very cute WHO PSA :3

my wife calls part of her depression visiting the scary picture museum

i love (after the fact) the irrational thoughts that can happen when i'm deep in it

...like the time when i thought i had discovered the true 'antilife equation'...

and the rage & anger...whooooo girl...could burn through steel plate with it sometimes...

That's SO awesome...I'm definitely sharing this on FB.

"The black dog of depression," that's how Churchill named the bouts of depression that overcame him every now and then.

But it seems that Churchill the Bulldog overpowered the Churchill the Black Dog.

I've never had  dog image of it - but it so fits!   And I agree innana - very clever use of the graphics to convey the experience.  

My dog is 'heeling' obediently at the moment :-) 

I've heard the dog image, but recently enough that my love of 'all things pooch' was a bit hurt.  I get it though, and it is one reason apparently that black dogs are least adoptable.  I think of dogs, even big black ones as adept enough to come nudge you when they notice you're feeling sad.

I really appreciate the 'scary picture museum' idea though.  

Commiserations, Carolla - December is a black dog month for me too.

Fortunately, my family and friends are aware of it, and, between us all, we get me through it.

Loved the video - wonderful animation. (And the Aussie voice-over!)

I loved my black lab, and she helped me through some rough times.  It's been years since she died, and we still speak of her often - the prototype of what a dog should be. 

But I've also had 'the black dog' in my life - sometimes I didn't even recognize it, I just got irritable and/or weepy or would fly off the handle at the slightest thing.   I found this video helpful. 

December isn't usually bad for me.  November and February are probably my worst months.  Fortunately February is short.

This video is good. Explains a lot. Except I have nothing against black dogs. Well, maybe if they're pitbulls, in the city. ;) One thing though...in a world full of heightened fear propagated by the media, economic gaps widening, self-interest thriving- is depression not 'normal' to an extent? When a person can barely afford, if at all, the cost of living, there are no jobs, high debts, wars and disasters abound- it seems to me that to not be depressed is abnormal- what human being wouldn't be depressed if one or more of those major issues were impacting them at once- and medication is to of no avail unless those problems can be constructively addressed. Depression is a social issue, composed of a number of social, economic and environmental problems that affect the world. It's a collrctive, not a personal problem, imo. It's different for those in middle class comfortable situations with good support- then depression is easier to pass through with a bit of medication. But it's also a result of self interest in our society. Where's the good old counselling, instead of 'medication management' being offered by doctors? Not economically efficient, is my guess. Doctors bill for each visit, which is 15 minutes. And anyone who sees a problem with that will be seen as one with a problem. Think of it this way...would Prozac fix the situation for a displaced Syrian refugee?...no? Then why is that a cure all for the almost homeless, jobless, person who is socially isolated because they can't afford to socialize, let alone ride the bus anywhere? They are at risk and no amount of Prozac will fix it.

Oh Kimmio - I think you've advanced this position on depression in other threads.  While I agree that many social circumstances can be very troubling, they do not in and of them selves cause clinical depression.  People of all economic & social circumstances can suffer from depression.  And many who live in what might be considered by others to be dire circumstances are actually not clinically depressed.  Clinical depression is very difficult for anyone who experiences it, regardless of economic class.  It is not easier for those in the middle class, as you suggest. 

 'Depression' is an overused word in our current lexicon, IMO - so the diagnosis/illness now may be confused or used interchangeably with feeling distressed, stressed, worried, down, etc.  There are very specific diagnostic parameters that need to be met before a diagnosis is clinically rendered. 

You're quite correct that medication does not remedy the social circumstance or life problems that may be facing people.  Clinical depression does however rob people of their usual abilities to cope with such situations effectively.  Therefore treatment can restore usual coping mechanisms, which can and does bring relief to people.  

Counselling is important too, as you state - but when someone is acutely depresssed, they usually cannot effectively utilize counselling.  In such a circumstance, medical treatment is the first line, followed by counselling when ready & able.  And let's not forget exercise, meditation, lifestyle changes ... all part of effective solutions. 

