Your Spouse Started Antidepressants and Became a Stranger

[80zephyr]

This is strange/scary as hell. I know a few young women from this area who have simply picked up and left their husband, kids, and home. I wonder if these

medications had anything to do with it?

“I don’t know who this person is anymore,” James told me, his voice cracking as he described his wife of fifteen years. “She started Zoloft eight months ago for some mild anxiety about work. Now she’s rewritten our entire history together. According to her new narrative, I’ve been emotionally abusive for years. She’s filed for divorce, moved in with some guy she met at a yoga retreat, and told our kids that daddy was never really there for them.”

He paused, searching for words. “The strangest part? She seems completely unbothered by destroying our family. It’s like she’s watching it happen from outside her own body.”

Welcome to the SSRI marriage apocalypse: a phenomenon so widespread that entire online communities have formed to support its casualties. Spouses gathering in digital refugee camps, comparing notes about partners who transformed into unrecognizable strangers after starting antidepressants. The stories are eerily similar: personality changes, moral compass spinning wildly, empathy evaporating, sexual connection obliterated, and a strange, detached willingness to torch everything they once held sacred.

But here’s what makes my blood boil: The mental health establishment celebrates these relationship demolitions as therapeutic breakthroughs. “The medication lifted their mood enough to finally leave that toxic relationship!” they’ll proclaim, completely ignoring that the “toxicity” might be a drug-induced fabrication. This is my fundamental criticism of the therapy industry: therapists attach to their client’s inner world as if it’s absolute fact, unquestionable truth.

Even without SSRIs, people alter reality and create stories to cope with pain. But add psychiatric drugs to the mix, and you’ve got modern therapists providing unfettered validation to chemically distorted narratives, rarely approaching cases with empirical scrutiny. They jump right on the victim mindset, and in many cases, actively create it. “Yes, you were trapped in an abusive marriage!” they’ll affirm to someone whose brain chemistry has been so altered they couldn’t recognize genuine love if it slapped them in the face.

Rest at link.

https://brownstone.org/articles/your-spouse-started-antidepressants-and-became-a-stranger/

Mark

[Celeste Chalfonte]

The first thing that everyone from advice columnists to psychiatrists themselves will tell you is that if a person has an abrupt personality change, they need a complete physical to determine if something physiological is out of balance. Drugs, even generally very beneficial ones, affect different people differently. Unless a new patient is in immediate danger of harming his/herself or others, a good therapist will take the time to develop a broad psychological history (something done over the course of weeks, if not months - definitely not after one session) before introducing medications that can alter perception.

Also, a prudent therapist, before concluding that the patient is a victim and the other family members (or, in the cases I most often see, the boss/coworkers) are "abusive," reviews prior medical records and sometimes even interviews the significant other(s), without violating the primary patient's confidence. A good therapist helps the patient examine her/his beliefs about other people, rather than just accepting an emotional description of their behavior.

The problem is that, as with any other profession, there are good and bad practitioners in this field, and the potential for damage by a bad one is great. OTOH, the patient herself (in the situation you quoted) bears some responsibility. I went to a therapist to get help coping with all the death in both my professional and social milieu during the worst of the AIDS epidemic. If she had tried to convince me that I needed powerful psychiatric drugs or that my family of origin had been abusive, I would have found a better therapist.

[scott]

The first thing that everyone from advice columnists to psychiatrists themselves will tell you is that if a person has an abrupt personality change, they need a complete physical to determine if something physiological is out of balance. Drugs, even generally very beneficial ones, affect different people differently. Unless a new patient is in immediate danger of harming his/herself or others, a good therapist will take the time to develop a broad psychological history (something done over the course of weeks, if not months - definitely not after one session) before introducing medications that can alter perception.

Also, a prudent therapist, before concluding that the patient is a victim and the other family members (or, in the cases I most often see, the boss/coworkers) are "abusive," reviews prior medical records and sometimes even interviews the significant other(s), without violating the primary patient's confidence. A good therapist helps the patient examine her/his beliefs about other people, rather than just accepting an emotional description of their behavior.

