We most certainly live in flawed societies, but are we really more deprived than before? Before democracy and capitalism, what were the prospects of the common folk? How much choice did we really have under monarchic regimes, without chance of economic and social ascension?
For many of us, specially in the developed world, life is more flexible and full of possibilities than it was at any point in history. Isn't that what drives us to neurosis? A frustration which persists in the face of great opportunity?
The Hell is hotter for those that can touch the Paradise.
In any case, most people do not develop mental illness when faced with adversity. They're probably the result of a combination of factors.
I'd say that all depends. There's plenty of evidence that prior to the rise of industry and capitalism, there was a lot more leisure time for the majority. Yea, we have microwaves and flatscreen...
are we really more deprived than before? Before democracy and capitalism, what were the prospects of the common folk? How much choice did we really have under monarchic regimes, without chance of economic and social ascension?
I'd say that all depends. There's plenty of evidence that prior to the rise of industry and capitalism, there was a lot more leisure time for the majority.
Yea, we have microwaves and flatscreen tvs now. But we're also killing the planet from energy demands and often little energy to do anything other than stare at our screens.
And broadly speaking, I don't see much in the way of genuine social or economic ascension. Just a bit more shuffling back and forth of the general populace.
I see. But you know, we used to have some terrible problems, like drinking clean water, dying from dysentery, keeping children alive for more than 12 months...
I see. But you know, we used to have some terrible problems, like drinking clean water, dying from dysentery, keeping children alive for more than 12 months...
Obviously - but why should we settle for "somewhat better" when we as a species have the means for an immensely improved quality of life for everyone, not just the wealthy and those living in the...
Obviously - but why should we settle for "somewhat better" when we as a species have the means for an immensely improved quality of life for everyone, not just the wealthy and those living in the imperial core?
And those problems still persist in much of the world. And they're pretty simple ones, given an even rudimentary understanding of germ theory and vaccines. Even then, somehow as a collective...
And those problems still persist in much of the world. And they're pretty simple ones, given an even rudimentary understanding of germ theory and vaccines.
Even then, somehow as a collective species we managed without fully understanding those things for hundreds of thousands of years, even having quite long lifespans once you factor the infant mortality in.
I don’t think you’ve thought this ethical argument through. Consider that, if PTSD didn’t exist, nobody would want to invent it, whether as a punishment for a crime or to inflict on their enemies.
I don’t think you’ve thought this ethical argument through. Consider that, if PTSD didn’t exist, nobody would want to invent it, whether as a punishment for a crime or to inflict on their enemies.
That does make sense. I would certainly not want to invent PTSD! However, the argument is about the actual world, and in this world PTSD already exists. And it stands to reason, I believe, that...
That does make sense. I would certainly not want to invent PTSD! However, the argument is about the actual world, and in this world PTSD already exists. And it stands to reason, I believe, that eliminating one possible psychological consequence of horrenduous experiences might make someone less inclined to avoid those situations. And that might lead to an increase in violence. Truthfully, the cure itself wouldn't be immoral, but its violent use might. The same could be said about physical enhancements, really.
Agreed. PTSD isn't disorder so much as a recognition of a consequence of inflicting or recieving trauma. We shouldn't be looking for a medical cure or prevention of PTSD. We should be building a...
Agreed.
PTSD isn't disorder so much as a recognition of a consequence of inflicting or recieving trauma. We shouldn't be looking for a medical cure or prevention of PTSD. We should be building a world that doesn't traumatize people
I'd like such a world to exist, but even people who aren't directly experiencing trauma can develop PTSD. We need dispatchers, EMTs, healthcare providers, and Facebook moderators (!) who can...
I'd like such a world to exist, but even people who aren't directly experiencing trauma can develop PTSD. We need dispatchers, EMTs, healthcare providers, and Facebook moderators (!) who can perform their duties without sustaining egregious harm. There's little means of reliably distinguishing "stable" people who can withstand the barrage of real life horror, whether from people, pandemics, or other disasters, from those who will go on to have lifelong damage. Again, I'd love to know if there's a safe means of building resilience.
We do not need Facebook moderators because we do not need Facebook. Moderating a vast website that encourages engagement at any cost is definitely a traumatic experience - but moderating even a...
We need [...] Facebook moderators (!)
We do not need Facebook moderators because we do not need Facebook.
Moderating a vast website that encourages engagement at any cost is definitely a traumatic experience - but moderating even a medium-sized Mastodon instance or forum with thousands of users is almost certainly not.
We should eschew systems that put people in situations where they will be traumatized with at least equal vigor to that employed in inventing drugs to keep them productive.