I agree that some people do need meds. Meds don't consider the whole person, though. I have been diagnosed with depression in the past- I was never suicidal, but have had times when nothing I usually enjoy was enjoyable, hard to get up in the morning- even if my favourite things were in front of me to do- but it passes when there's enough I am able to do to have a sense of purpose, AND I don't have to worry about basic needs. Can't have one without the other. Also, I'm a values driven, more than a 'success' or 'accomplishment' driven person, usually. Not everyone measures their well being the same way. Hard to have a true sense of purpose, though, when one is preoccupied with survival. Why is it that depression was such a late 20th early 21 st Century illness? Why did fewer people have it prior? Why do close knit cooperative communities report fewer instances? And it's through the roof in cities? Why so much higher in our 'independence minded' culture? I think it's over diagnosed- and there are causes not being considered enough. I think middle class people do have generally an easier time than someone who is poor because the poverty puts a person at higher risk for social isolation, malnutrition, physical illness, severe financial stress, and shelter insecurity. Plus, with more money and resources available to you (as opposed to whatever social services might put you into) you can 'tailor' your approach. Seriously, think about it. Private therapy, better medical referrals, music therapy, massage, etc.- a menu of options the things people with more money, can afford. Plus, easy transportation to get to appointments, someone to help with meals and housework? What about people who don't have that? I'm willing to bet most people with options get through bouts of severe depression faster. I think social problems are under recognized. That said, if the solutions we've got are the best we've got- we should use them. I just don't think they're adequate. Also, another thing. Meds don't work for everyone. Did you know SSRIs target specific parts of the brain that generally right handed people respond to but not left handed people? It's true! New studies are out. The motivation 'side' for overcoming depression may be opposite in lefties, and the meds target the wrong area. Meds have a long way to go to be appropriate for every brain type- and so I am skeptical, unless the doctor understands how the unique brain of the person they're treating, works. GPs don't have time for that. And how many neurologists are available to handle the load?

http://www.psyweb.com/news/depression/handedness-may-effect-success-of-d...

It's well known that poverty affects health (both physical & mental) negatively.  I would not be arguing that with you.   Do people with more money have more options - yes.  Do those options make the experience of clinical depression very different for the person suffering from it? Not so much as you think, in my experience.  

Why does depression seem more prevalent now?  Good question - probably lots of studies to illuminate the answer.  For one thing, I think people talk more about it now.  There still is a great stigma regarding mental illness, but slowly the veil is lifting.  It is no longer the very closely guarded secret it was not so many years ago.  

Yes - there is extensive research going on, and there have been many amazing developments in our understanding of brain function in the past decade - and I hope many more to come.   When I started working in this field in 1976, psychiatry was a very differently understood field, with very limited treatment options available.  I am glad to see the vast changes - but there is indeed a long way to go. 

I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of. There are good reasons why people get depressed- and those need to be understood and respected, not brushed over. In my experience, usually people are triggered by something situational, and after long enough in an environment where there's no way of changing the situation, that likely affects their resiliency. But until people recognize that it's not a quick fix problem- there are layers to it- and the whole person needs to be taken into account- you've heard it from me before- I think it's wrong to assume meds are the best answer for nearly everyone to overcome their 'black dog'. I still think the roots of it are more societal than medical- even if the focus necessarily becomes medical.

Sometimes there are "reasons" (contributing but not necessarily causative factors) for illness that are obvious.  Sometimes there are not.  Some people who are smokers get lung cancer.  Some people who have never smoked get lung cancer.  Your statement seems an overgeneralization, which in fact may disregard those who are depressed, but have no "good reasons" to be, according to social circumstances.  

Kimmio are you suggestiong that I am disrespectul or brushing over social issues?  Or is this a generalization?   

No. I wasn't pointing fingers at you, carolla. I am frustrated that every problem that makes it harder for a person to fit in a box, gets labelled a medical problem. Doctors don't have the cures for everything that ails us. And when we live in 'unnatural' environments for human beings to thrive in, and we do, increasingly, it stands to reason that those environments will impact us. I'm sure there are genetic anomalies that make a person prone to depression for no good reason. But, really, how often do you believe that's the case, compared to other causes that have their root in something else? And how often are people actually 'tested' for genetic markers, and given MRIs to determine if they really need meds? Or more likely, is a list of symptoms discussed in a quick interview, and a med prescribed? And, in subsequent visits, medication management focused on most? That way, the social causes don't get really and truly seperated from legitimate genetic and brain anomalies- and then there's less reason for them to be made a priority. And depression gets over diagnosed. Again, the person, not the situation, is made the focus of the problem.