The problem is that, as with any other profession, there are good and bad practitioners in this field, and the potential for damage by a bad one is great. OTOH, the patient herself (in the situation you quoted) bears some responsibility. I went to a therapist to get help coping with all the death in both my professional and social milieu during the worst of the AIDS epidemic. If she had tried to convince me that I needed powerful psychiatric drugs or that my family of origin had been abusive, I would have found a better therapist.

The reason the patient isn't doing that is because she's getting fawning validation - which is good for business.

[phillygirl]

The reason the patient isn't doing that is because she's getting fawning validation - which is good for business.

I've always respected the therapist that has told my clients "you don't need me anymore". It's a rarity. And I've been shocked by the people that have been in therapy for decades (people that aren't obvious psychopaths, etc.). I have no issue with people going back to therapy for check ins, or a new life situation that has brought about stressors, etc. But at some point you've got to be able to live life without a therapist.

I've never been to one voluntarily (heh!). I was forced to see one during my parents' divorce. The therapist refused to see me after the second session (once was by myself, once with the whole family) because both times, at 14, I publicly embarrassed and emasculated him by showing him and everyone else in the room how dumb he was. I did have a bit of an edge to me back then. While I generally see therapy as a good idea, I don't trust their ethics on confidentiality, so I'd never go to one now! (paranoid much?)

[Frostbit]

I've always respected the therapist that has told my clients "you don't need me anymore". It's a rarity. And I've been shocked by the people that have been in therapy for decades (people that aren't obvious psychopaths, etc.). I have no issue with people going back to therapy for check ins, or a new life situation that has brought about stressors, etc. But at some point you've got to be able to live life without a therapist.

I've never been to one voluntarily (heh!). I was forced to see one during my parents' divorce. The therapist refused to see me after the second session (once was by myself, once with the whole family) because both times, at 14, I publicly embarrassed and emasculated him by showing him and everyone else in the room how dumb he was. I did have a bit of an edge to me back then. While I generally see therapy as a good idea, I don't trust their ethics on confidentiality, so I'd never go to one now! (paranoid much?)

Plus who knows how red flag laws governing the ownership of firearms may have a bad affect.

[scott]

Plus who knows how red flag laws governing the ownership of firearms may have a bad affect.

True, which I why I've never supported them and saw them as the Trojan Horses they are.

[scott]

A compromise on red-flag laws would be universal concealed carry reciprocity or nationwide Constitutional Carry and mandatory enforcement of gun laws.

[phillygirl]

I'm sure I've told this story before. I had a client whose wife filed an emergency Protection From Abuse Petition against him. It was merely so she could clean out the house unimpeded and move to Maryland. She did not follow through with a final petition and therefore everything was dismissed. As part of the emergency ex parte Order, they took all his guns. I told him to be patient and not ask for them back immediately. He did as I suggested and waited until we worked through the divorce (I'm not a big fan of people having guns during a divorce action...better safe than sorry, so if there is ever an issue I will ask them to voluntarily turn the guns over to a trusted family member so that nobody grabs one in a moment of anger/weakness/stupidity, so telling him to let them be until the case was over was prudent, in general and strategic since there was one filing alleging abuse, even if it wasn't true). We included in the agreement that she consented to the return of his guns. She filed an additional affidavit when I petitioned to have them returned, again indicating that she had no objection to him getting them back. I called the Sheriff and asked for a certified criminal background check on my client, which he did for me as a favor, and my guy was clean going back at least 13 years. The morning of my hearing the District Attorney's Office lodged an objection to returning the guns until they could do a criminal background check, which they said would take 6 months.

Now, we have no Plaintiff, no Protection from Abuse Order, no marriage, no outstanding issues that would indicate a potential threat, no minor children. And yet the State is now stepping in to try to avoid releasing private property (guns) to their lawful owner. There was no Order that prohibited him from purchasing new guns, just the one week valid temporary Order that allowed the State to take them in the first place.

At the time of the hearing Charlton Heston was head of the NRA. The judge wasn't a huge fan of guns, but knew me well. I told that judge that if she granted the continuance I would personally subpoena Mr. Heston to appear to testify and we would file constitutional claims against the District Attorney's Office. The judge smiled and said as much as she has always enjoyed Mr. Heston's movies, she didn't want to bother him and therefore my client's petition was granted.

