Re: He's dead, Jim.
I fully agree with the science, that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance, and is in fact a medical condition. My question is, is there science out there that can tell us what causes that chemical imbalance? Is it 100% genetic? Is it genetic in some cases, and caused by another driver in others? I ask because I don't know, and it is something that I'd like to know. The reason I bring it up is because there seems to me to be a higher rate of depression in people that have had some kind of life-changing event, or series of events. Poor child hood, loss of a parent, accident,etc. I'm wondering if it is known that these life events can impact the chemicals in the brain, or if any correlation between the 2 is either purely coincidental or non-existent.
These are excellent questions which, not being a psychiatrist, geneticist, or neurologist, I can't answer with any authority. So, this being the internet, I'll guess. My impressions, from reading and what little interaction I've had with the former, are:
1) It is varied and complicated terrain. There are few "always" or "all" statements with mental illness, or even more focused areas such as anxiety or depression, because those terms cover hugely varied conditions that happen to manifest in symptoms that people think of as "crazy," "anxious," or "depressed."
2) It's still early days with the science. The first methodical explorations of these issues were around 1890, so we're really only talking about 125 years of work. We're still struggling to achieve an understanding of most brain functions, without which it's hard to define dysfunction.
3) There is a nearly universal consensus that trauma correlates with these illnesses. The jury's out on whether that's because there's true causation -- i.e., the experience of trauma actually rewires pathways in the brain -- or that it's a matter of exacerbating existing tendencies that are physiological, perhaps with some genetic component.
This article seems like a good 10,000 foot view.
The things we do know are:
1) It's not God's will. Or in any case, when it comes to the rigorous scientific analysis that many of us associate with empirical reality, the type of person who answers any question as "it's God's will" has left the building.
2) It's not "character." Hard-working, level-headed, no-nonsense people suffer from all these conditions. It's not "the artistic temperament" or "hysteria" or "a spiritual deficiency" or any of the other variations on that theme.
3) It's not a choice. People fight these diseases just as they would cancer. Nobody suggests people choose to get cancer -- it is equally idiotic to assign that sort of agency to these diseases.