Kimmio, are you suggesting that if it isn't genetic then meds aren't needed, and that the only other factors are environmenta'/societial?

I can't comment too much on depression, although it was discussed with a doctor when physical symptoms had me feeling pretty miserable.  It's not all that often that I go to a doctor for a chronic problem and am simply prescribed a prescription after a 15 min appointment.  Is that common for chronic mental health issues?  If they are acute or severe I could see where it's warranted (just like if I went to the ER because I couldn't breathe because of an allergic reaction).

Thoughts on this...Okay, if it is genetic, chances are it is going to be chronic and needs fully rounded support. If it is biological, maybe the 'cure' involves treating another problem first. If it is social/ societal, the problem is that the person is round peg that doesn't fit into a square hole. And if they can't meet their basic needs because of it, will anti-depressants fix that? And if the problem is that their particular brain type does not respond to a particular class of meds, is it not futile, and even cruel, to keep trying them on different ones, with unwanted side effects, if the perfect match is impossible with that class?

It would be cruel if we could actually determine that, I don't think we're at that point though.  Sometimes one drug within a class doesn't work, or has negative side effects that are worse than the problem, but switching to another drug, even within the same class works.

It's also pretty rare that someone is forced to take a medication.

The 15 minute appointment has been my experience. Not much taking into account that I strongly believe that the triggers, for me, are situational, and my brain works differently because I have CP (and happen to be a leftie) and that's never taken into account. The more social pressures are on me, the harder it has been to manage. I am only one person, with my own experience- but I doubt I am alone.

You're probably not alone, but I don't know if that's typical.  Especially if someone has a family doctor or has been referred to a specialist.  The time actually spent with a specialist might be short, but I find they do tend to get detailed, just that they aren't the ones always collecting all the information.  I would hope it's similar for mental health.

Also, environmental issues can be treated with medications.

True. It's rarely forced. It is often not prescribed with due care. I was extremely depressed several years ago after my friend died. I was not moving through the grief. Tearful all the time. Could barely get out of bed. Everyone was too busy to help. My parents couldn't visit- too busy. My home was a frightful mess- it added to the depression. I went to the doctor- at the time all I had was the clinic- and I asked to be referred to grief counselling. I said, maybe even a psychiatrist because I worked only part time and couldn't afford to pay for it. He barely looked up from his notes, told me I would be wasting a psychiatrist's time, and scribbled out a prescription and walked out. Not long after that, my relationship at the time broke up because my boyfriend had problems of his own and wasn't committed to mine, or didn't know how to help. And things got worse. I was even more isolated. THAT is a problem! Eventually, I mustered up the strength to climb out of it. Found myself some sliding scale fee counselling. That was one of the worst doctor visits. But over the years, I have come to not trust many doctors to handle emotional problems (combined with physical and social ones) with adequate care. I had one doctor tell me "depressed people have depressed lifestyles". After the fact, I thought, "could it not be the other way around?" Anyway, good doctors are in short supply. So, in my case, I don't think it's just me that's a factor. If you find what works though, stick with it.

In general, walk in clinics aren't great for chronic issues.  They also seem to be hesistant to give a referral from what I've seen.  Having a GP is important, I think that might be the issue in a good number of cases, but I have no stats to back that up.  I do know people who go for counselling, have coping strategies, etc. without being on medication, so it can't be too rare for that type of help without the automatic prescriptions to be out there.

It's out there. But it's not free of charge. Generally, the type of help available free of charge, is prescription meds.

No health care is totally free.

Well, I mean, not directly out of pocket. Counselling psychologists charge a lot. Not covered by provincial medical. They should be! Why aren't they? Because someone decided meds were cheaper and more efficient. Psychologists are very helpful and necessary. It's good to have a job that has extended benefits for counselling, massage therapy, etc. very good for coping with stress! Not many lower end jobs do- so people who are struggling to get by, and have no extra benefits that cover that, certainly have fewer options.

There are covered options out there too, but I agree they aren't out there for everyone who could make use of them.

I find what helps me, is music, artistic projects, writing, Talking it out, comedy (a laugh does wonders) going out with friends even if they have to drag me out initially, a schedule- that is semi flexible, exercise, and cuddles from my hubby ;) for a time, I even went tanning once a week because on the rainy coast, the artificial "sunlight" helped- but I stopped because of skin cancer risk- but there have been times that required more than that. I admit. I wish I trusted the medical system more. Some people have had no problems with it. That's good. Don't take my word for it- like I said. Find something healthy that works, and stick with it.

lol That's not me!  Have you seen my thread?  :)

I've had issues with walk-in doctors too, luckily I've had good GPs when I see them on a more regular basis.