Problem is, I'd love this if it was combined with minimizing the need to put people in those situations in the first place, but I know that in our current world, these drugs will be used as an...
Problem is, I'd love this if it was combined with minimizing the need to put people in those situations in the first place, but I know that in our current world, these drugs will be used as an excuse to not improve the working conditions or lives of these people in any meaningful, material way.
I know this'll sound selfish, but our current system does not deserve drugs like this that can and will be used as an out to head off any true improvements in the underlying society. Fix that and then we can talk about inoculating people against trauma. Our socioeconomic system, just like individual people, needs to earn the trust to use these drugs properly, and I don't think anyone will argue that it absolutely has not.
It's awesome that this research is going on, but all I see are monkey's paws coming from a hypothetical broad adoption of them given current conditions.
I’m a bit skeptical that the leaders giving the orders are thinking specifically about long-term effects like PTSD on the troops that carry their orders out? Probably they are thinking more about...
I’m a bit skeptical that the leaders giving the orders are thinking specifically about long-term effects like PTSD on the troops that carry their orders out? Probably they are thinking more about about immediate consequences of violence like people getting killed or maimed.
I would put this in the same category as improvements in emergency or battlefield medicine, or improvements in armor. Yes, medical advances reduce the consequences of violence. (For example, a lot of people live that would have died with less advanced medical care.) But they seem like good things?
When your government's idea of Veterans health benefits is throwing them a bag of ice to put on whatever hurts, then asking for it back after 10 minutes because that's the only one they have and...
When your government's idea of Veterans health benefits is throwing them a bag of ice to put on whatever hurts, then asking for it back after 10 minutes because that's the only one they have and it's got to last all day, I'm not sure the ethical implications are of concern.
Here's the original paper: "Ketamine as a prophylactic against stress-induced depressive-like behavior". I found this linked via her website. And because I wonder about these things: the best...
And because I wonder about these things: the best effect was from 30mg/kg in mice. Applying this formula, which gets you a human equivalent dose based on body surface area (I'm not sure this is correct for this drug), we get a dose of ~150mg for a 60kg human. Psychonaut wiki considers this a "heavy" dose when insufflated, which has a bioavailability of 45%. Intramuscular injections have a whopping 93% bioavailability. So my conclusion is, at the doses she's tested, one would in fact be tripping balls.
I'm not reflexively frightened by this development, as much as I hate the Pharma takeover of personal health maintenance.
We know that about 25 - 30% of the populace may be prone to long-term devastating mental illness in response to extreme stress. And I use "illness" to mean a state that's poorly amenable to self-correction. Depression, anxiety, and PTSD are usually effectively permanent, requiring indefinite management regardless of life circumstances.
So the question remains, why don't the other three-quarters develop these conditions? Yes, being poor, abused, exposed to violence, or otherwise stressed contribute to causation of mental illness, but why does anyone recover a functional range of emotional and intellectual resources? That's the question that Brachman may be in the process of answering.
I don't believe there's any evidence PTSD improves the quality of policing, soldiering, or healthcare. The evidence that depression and anxiety aid people in changing their life circumstances for the better isn't there, either. [From personal experience, I can say that depression has deformed my life, and the episodes haven't made me more effective at much of anything besides empathy for others similarly afflicted. YMMV.]
The idea that there are biological mechanisms which improve healthy mental resilience is absolutely fascinating. I've got skin in the game - I've got an underlying immune condition that's probably been contributing to depression all these years. I'm happy to find that there's now a research synthesis tying together all the new understandings in neurochemistry, immunology, and endocrinology.
I understand all the fears of societal engineering, Pharma hiding or ignoring side effects in the name of profit-taking, and so on. But I'm choosing to see this research as a hopeful, serendipitous development and eagerly looking forward to any provable improvement in a field that's been stale for too long.
There are two people living in a dysfunctional, broken society. They have roughly the same material conditions. One is chronically depressed and one is well-adjusted.
Which of those two people is more likely to see the dysfunction in society and help fix it? Who is the one whom should recieve medication to do so?
That depends on how strictly you adhere to the clinical definition of "depressed" - not simply a state of discontent, but rather of learned helplessness and utter despair. It's likely your typical depressed person will do nothing or engage in self-harm, rather than being able to see a means of opposing the forces of oppression. There's nothing in this state that resembles romantic ideas about tortured artistic, scientific or political genius.
By the same token, some apparently very well-adjusted people in terrible regimes have overthrown them - take Mohandas Gandhi and Mikhail Gorbachev as among many historical examples. They had unflagging energy and were former social intimates of the hierarchs they were attacking. They could keep long-term goals in mind and rallied repeatedly from drastic setbacks.
