Talk:Psychopharmacology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Psychopharmacology is part of WikiProject Pharmacology, a project to improve all Pharmacology-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other pharmacology articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Neuroscience This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Major drug classes

As a former researcher of psychopharmacology, I strongly object to the removal of major drug classes from the main text, given that these drug classes is what defines the field from the rest of pharmacology in general. Psychopharmacology is the study of psychoactive substances and their effects. Whether or not these effects have any bearing on psychiatry is irrelevant given that psychopharmacology is a broad field made up of many researchers and practitioners that include psychologists, behavioral neuroscientists, psychiatrist, chemists, etc. Hence I have reverted the text to its original form.mezzaninelounge 02:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the drug classes are important information, but we have duplicate content in two different articles, which is not the best Wiki form. I think the drug classes belong in the article about Psychoactive/Psychotropic Substances. The article Psychiatric Medications, which duplicates the content from this article, should elaborate on those drugs that have psychiatric applications. And finally, this article should address drug classes at only the highest level, provide links to the other two articles, and use the extra space to discuss other issues germane to this practice, like assessment/diagnosis procedures, medical issues related to psychopharm, RxP legislation, etc. Steve carlson 04:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the drug classes should be catergorized at the highest level (e.g., stimulants, opiates, etc) as it is in standard psychopharmacology textbook (e.g., Feldman, Meyer, & Quenzer, Meyer & quenzer, Ray & Ksir, etc). What I don't agree is the tendency towards "medicalizing" the article (e.g., talking about diagnoses, medical isssues), at the expense of main content that should be devoted to the understanding psychoactive substances and how they affect the nervous system, mood, and behavior, which is the central to the definition of psychopharmacology. No doubt, duplicacy is undesirable, but a complete removal of the entire drug class content does not do justice to the article. I propose a restoration of some discussion of drug classes, but within the context of psychopharmacology, which is how these drugs affect behavior, the nervous system, and mood as it is described in any standard psychopharmacology text.mezzaninelounge 19:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should include a list of references in this article. Danielkueh 06:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Great idea. Off you go then ... Show us -what you can come up with! --Aspro 16:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Who's got evidence for the ancient use of St. John's Wort for depression? My understanding is that it has entered use in depression in the last 5 years and only has a couple studies to support it yet. The claim looks like retro-active history writing. Can anyone support it? If we're using 'traditional' to mean 1500's or 1800's or 1999's lets put a date in there. The last date mentioned was 'Neolithic' --TomCerul


I don't have any of the studies handy, but check the journals. St. Johns Wort has yet to beat a placebo.

There was a paper in a Journal of Latin American Studies of the University of South Africa in 1990 by Charles Boffard reporting on systematic use of St. John's Wort and other herbal remedies in treating depression in wartime Nicaragua. I noted a few details but unfortunately not the volume or date of publication. Destiglia

Psychiatric_Medications should, I think, be Wikipedia:Redirect'ed to this article. Any one disagree? --Aspro 01:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree. Redirecting Psychiatric_Medications, aside from being a potentially misleading redirect, would only further displace the minimal information pertaining to psychopharmacology itself, in this article. --Muugokszhiion 00:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the info on Psychopharmacology?

The psychopharmacology article should probably talk more about the field of psychopharmacology. In its present state, it only offers a brief history of various psychoactive drugs. There is no information in the entire article about the field of psychopharmacology itself, yet this is what the article is supposed to be about. Someone with knowledge of the field should improve the article so that it actually discusses psychopharmacology. We have the psychoactive_drug pages to talk all about the rich history of psychoactive drugs. But this isn't the place for that. --Muugokszhiion 00:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reordering of the article

I believe LSD and MDMA do not belong in this class.

Actualy, it would be more apropriate if this topics were folowed:

- Benzodiazepines

- Antidepressants: MAOIs, TCAs, SSRIs, SNRIs and bupropion

- Mood Stabilizers: Lithium, Carbamazepine, Valproate, Lamotrigine

- Antipsychotics: Typical / Atypical

- Psychostimulants: Amphetamines / Methyphenidate

That should do.

Why would you say the psychedelics have no place here? Only due to 40 years of government imposed prohibition? LSD prospered for over 20 years in the field of psychiatry until yanked away by the government. LSD and MDMA have shown very promising results, and in fact are the only drugs that can produce psychological curative effects whereby treatment with these substances comes to an end, as opposed to creating dependence on a medication for the rest of your life. --Thoric 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Difference between Neuropharmacology / Psychopharmacology?

I second the opinion that the page should be more about the field. With that said, should psychopharmacology be described as a sub-study of neuropharmacology, which seems to be a more inclusive and descriptive term? They both deal with the effects of drugs on the brain. Perhaps merging the two or redirecting one would be appropriate.

Psychopharmacology and neuropharmacology are 2 different things, although psychopharmacology could be seen as a subsection, or even vice versa, i believe the two are both very different and shouldnt be seen as 'sub-studies'. Psychopharmacology focuses on the effects of drugs on the mind, whereas neuropharmacology is much more restrictive of the nervous system, but i could be wrong. perhaps more input/research is required.--Neur0X .talk 01:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are there sections for MDMA and LSD?

These sections aren't needed, seeing as they just explain what is on the drug's pages themselves. I do think it's appropriate to create certain categories, such as stimulants, depressants, or recreational drugs, etc... but MDMA and LSD just being there makes it look very disorganized, not to mention the lack of references on this page.--Neur0X .talk 15:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Agreed. Although these two drugs are important in the history of psychoactives, including lengthy articles about them makes the article sound like it's implicating about the field of psychopharmacology itself. If their not going to be deleted then I would find it wise to at least include something in the LSD article about Albert Hoffmann.--Thebenallen 00:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I just spent about 3 hours rewriting that section, so please modify it as you see fit. Now it makes a bit more sense, i'd work more on it but im tired as hell.--Neur0X .talk 03:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a small note to anyone editing any of the medications listed on the page, they are not a list of ALL meds, if you know one med and dont see it on the list, dont add it unless it has a point and presents an already untouched purpose. The lists are simply meant to provide examples of meds in the named categories, it is not an index.--Neur0X .talk 11:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)