Such a shame to have to jump through those hoops.

[80zephyr]

I'm sure I've told this story before. I had a client whose wife filed an emergency Protection From Abuse Petition against him. It was merely so she could clean out the house unimpeded and move to Maryland. She did not follow through with a final petition and therefore everything was dismissed. As part of the emergency ex parte Order, they took all his guns. I told him to be patient and not ask for them back immediately. He did as I suggested and waited until we worked through the divorce (I'm not a big fan of people having guns during a divorce action...better safe than sorry, so if there is ever an issue I will ask them to voluntarily turn the guns over to a trusted family member so that nobody grabs one in a moment of anger/weakness/stupidity, so telling him to let them be until the case was over was prudent, in general and strategic since there was one filing alleging abuse, even if it wasn't true). We included in the agreement that she consented to the return of his guns. She filed an additional affidavit when I petitioned to have them returned, again indicating that she had no objection to him getting them back. I called the Sheriff and asked for a certified criminal background check on my client, which he did for me as a favor, and my guy was clean going back at least 13 years. The morning of my hearing the District Attorney's Office lodged an objection to returning the guns until they could do a criminal background check, which they said would take 6 months.

Now, we have no Plaintiff, no Protection from Abuse Order, no marriage, no outstanding issues that would indicate a potential threat, no minor children. And yet the State is now stepping in to try to avoid releasing private property (guns) to their lawful owner. There was no Order that prohibited him from purchasing new guns, just the one week valid temporary Order that allowed the State to take them in the first place.

At the time of the hearing Charlton Heston was head of the NRA. The judge wasn't a huge fan of guns, but knew me well. I told that judge that if she granted the continuance I would personally subpoena Mr. Heston to appear to testify and we would file constitutional claims against the District Attorney's Office. The judge smiled and said as much as she has always enjoyed Mr. Heston's movies, she didn't want to bother him and therefore my client's petition was granted.

Such a shame to have to jump through those hoops.

Good for you!!

Mark

[Frostbit]

I'm sure I've told this story before. I had a client whose wife filed an emergency Protection From Abuse Petition against him. It was merely so she could clean out the house unimpeded and move to Maryland. She did not follow through with a final petition and therefore everything was dismissed. As part of the emergency ex parte Order, they took all his guns. I told him to be patient and not ask for them back immediately. He did as I suggested and waited until we worked through the divorce (I'm not a big fan of people having guns during a divorce action...better safe than sorry, so if there is ever an issue I will ask them to voluntarily turn the guns over to a trusted family member so that nobody grabs one in a moment of anger/weakness/stupidity, so telling him to let them be until the case was over was prudent, in general and strategic since there was one filing alleging abuse, even if it wasn't true). We included in the agreement that she consented to the return of his guns. She filed an additional affidavit when I petitioned to have them returned, again indicating that she had no objection to him getting them back. I called the Sheriff and asked for a certified criminal background check on my client, which he did for me as a favor, and my guy was clean going back at least 13 years. The morning of my hearing the District Attorney's Office lodged an objection to returning the guns until they could do a criminal background check, which they said would take 6 months.

Now, we have no Plaintiff, no Protection from Abuse Order, no marriage, no outstanding issues that would indicate a potential threat, no minor children. And yet the State is now stepping in to try to avoid releasing private property (guns) to their lawful owner. There was no Order that prohibited him from purchasing new guns, just the one week valid temporary Order that allowed the State to take them in the first place.

At the time of the hearing Charlton Heston was head of the NRA. The judge wasn't a huge fan of guns, but knew me well. I told that judge that if she granted the continuance I would personally subpoena Mr. Heston to appear to testify and we would file constitutional claims against the District Attorney's Office. The judge smiled and said as much as she has always enjoyed Mr. Heston's movies, she didn't want to bother him and therefore my client's petition was granted.

Such a shame to have to jump through those hoops.

We were describing you to our Estate Attorney on Tuesday. Wish I had this story on hand.

[phillygirl]

I hope you were describing me so she could fill me in as beneficiary.