Again, sample size of one here, but I know I would have had far more ability to raise appropriate hell if I didn't have to go away to recover myself on a recurring basis. Yes, there's nasty history of authoritarian states using psychotropic medication to silence people making too much noise, but that's far different from voluntarily choosing to take a medication that might make one resilient and capable.
Most likely the one who is less ill. The clinically depressed are not very productive. It's hard to lead social change when you can't get out of bed.
But it's also hard to recognize the need for social change when you're immune to the negative effects of existing structures, too. We already have the concept of survivorship bias, how would a treatment like this not do anything but exacerbate that tendency within people? One of the people who contributed to my own CPTSD used her growing up in a war zone as an excuse to invalidate my own mental health and situational struggles, just because I was in better material conditions than she had, and in fact would use it as an excuse to exert more physical and emotional violence against me. Inoculating her against her own trauma is something that I don't think would have removed that impulse or softened it.
I don't enjoy the effects of my trauma, and yes, I'm definitely less productive than I would be without it, but I'm deeply uncomfortable with thinking of a world where I was inoculated against it but still dealt with the actions that created it regardless-- the "well you weren't technically harmed long term from it, so why would you think their actions were wrong?" attitude. It has me scared of a world where, just like now in a way, they just give you a pill and say "here you go, all better!" without addressing the material conditions that necessitated my mother putting me in the hands of her physically and emotionally violent mother because she couldn't afford childcare any other way, and had to work too much to keep us housed and fed to do it herself.
That can certainly be a problem. One thing to have in mind is that the absence of mental illness does not equate to an absence of subjective suffering, even trauma. Most people do not have mental illnesses, and they suffer tremendously as well. The difference is that their brains enable them to react in a healthy way. Ideally such a treatment should be conducive to a healthy mind that is capable of subjective suffering, and not to a state of complete emotional detachment.
I agree with this completely. The responses my brain developed to cope with my trauma, while difficult to handle at times now that I'm no longer in a dangerous situation (at least of the same nature), are first of all the only reason I survived that situation, and second a core part of my identity; had I somehow survived that environment without these responses forming, I would be a completely different person. I don't think I would recognize myself.
There's an ethical argument to be made against inoculating soldiers and law enforcement against PTSD. If you're guaranteed not to face the prolonged, traumatic consequences of violent combat, wouldn't you be more willing to employ violence?
Not to mention, removing a means of people agitating for change in their lives-- if they're immune to what is an objectively depressing or anxiogenic situation, where does the motivation for improving said situation come from? It just seems like they'll be used as an ersatz fix for systemic issues that trigger these disorders in people, without ever addressing the material conditions that lead there in the first place.
Even as someone with (C)PTSD, this class of drugs is absolutely terrifying for me to think of being in the hands of our current society.
As someone who's very familiar with both depression and anxiety, I'd say that those conditions are seldom conducive to change or anything positive. Much to the contrary, really. And life is full of profound non pathological suffering and anxiety. In theory, such treatment should not create emotional zombies, but rather healthy individuals. My only concern, really, would be the weaponizing of it. But I might be wrong, I don't know much about PTSD.
True, but how do you innoculate against something that is caused by environment?
Personally, I used to suffer tremendous anxiety and depression, on and off several meds for those in the process. Both were alleviated tremendously with learning how to establish and enforce boundaries, and removing toxic people from my life.
I'd fear some sort of preventative measure would have just kept me surrounding myself with and enduring toxicity. Rather than addressing the root cause and removing myself from it.
Hopefuly there's a distinction to be made between chronic and non-chronic anxiety and depression. For some those can be chronic lifelong conditions barely mitigated by medication and other forms of treatment, while for others they're merely existential predicaments which can be overcome by psychotherapy and behavior/environmental adjustments.
We already know there's a strong genetic component to mental illness.
And one should always be very careful with the serious possibility of suicide, which is sadly way more common among the mentally ill.
I check all of the 'genetically predispositioned to depression' checkboxes, and do struggle with various other disorders.
But my depression was not chronic. But even I wouldn't have been able to tell you that except in retrospect.
I'm reminded of a quote along the lines of "judging a dolphin on how intelligent they are based on how well they climb trees."
I suspect modern mental illness is caused by, or at least exacerbated by, a society where there isn't much flexibility to do what and be what you want.
If you don't conform to societies expectations of you, then it is obviously you who has the mental illness. /s
We still know little about the brain.
We most certainly live in flawed societies, but are we really more deprived than before? Before democracy and capitalism, what were the prospects of the common folk? How much choice did we really have under monarchic regimes, without chance of economic and social ascension?
For many of us, specially in the developed world, life is more flexible and full of possibilities than it was at any point in history. Isn't that what drives us to neurosis? A frustration which persists in the face of great opportunity?