I have a close family member who's a GP. So, I saw docs in their personal lives, growing up. My issues may be more deeply rooted than just bad luck, I suppose. Good doctor, this 'kin', I know that, but personal trust issues are there that have nothing to do with medicine, everything to do with interpersonal/ family problems, which triggered some of my depression to begin with. Doctors are not infallible gods. I can't see one, without that bias engrained in me, it seems. I know it. I grew up seeing it in action. They are real people with issues of their own. They have hard jobs, which I respect, but they are trained to relate a certain way to people so they can cope. And they have big egos, often. You can't suggest that you know yourself better than they know their medical training. They take offense. But they aren't perfect in all aspects of their lives. They're human. And I need to be able to express that to the person helping me- that I have this trust issue- and I need to relate human to human, not human to clinician. I can see through that so fast. The insincerity of it- for me. Hence, I prefer other alternatives first, if they help. So...there you have it. I'm a tough case! Probably rare, all the reasons I have to have issues with doctors.

The good ones out there aren't offended.  I've had numerous doctors who wanted to know what I thought was the issue, how I felt something was working, etc.  It isn't a personal relationship, it is a doctor patient one, and I'm ok with it staying professional.

I've also had the bad doctors (walk in) where I came in and said I have a __ infection.  I can't remember what it was, but it was something I had numerous times.  The doctor sternly told me they didn't want to know what I thought the diagnosis was, they just wanted to know my symptoms.  Of course, I was right and would only see that particular doctor again if I was desperate.

Taking this back to the metaphor, I wasn't really a fan, but it isn't something I've been diagnosed with, so I was just lurking here at the beginning.  A giant tumour that could come and go, grow & shrink, and migrate to different areas would be a better metaphor I would think.

I had one doctor admit that doctor's families are the worst for following up on good care. He knew what I was talking about. So, I guess I'm not alone in feeling skeptical. And, I like that doctor. He's funny, too! I like the one I see more regularly (but not as much as maybe I should), too.

I don't want it to be a personal relationship, of course. But I had this family person show me thank you cards by people who have known him all their lives, and he treated their parent or something, and were so grateful- saved their life- and yet, this person was not there for a good portion of my life- when I needed him to be- so, good doctor, not so good family guy for me. And I have deep seated trust issues because of that, that are difficult to get past- part of the depression itself. So, I feel most at ease in non-clinical settings. That's me. Not everyone. But...that experience tells me that social problems are a big root of the problem! If my life had been played out as it should, I would not have had the economic and social challenges I did have, and I would have trusted medicine more, to get me through, to boot.

What carolla said.........

I've been diagnosed with clinical depression - and hospitalised in my twenties and thirties when it was severe.

Folks often use the term when they're "a bit down" - which is light years away from the experience of clinical depression.

For many like me, depression isn't so much cured as managed.

To avoid depressive episodes, which are very debilitating, I've learnt over the years that if I take responsibility for my health these episodes are less.

I'm on a maintenance dose of anti-depressants - which is increased if I have a depressive episode.

I exercise daily, and have a well-balanced diet.

I surround myself with healthy positive people - and avoid those that aren't.

I avoid situations and people that have been triggers for a depressive episode in the past.

Since John died, I've enlisted the help of close friends to support me when I feel I'm getting out of control. I trust them sufficiently to not take it personally when they tell me I need to see my psychiatrist.

I have found if I do these things, my life is enhanced - so I do them.

In fact, one of my biggest problems is saying "no" to people's request that might unsettle me.

Many folks tell me that they simply forget - because most of the time my illness is not apparent - and "you're such a pleasant well-adjusted person - with a lot to offer others."

And, most of the time, I agree with them......

