They can be useful, but they're far too over-prescribed, and their effects are hyped, and risks understated. Patients are discouraged from seeking balanced information, and often are made to feel like they have no other options. And too often medication is used as a first-line defense against mental and emotional health struggles. A lot of the science that supports their efficacy and safety has been corrupted.

One of my favorite mental health sites is Mad in America; but as far as medication-specific, the Benzodiazepine Information Coalition is a pretty decent site too.

Good perspective to share, thanks. I've heard (or read) many times that medication has saved someone's life. I've also heard some pretty negative things about Cymbalta as well, but I think most people are aware that psychiatric medication affects everyone differently.

@[email protected] You might find some resources that suit you better at if-me.org | Resources

It really sucks that you've gotta experience that. I've had some very bad experiences in the (US) mental health care system too, even when I was fully insured. You aren't alone. Note this press release from the UN Human Rights website: World needs “revolution” in mental health care – UN rights expert.

[...]

“I am calling on States to move away from traditional practices and thinking, and enable a long overdue shift to a rights-based approach. The status quo is simply unacceptable.”

He added: “Mental health policies and services are in crisis - not a crisis of chemical imbalances, but of power imbalances. We need bold political commitments, urgent policy responses and immediate remedial action.”

Mr. Pūras said there was a “grossly unmet” need for rights-based care and support. Progress was being hindered by huge power imbalances in the systems currently used in policymaking, service provision, medical education and research. Other major obstacles included the dominance of the biomedical model, with its overdependence on medication, and the “biased” use of evidence, which was contaminating knowledge about mental health.

[...]

@[email protected] You might like this article from the BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-northamptonshire-29016340 (Your comment reminded me about it).

The burden is on the person making the claim, not the person refuting it.

So the person reading the claim has the right to request proof before believing it, and they have the right to ignore the claim if proof isn't provided, as well as the right not to engage with the claimant at all.