Why are antidepressants that need to be taken daily, have serious side effects and cause dependency so are difficult and unpleasant to stop taking, viewed preferentially to judicious and sparing use of benzodiazepines in specific circumstances that cause anxiety?
As an example, a relative of mine suffers from anxiety, particularly social anxiety, but generally manages well apart from the odd situation, eg family wedding, important work presentation etc. She was previously prescribed Valium to take when needed and has taken it very occasionally - average less than once per month.
At her recent appointment the GP (private, fwiw) tried to cajole her into taking antidepressants instead. My relative doesn’t want to take a medication daily for the odd day she needs extra support and the Valium with propranolol has worked very well for her. As far as she’s concerned, switching to an antidepressants would not be a positive move and I can see her point.
The GP did make out a new prescription but intimated it might be the last, even though she couldn’t provide any explanation as to why antidepressants would be the superior option. This has panicked my relative, who is now much more anxious! Just having the Valium and knowing she can take it if needed really helps and actually means she rarely takes it.
Somebody taking Valium once per month has no chance of getting addicted, so what’s the issue? Why is dependency on a prescription antidepressant with side effects such as metabolic issues preferable to occasional non-dependent use of benzodiazepines? How can it be? And why is the private GP suddenly cutting up rough about prescribing now?
It’s all been very unhelpful and unsettling, so any light you can shed would be gratefully received.