I agree with you Pilgrims. The medication bit just doesn't work- for me. Not what I've tried. Haven't asked anyone yet about new drugs for left handed folks- don't know if any are patented yet. And I have come to resent doctors who suggest what's already been tried, without listening. They are too many. Good doctors, are few. Severe shortage in this town, of good GPs accepting patients. I know several people who don't have one, or took years to finally get one. Lots of people just go to walk in clinics. And, speaking personally, I prefer to say I am a sensitive person, than a person who suffers from depression. A counsellor suggested that to me, and I liked how he helped me reframe it. It made me feel better about what I cope with. He didn't make me feel like I had a tumor, but that I was a sensitive person in an often insensitive world. That made more sense to me. Others would rather call it by it's medical terminology. That's fine, for them. I also have another question, though,if it is an illness like any other- something like 1.5 million Canadians can have severe depression, at any given time, then why the heck was that woman with depression turned away from the US border because she'd been hospitalized after a suicide attempt years ago? That should not be happening, if people are to not be ashamed of it and to be able to discuss it! There's obviously still a stigma- even as highly respected organizations like WHO try to lessen it. There's a social incongruency there, and that's not the fault of the patient for not opening up about having depression. What's up with that? I hope that doesn't happen often.

Carolla,

What do you think of these?

http://www.mhhe.heacademy.ac.uk/silo/files/helen-barnes.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1111/1467-9566.00221/asset/1467-...

Quotes from the second article, in the publication "Sociology of Health and Illness, vol. 22"- Disability, Impairment, or Illness: the Relevance of the Social Model of Disability to the Study of mental Illness by Julie Mulvaney. Funny, reading stuff like this, is empowering, and one way that helps me actually cope with depression. Intellectual challenges to mainstream approaches. It's interesting and challenging. I am an odd duck.

"This debate is particularily concerned with ideological and conceptual disadvantages of linking disability to illness." Yes, that's the debate I have, too. This article places mental illness in the context of disability. Since I am someone with more than one type of disability (but don't like labels regardless), I value this article because the issue is well argued, and being looked at from more of a social rather than medical model- (social) which I favour- but our current system does not, at least not as much. That doesn't make this approach wrong. I can relate to this approach. Medication doesn't work if the societal barriers that impede you are there whether you take medication or not.

Also:

"People's management of their lives will vary, depending partly on the nature of their impairment, their self perceptions, their immediate social and physical context and the *broader social, cultural, economic, and political environment*." (Asterisk emphasis mine)

This resonates with me. And learning different perspectives helps me cope. Learning, in general, is a great motivator for me. It helps me take an active participant role, rather than passive consumer role, learn, and advocate for what I need to feel better. Not just in a medical context, but in a holistic and inclusive context. I don't think the answer is going to the doctor and saying, "Here I am. I feel depressed because I don't fit everyone's expectations. I'm slower. I move differently, I get tired. I can't work enough to financially keep up with the Jones'.Fix me up. Make me fit better into your worldview." then out comes the prescription pad. Instead, I found my worldview changed.

Just so you know, I do think deeply about these issues, and the barriers that I and others face...and why that might be. The popular view isn't always the right one for everyone. The fact that I have a disabilities, and have been on the margins, below poverty line, influences how I view the medical model- with some skepticism. I won't work in a field that appeals strictly to that model again, either. Which is increasingly the case- I have also worked with and for people with disabilities. I've seen both sides of the help desk. Now, I am just a human in a world that I don't think is set up very humanely for those who don't fit a mold, but who want equal opportunities to thrive. That, and my upbringing, too. Which was middle class- but not typical, per say. Everyone's different.

Very good power point explaining the different models in easy to understand language and visuals

http://www.slideshare.net/SudarshanaDasgupta/models-of-mental-health-ill...

I can only speak about clinical depression from my own experience.

I've had manic-depressive tendencies all my life, but it wasn't until I was in my early forties and near suicide that I sought professional help. The psychiatrist I consulted diagnosed me as manic-depressive and prescribed Lithium. I, however, did not like the Lithium and tried contemplation and Zen-type meditation instead.

After a few minor mystical experiences and one major one, I realized that I am the ultimate creator of my conceptual reality and responsible for what I think, including my depressive thoughts. Having realized that my depressive episodes had been due largely to negative thinking, I have managed, so far, to steer clear of depressive episodes by not permitting myself to slip into the abyss of negative thinking.

Anyway the video is kind of cute and helps people seek help.

This seems a rather dismissive remark.  I found the video quite helpful in understanding depression.

It wasn't meant to be dismissive. Sorry. I derailed the thread with my opinionated rant again, and wanted to bring it back on topic. I don't expect everyone to see things the way I do, most don't, but I do like to express my opinion strongly at times....And I agree the video explains how depression feels. My beef is not so much with that as it is with labelling (some people find that does not help) and options for treatment.

