How Big Pharma Is Subtly Manipulating the Diagnostic Practices of Mental Illness

Photo byfreepik.com

Imagine someone, say, Jason, who played the piano in front of his classmates when he was a kid, but performance anxiety got the better of him and it turned into a mortifying experience.

The memory of that day may still haunt Jason, especially when he's about to face an audience. But in today's age, Jason might also discover that his stage fright might be classified as a mental disorder.

The Rise of Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) Diagnosis

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), the go-to guide for mental health professionals, suggests that Jason's symptoms align with social anxiety disorder (SAD). And Jason was prescribed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the first line of treatment for SAD.

But here's the catch: about one-third of the population feels the same excessive anxiety about public speaking. So, is this widespread fear truly a disorder, or is there something else at play?

Some experts disagree with the classification. They believe that categorizing stage fright as a disorder is part of a larger trend to classify common emotions like shyness, fear, and even grief as medical conditions in a phenomenon called "Psychiatrization of Society."

As a result, we are seeing excessive diagnoses and treatments, with the big pharma playing a major role in promoting this shift.

Big Pharma's Influence on Mental Health Perception

For instance, big pharma uses "condition branding" to promote a medical or psychiatric condition to boost the sales of its treatment. This is similar to the marketing tactic of presenting a problem, followed by a profitable solution.

One glaring example is the case of SAD and the drug Paxil, produced by GlaxoSmithKline. After the FDA approved Paxil for treating SAD, the company spent a whopping $92 million in 2000 alone to market the condition, leading to a surge in Paxil prescriptions.

GlaxoSmithKline's promotional strategy for SAD revolved around the slogan, "Imagine Being Allergic to People."

Although the pharma did not mention Paxil, it was the only approved medication for the condition during that period. The advertisements didn't even need to mention GlaxoSmithKline and highlighted associations like the Anxiety Disorders Association of America instead, which received funding from GlaxoSmithKline.

Following this marketing blitz in 2000, 2001 saw a surge with 25 million new Paxil prescriptions.

Another example is the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), which is one of the most prominent mental health nonprofit organizations in the nation. But an investigation by Congress in the mid-2000s revealed that pharmaceutical companies provided about 75% of its funding.

So, big pharma wields an immense influence over the medical community. From funding research studies to hosting lavish medical conferences and supporting advocacy groups, these companies shape the narrative around various conditions.

The expansion of diagnostic criteria for conditions like SAD has led to an increase in prescriptions, especially among adolescents.

While some argue that this ensures more people get the help they need, others worry about the long-term effects of these psychiatric drugs on young minds.

Genuine Disorders vs. Natural Emotions

Our understanding of our emotions is influenced by societal narratives. Labeling common emotions as disorders might offer validation, but it also comes with the risks associated with psychiatric drugs.

“Making people feel that their normal variant of eating or sleeping or feeling is abnormal is not helpful to them,” Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman, MD, a professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University, said.

“It leads people to pharmacological treatments when what they’re experiencing is better dealt with in non-pharmacologic means.”

In essence, it's crucial to differentiate between genuine disorders and emotions that are natural parts of the human experience. After all, labels, especially in the realm of mental health, carry significant weight.