The emergence of safer psychopharmacological specialists with less problematic symptoms, together with the expansion of information on the wide exposure of treatable medication disorders, has led to a huge extension of the treatment alternatives accessible to the therapist. Studies and clinical experience show that the use of psychotropic drugs in combination with psychodynamic therapy or psychotherapy currently occurs with the expansion of relapse.
Two late investigations demonstrate the level of this model. A review of the examiners ‘preparation revealed that they had recommended prescribing to 20% of their investigative patients in the first five years, while an overview of the candidates’ preparation cases indicated that 30% of their patients were taking medication.
The way to incorporate psychoanalytic drugs with psychopharmacology subsequently deserves to proceed with the study.
However, pharmacological and psychodynamic approaches can be in the struggle, both clinically and hypothetically. The way to understand how to work with such unique listening systems, information collections, and specialized methodologies is, in this way very distant.
Diagnostic disorders against drugs
Debates about joining therapy and prescribing have been around for a long time. They emerged, to some extent, from the way psychoanalysts used psychological hypotheses to clarify both the character pathology and the main mental conditions. This requires an unjustified prospect of taking drugs as they only affect the optional or marginal side effects.
This line of reasoning has provoked some psychoanalysts, especially in recent decades, to discard the use of the psychotropic prescription. Indeed, psychoanalysts have seen drugs as an impedance in improving transference in therapy. In some cases, it is crucial to control side effects to allow psychoanalytic treatment to continue satisfactorily. Also, medicine was believed to lessen the restless and burdensome influences that were of great help in the procedure.
Natural substructure
However, this perspective on physiology as an auxiliary is interested in many aspects. Sacred and organic commitments to mental illness are recognized throughout the psychoanalytic writing. To be sure, I accept that and that his psychological hypotheses were only theoretical ideas intended to be supplanted by the development of more current clarifications and better.
Starting from this point of view, psychoanalysts who clarify mental illness with only psychological hypotheses commit the epistemological error of changing this point of view into a total arrangement of theories and strategies that, at that point, they cannot concede to any other additional option or perspective. One could say the equivalent of therapists who use natural hypotheses only to clarify the set of their patients’ safe and adverse reactions to drug treatment, or who accept that ideas, for example, blocking the requirement for psychodynamic medicines.
There has been some movement in the previous explanatory points of view. In any case, psychoanalysts continue to fight with them. Psychoanalysts, in some cases, have a reflective concern that when the drug is approved, the treatment they are carrying out is never a therapy again. This can deliberately or unknowingly cause you to shirk medicine in circumstances where it is impossible to think of a drug preliminary.