New Roommate Hides Medication Without Consent And Can’t Believe She Was Evicted

Living with a flatmate usually requires a basic level of trust. You share space, routines, and often rely on each other to respect boundaries that are never formally written down. When that trust is shaken, even small things can suddenly feel unsafe.

That is what happened to this renter after welcoming someone new into her home. At first, the arrangement seemed workable, even pleasant, despite some lifestyle differences.

But subtle disruptions started piling up, especially around something deeply personal and medically necessary.

It’s one thing to experience tension with a new flatmate over chores or fridge space. It’s quite another when someone starts moving your prescribed medication, especially one that’s central to your daily functioning.

In this story, a flatmate repeatedly relocated the OP’s antidepressants, offered dubious explanations, and ultimately admitted to hiding them to “wean” the OP off them. That behavior was more than annoying, it was unsafe, invasive, and medically risky.

Medication adherence, meaning taking medicines exactly as prescribed, is a cornerstone of effective treatment for depressive disorders.

Research shows that even under ordinary circumstances, a substantial portion of patients struggle with adherence, with early discontinuation or irregular use common without proper support.

In the context of depression, stigma and misconceptions about psychiatric medication are well-documented barriers: people who internalize negative beliefs about antidepressants are more likely to stop taking them or to conceal their use from others.

The flatmate’s rationale, framing antidepressants as “poison”, mirrors some real-world stereotypes that contribute to non-adherence, but the difference here is she didn’t persuade the OP, she covertly interfered with a prescribed medical regimen.

The risks of abrupt or unsupervised discontinuation aren’t just theoretical.

Clinical literature identifies antidepressant discontinuation syndrome, a cluster of symptoms that may include emotional instability, irritability, and physical discomfort when treatment stops suddenly.

Gradual tapering under a doctor’s direction is the recommended course when someone wishes to change or stop medication.

Without that guidance, missing doses for days, as the OP experienced, carries not only discomfort but a genuine risk of relapse or symptom worsening.

It’s also important to distinguish intent from effect. Some people in public discourse suggest that antidepressants aren’t necessary long term or even encourage cessation, particularly in a setting where they want to champion alternative lifestyles or dismiss psychiatric medicine.

But that debate is between patient and healthcare provider, not a housemate. Whether or not one agrees with psychiatric medicine, interference in another person’s treatment is not only unethical but, in many jurisdictions, could be legally actionable.

From a broader social perspective, this case illustrates how pervasive misconceptions about mental health and medication can affect real relationships. Stigma isn’t only an internalized belief; it can become interpersonal interference.

Research consistently finds that stigma, both internal and external, is linked to higher rates of treatment non-adherence among people with mental health conditions.

In a healthy support network, friends and housemates acknowledge boundaries and respect treatment plans rather than assuming authority over them.

A neutral and constructive path forward for the OP is clear: she acted in a way that protected her health and autonomy.

Asking the flatmate to leave was not excessively punitive, given the repeated and intrusive nature of the behavior.

Going forward, she might consider articulating clear boundaries about personal space and personal health matters early in any future roommate discussions.

Healthy communication is key, but so is protecting one’s own mental well-being.

At its core, this story underscores that medication decisions belong to the individual and their healthcare team, not to well-meaning but uninformed others.

Interfering with someone’s treatment, even out of concern, crosses a boundary that can jeopardize mental health and trust. The OP’s decision to remove the flatmate was ultimately about safety and self-respect, not pettiness.

Here’s the feedback from the Reddit community:

These commenters focused on the severity of the act itself. They argued that touching someone else’s prescribed medication is never acceptable under any circumstance.

This group highlighted manipulation and gaslighting. They emphasized that the roommate had no medical authority and no consent to interfere.

These Redditors framed the situation as a narrow escape. They pointed out how lucky the OP was to discover the interference early during the trial period.

Offering a more practical angle, this commenter still ruled NTA but advised tighter safeguards going forward.

Less sympathetic but still aligned, these users questioned why the OP even needed validation.

This situation goes far beyond a roommate disagreement and lands squarely in personal safety territory. The OP didn’t react out of spite or impatience.

They acted after repeated boundary violations that directly affected their health and stability. Feeling guilty is understandable, especially when someone else ends up struggling, but intent matters less than impact here.

Was drawing the line and ending the trial the only reasonable move, or should more grace have been shown? Where would you place responsibility in this mess? Share your take below.