Kimmio - the second link indicated access forbidden.  Do you have any specific questions re the first article?

The last paragraph on page 1 on the abstract summarizes pretty well my feelings/ concern about models used. I feel that although many practitioners in health and social services stress that they use the bio psychosocial model- unbenounced to 'consumers'- it is more often than not heavily weighted towards the medical model. My question is, I guess, do you see the problem with this, and the benefit of the social model. I think people usually do not realize there is a model- a doctrine of sorts- at play when considering how problems are looked at in our society.

Kimmio - the 'models' of which you speak, and which Dr. Barnes referenced (eg Anthony et al recovery model etc.) are actually very well recognized in the mental health world around here.  It is important to realize that different models will be utilized in different programmes - which is appropriate.  The model or frame of reference used in an acute inpatient mental health programme will need to be very different from that used by a community support team, which differs again from that which may be used in an outpatient clinic or supportive housing programme.  There is a wide continuum of services & a wide continuum of stages of illness or distress - as there should be IMO, to endeavour to do best practice. 

To me there is not one right model (and I have worked in a variety of them over the years) - there are many that can be effective, and are mediated by numerous factors.  It is not an either-or proposition.  They all have a place, they all have benefits and risks, and none is a panacea. 

If one seeks treatment from a surgeon - expect that a surgical solution will be suggested, not one that involves counselling.  If one seeks treatment from a hospital - expect that the medical model will be prevalent, not strong social justice advocacy regarding poverty.   If one seeks treatment from a peer support network - expect more of a recovery model to be utilized.  So each has its role & focus.  Those seeking care sometimes do not understand the differentiations & therefore expectations are not met, which becomes problematic. 

Not sure which "people" you're referring to here.  

Referring to 'consumers' of services (commonly referred to as), and their natural supports. I am not referring to the various professionals in their respective fields (which sometimes compete for credibility). They are aware of the model they work from I believe. Although doctors often don't seem to think anything valid exists outside the medical/ biological model, in my biased opinion. And they don't want to. That's not their job. Their job is to treat disease- to the point where every social problem becomes a medical problem, through a medical lense (and I admit my personal bias, but I have met others with the same concern). I do agree that an acute crisis situation needs medical intervention to keep a person safe. Do you understand my concern with the labelling, though? Some find that it indeed helps them to understand their depression from a disease perspective, others prefer to see it as part of their day to day challenges, and just an aspect of themselves that needs not be labelled- often in a world that still very much is into normalizing and standardizing everything and everyone. And often unkindly, and it is disempowering to be put into a passive role- because the diagnoses comes first, in order to have concerns validated. The advocate in me doesn't like that. I long for a world where disabilities are seen as part of a human continuum and accommodated accordingly, without so many labels.I sense that you are personally offended by my critique, carolla. I was not pointing fingers at you but at some of the challenges I perceive. If the models are indeed integrated, I have found, that they haven't been integrated well- the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing- leaving consumers confused (am I sick? Or am I sensitive, unique and capable? Am I a person with depression? Or a person, period? The doctors says one thing, the social worker another- about me. What about me? Is my role in society diminished because I am depressed, or am I capable of sustaining my best if accommodations are made? Is my voice valid, or will it just be dismissed because I carry the label of___?" ...mixed messages, imo. I hope you understand what I am getting at without feeling personally insulted.

Kimmio, do you not think diagnoses are important?  I find some of your statements to be contradictory to an extent.  You want the correct treatment to be used for the 'brain type' but don't want the specific term for the condition to be named.  Both become important in the treatment.  Someone might respond well to a certain pain killer and not another.  Neither should be prescribed if pain (or something else that could be helped by them) are an issue.

The doctors can make the diagnosis like any other disease when medical help is sought. I just think there's a risk in becoming a walking diagnoses. I mentioned brain scans and so on, because they are not often used before prescribing meds. Usually, a symptom checklist- and then there is that new research that suggests SSRIs (Prozac, Paxil, etc) are not helpful for left handed people. But they are the first 'defense'. I am wary of taking psychoactive drugs that aren't made for my brain.

Sure, there's a difference between saying you have depression and you are depressed.

Do you have a link to articles that show those drugs don't work for left-handed people?  How strong is the correlation?