The Hell is hotter for those that can touch the Paradise.
In any case, most people do not develop mental illness when faced with adversity. They're probably the result of a combination of factors.
I'd say that all depends. There's plenty of evidence that prior to the rise of industry and capitalism, there was a lot more leisure time for the majority.
Yea, we have microwaves and flatscreen tvs now. But we're also killing the planet from energy demands and often little energy to do anything other than stare at our screens.
And broadly speaking, I don't see much in the way of genuine social or economic ascension. Just a bit more shuffling back and forth of the general populace.
I see. But you know, we used to have some terrible problems, like drinking clean water, dying from dysentery, keeping children alive for more than 12 months...
Obviously - but why should we settle for "somewhat better" when we as a species have the means for an immensely improved quality of life for everyone, not just the wealthy and those living in the imperial core?
Of course we shouldn't settle for "somewhat better"! :)
And those problems still persist in much of the world. And they're pretty simple ones, given an even rudimentary understanding of germ theory and vaccines.
Even then, somehow as a collective species we managed without fully understanding those things for hundreds of thousands of years, even having quite long lifespans once you factor the infant mortality in.
I don’t think you’ve thought this ethical argument through. Consider that, if PTSD didn’t exist, nobody would want to invent it, whether as a punishment for a crime or to inflict on their enemies.
That does make sense. I would certainly not want to invent PTSD! However, the argument is about the actual world, and in this world PTSD already exists. And it stands to reason, I believe, that eliminating one possible psychological consequence of horrenduous experiences might make someone less inclined to avoid those situations. And that might lead to an increase in violence. Truthfully, the cure itself wouldn't be immoral, but its violent use might. The same could be said about physical enhancements, really.
Agreed.
PTSD isn't disorder so much as a recognition of a consequence of inflicting or recieving trauma. We shouldn't be looking for a medical cure or prevention of PTSD. We should be building a world that doesn't traumatize people
I'd like such a world to exist, but even people who aren't directly experiencing trauma can develop PTSD. We need dispatchers, EMTs, healthcare providers, and Facebook moderators (!) who can perform their duties without sustaining egregious harm. There's little means of reliably distinguishing "stable" people who can withstand the barrage of real life horror, whether from people, pandemics, or other disasters, from those who will go on to have lifelong damage. Again, I'd love to know if there's a safe means of building resilience.
We do not need Facebook moderators because we do not need Facebook.
Moderating a vast website that encourages engagement at any cost is definitely a traumatic experience - but moderating even a medium-sized Mastodon instance or forum with thousands of users is almost certainly not.
We should eschew systems that put people in situations where they will be traumatized with at least equal vigor to that employed in inventing drugs to keep them productive.
Problem is, I'd love this if it was combined with minimizing the need to put people in those situations in the first place, but I know that in our current world, these drugs will be used as an excuse to not improve the working conditions or lives of these people in any meaningful, material way.
I know this'll sound selfish, but our current system does not deserve drugs like this that can and will be used as an out to head off any true improvements in the underlying society. Fix that and then we can talk about inoculating people against trauma. Our socioeconomic system, just like individual people, needs to earn the trust to use these drugs properly, and I don't think anyone will argue that it absolutely has not.
It's awesome that this research is going on, but all I see are monkey's paws coming from a hypothetical broad adoption of them given current conditions.
I’m a bit skeptical that the leaders giving the orders are thinking specifically about long-term effects like PTSD on the troops that carry their orders out? Probably they are thinking more about about immediate consequences of violence like people getting killed or maimed.
I would put this in the same category as improvements in emergency or battlefield medicine, or improvements in armor. Yes, medical advances reduce the consequences of violence. (For example, a lot of people live that would have died with less advanced medical care.) But they seem like good things?
When your government's idea of Veterans health benefits is throwing them a bag of ice to put on whatever hurts, then asking for it back after 10 minutes because that's the only one they have and it's got to last all day, I'm not sure the ethical implications are of concern.
https://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_brachman_a_new_class_of_drug_that_could_prevent_depression_and_ptsd
Video here.
Here's the original paper: "Ketamine as a prophylactic against stress-induced depressive-like behavior". I found this linked via her website.
And because I wonder about these things: the best effect was from 30mg/kg in mice. Applying this formula, which gets you a human equivalent dose based on body surface area (I'm not sure this is correct for this drug), we get a dose of ~150mg for a 60kg human. Psychonaut wiki considers this a "heavy" dose when insufflated, which has a bioavailability of 45%. Intramuscular injections have a whopping 93% bioavailability. So my conclusion is, at the doses she's tested, one would in fact be tripping balls.