Introduction
The article “Overdosed: A study giving ‘happy pills’ a clean bill of health is seriously that will be evaluated,” written by Angela Patmore, was published on March 24, 2018, in The Spectator. Patmore’s primary idea here is that the British tend to take antidepressants too much. Her claims are that the intakes have doubled recently due to harsh living conditions and that there is a necessity to find alternatives in this vein. She aims to deliver this necessity to an adult audience that is likely to take such drugs. The article has a significant extent of grounded arguments and evidence, reliability that results from the credible author and the source in which the content was published, which is accompanied by an academic style, optimistic tone, and appropriate rhetorical appeals throughout the narration.
Evidence and Counterevidence
The primary claim of the article being evaluated is that British society has become over-dependent on antidepressants. The author states, “One in six workers in England experiences ‘symptoms’ of mental illness, and around 300,000 people leave their jobs every year because of them” (Patmore, 2018, para. 1). Such a state of affairs serves as a considerable prerequisite for continuous intake of the related drugs.
The main points from this publication can be formulated in the following manner. First, the harsher the living conditions, the more antidepressants people take. This is evidenced not only by the British society’s experience but also by the international one (Patmore, 2018). Second, antidepressant intakes have doubled in the last decade, which is supported by the fact that many physicians do not see another way to deal with the issue (Patmore, 2018). Third, there are calls to rethink the approach to drug intake and biological explanations for mental diseases. She supports this argument with the claim, “the British Division of Clinical Psychology, part of the British Psychological Society, has called for a paradigm shift away from the ‘disease model’ of mental health” (Patmore, 2018, para. 11). The provided points serve as a foundation for the whole discussion that is presented in the article.
It should be noted that all the pieces of evidence in the publication are relevant as they refer to the topic and appeal to the current state of affairs within the scope of the problem. They are accurate as well because they contain concise claims with references to the authors. Credibility is present as well – the sources from which the arguments were taken are significant in the field. Hence, it might be assumed that in terms of evidence, the article does not seem to be inaccurate. However, a number of fallacies are present as well, which may reduce the overall persuasiveness of the author’s arguments.
In particular, the scholar tends to appeal to hasty generalization in the framework of several aspects. Patmore (2018) states, “doctors, at a loss for other solutions, dish them [antidepressants] out like candy” (para. 2). Then, she also claims that “we have become a nation of sad pill-poppers” (Patmore, 2018, para. 1). These are the only visible fallacies that were identified in the article, which cannot considerably diminish its overall significance, given that there are a few such expressions.
At this point, it may be relevant to present pieces of evidence that allow one to assess the material more critically. According to Patmore, the volumes in which antidepressants are prescribed today cause apparent harm to a patient’s health. It is claimed that among the reasons that lead to this is the patients’ willingness to go beyond physicians’ directions. However, Wouters et al. (2019) show that the majority of patients who take antidepressants tend to follow strict principles of the prescription. The counterevidence does not fully refute the argument but provides another perspective. Nevertheless, the numbers presented in the first article contradict the ones from the second, which makes the original argument less effective.
To summarize this section, it seems reasonable to stress that Patmore appeals to credible sources to support her rationale. Such an approach makes the content convincing and properly complex, visible from how the information is delivered. The author does not tend to over-rely on plain numbers but finds a balance between comprehendible facts and related statistics. The pieces of counterevidence do not undermine Patmore’s reasoning but rather show a different angle from which the material can be perceived. Moreover, the identified fallacies are not the publication’s weaknesses but rather tools that were used to strengthen the message, which will be discussed below.
Language Use
The author tends to make appropriate and advanced writing choices throughout the article. In particular, she significantly mixes appeal ethos, logos, and pathos in order to achieve the greatest extent of persuasiveness. Then, she seems to include all the necessary details related to the theme so that the required degree of validity can be ensured. For example, in her appeal to logos, “One in six workers in England experiences ‘symptoms’ of mental illness, and around 300,000 people leave their jobs every year because of them” (Patmore, 2018, para. 1), she provides background that demonstrates the severity of the issue using concise numbers. The language here is academic and precise; however, metaphoric expressions and loaded language such as “doctors … dish them [drugs] out like candy” are present to strengthen the message (Patmore, 2018, para. 2). Hence, the author makes appropriate writing choices that result in a smooth and coherent train of thought.
Then, the writing choices seem to be efficient, given that metaphors, rhetorical tools, and language are well-balanced and appeal to a proper type of evidence in the right places. The overall style of the article may be considered formal, with a small extent of interspersed informal expressions to strengthen the message. The publication’s tone seems to be optimistic, given that the author provides feasible suggestions for the identified issue. Thus, in terms of language use, Patmore demonstrates quite a proper system of rhetorical and linguistic instruments, which makes the article interesting to read.
Author’s Credibility
Patmore is a former “External Stress Expert consultant to the Met and successful Restart trainer for the long-term jobless” (“About the author,” 2013, para. 1). She is a “former International Fulbright Scholar (arts) and University of East Anglia research fellow (environmental sciences)” (Patmore, 2013, para. 1). Her work on intense emotions, which she refers to as “brain climaxes,” is ground-breaking. It should be noted that Patmore seems to have a creative worldview that is founded on her academic background in the field of psychology. She sees the world through the prism of the interactions between human beings, given that this is her primary specialization (“About the author,” 2013). Such a worldview positively affects her argument, as she knows the issue well and knows how to deliver the necessary ideas to a broad audience. Moreover, no evidence of bias in the article was identified – the author appeals to valid and relevant facts and statistics every time she formulates an argument.
Conclusion
To conclude, the above discussion was dedicated to the evaluation of Patmore’s article “Overdosed: A study giving ‘happy pills’ a clean bill of health is serious.” The latter was assessed in the framework of pieces of evidence, language use, and the author’s credibility. It was found that the publication meets the criteria of academic writing and may be considered significant in terms of the aspects listed.
References
About the author. (2013). Angela Patmore. Web.
Patmore, A. (2018). Overdosed: A study giving ‘happy pills’ a clean bill of health is seriously flawed. The Spectator. Web.
Wouters, H., Rhebergen, D., Vervloet, M., Egberts, A., Taxis, K., van Dijk, L., & Gardarsdottir, H. (2019). Distinct profiles on subjective and objective adherence measures in patients prescribed antidepressants. Drugs, 79(1), 647–654.