This isn't amazing. It is just a matter of priorities. There are many other things that need to be addressed first to ensure the patient gets onto the therapy they need. In my experience counselling people about interventions far more complex and risky than starting an anti-depressant, it is clear that 99% of people don't want a branching tree exploration of every eventuality. They get information fatigue very quickly. Ultimately, there needs to be some trust between doctor and patient for things to function in any real sense. This is why I personally loathe the word 'client' in lieu of patient - it recasts the relationship in harmful terms in my opinion, splitting the therapeutic alliance that should exist into some slightly adversarial union of compliance on the provider's part and due diligence on the client's part.
Well, information overload has never been an issue with my doctors - quite the opposite.
My doctor has no idea how the meds he prescribes me actually work. You talk of information overload, but my doctor provided no information about the meds, their effects, side effects or withdrawals. For one of the tricyclics he said "these will kill you if you take too many", but that has literally been the total information conveyed.
Regardless of information overload, doctors should at least understand the basic mechanics of how the drugs they prescribe actually work, and understand the body's mechanics of tolerance and withdrawal - and be capable of having a brief conversation about them with patients.
