Long-term effects of psychiatric drugs
Related Topics
gentleman1 ...@yahoo.com (Garfunkel)
What is a good way to ***ess the long-term effects of psychiatric drugs?
I am of the opinion that one of the best opportunities to see what happens when a person takes such drugs "long-term" is in a psychiatric hospital. Many patients in such hospitals have been taking psychiatric drugs for many years.
The people I have seen in psychiatric hospitals who take such drugs do not seem to be getting any better.
If their conditions that I observe are the result of long-term use of psychiatric drugs, then they certainly seem to be much worse than what most people are probably experiencing before the use of such drugs.
It is difficult for me to imagine that they would have experienced such brain damage if they had declined to use such drugs.
Are such patients suitable indicators of the long-term effects of such drugs? (I have also know patients who seemed pretty "normal" before the use of such drugs, but seemed to become quite debilitated after long-term use of such drugs. They seemed to be taking a wide variety of drugs to try to ameloriate the damage caused by other drugs that had been prescribed for them, such as Haldol. Once nearly "normal" people now seem to be "invalids" as a result of such drugs; people once in "normal" jobs are now standing in lines with the homeless, waiting for their next cup of warm liquid, their brains destroyed by psychiatric pharmaceuticals. Are these the benefits of modern drugs?) What do you think?
What have you observed?
"kc" kelly_marsops_NoS...@msn.com
...
agreed. for a very eye opening (and somewhat depressing) look at how schizophrenic patients are often mismanaged and mismedicated, i recommend reading "is there no place on earth for me", by Susan Sheehan..
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394713788/qid=10778635... one thing i was struck by throughout this book was that most of the patient's problems weren't due to over-medication or drug resistant schizophrenia, but to misdiagnoses and *under*medication.
it's a very interesting read.
-kelly
gentleman1 ...@yahoo.com (Garfunkel)
Then where would you suggest one look to observe the long-term effects of psychiatric medications? Nursing homes? Homeless shelters?
Halfway houses? Rescue missions?
I have encountered many who have benefited from modern antibiotics, from various immunization programs, and modern diagnostic equipment.
People praise their benfits.
On the other hand, most anyone I have ever met who has taken psychiatric medications prefers not to take them, and generally such people function much better when not taking them than when taking them. So I have always wondered, along with them, why they bother taking such drugs -- that don't make them better, generally.
Even reading in these Google posts there seems to be more damnation than praise for psychiatric drugs: more posts are complaining about medications than praising them.
Are they being used to abuse people in America? Is that their main purpose? Are they only to fatten the wallets of shareholders in pharmaceutical corporations?
"kc" kelly_marsops_NoS...@msn.com
how about asking your coworkers? friends? family? people at the mall?
not everyone on psychiatric meds is homeless or institutionalized. in fact, most of us have normal jobs, and (reletively) normal lives. i know a lot of people who are on psych meds, and most of us are doing pretty well.
perhaps you're asking the wrong people. i've met people who think they're better when off their meds. some of them may be right. and some are very wrong.
well obviously people who are unhappy are going to be more vocal than those who are fine.
oh dear, not another one of *those*. look. america is a free country. you don't want to function in society? fine don't take your meds. it's up to you. no one held me at gunpoint when i took my Effexor this morning. i did it because it helps me feel normal, it helps me get on with my life. if you don't want to take drugs, then by all means, DON'T TAKE THEM. it's pretty simple, really.
-kelly
"Hap Arnold" CinCUS...@ghq.army.mil
<>...
If you want a truly representative sample you have poll people at large. If you only survey people who aren't coping then you are only get to answers that show that psych-meds don't help you cope.
"methodology" is an important part of statistical research.
I would also prefer not to take an aspirin yet its effectiveness against pain is unquestioned.
Again, I would prefer not to take an antibiotic. I function much better without diarrhea that with, but the cost of treating the infection is partly to paid in the lives of intestinal bacteria that function in digestion. I take antibiotics because the side-effects are unavoidable, and the treatment is needed.
Comparing psych-meds to anti-biotics is apples and oranges. It is one thing to eliminate a 'foreign' infection of bacteria it is quite another to regulate a needed product within the body. There are also objective measures of success for treating infections-- either the temperature and white blood count are normal or they aren't, whereas the measure of success in treating psychiatric illness is usually not only one of preception on the part of the patient/subject but also one of perception of that perception by the doctor/observer.
The other problem you would have is that there are cl***es of medications that cannot have long term observations, because they haven't been extant long enough. These are not just refinements in manner that Cipro is a better Penicillin, but a change in targeted chemicals or processes.
This is another example of 'selection error'.
If you were depressed and were taking a medicine that worked perfectly for you would you be likely to be involved in mutual effort to refine your treatment?
Although you claim that psych-meds do not generally make people who take them better, you would need to examine what you mean by that. Although many people complain about their AD medications, many of the complaints refer to symptom relief being less effective than desired or to side effects that are not symptoms of depression. Certainly there are cases where the complaining party is alive to complain only because of the medication.
Finallly you need to define psychiatric medications more precisely.
Medications are used for treatment of personality disorders as well as mood disorders. Not only is this difference important, within each branch there are many different cl***es of medication with different axes of action.
--
E Sempre l'Ora
--
gentleman1 ...@yahoo.com (Garfunkel)
Well, Kelly, you may think "America is a free country". But where I live, in America, if a psychiatrist prescribes drugs for you, such as Depakote, and you don't take them, a police officer is soon knocking at your door, with a Temporary Detention Order to take you away from your home, handcuffed, in a police car. You then go to a hospital, where a friend of the psychiatrist pronounces you, "Unable to care for yourself" (because if you WERE able to "care for yourself" you would follow the psychiatrist's orders, in the mind of the psychiatrist, who generally thinks his "wrong 80% of the time" diagnosis is RIGHT for you), and you are then placed in a psychiatric hospital. Once in the psychiatric hospital, the psychiatrist declares you "unable to care for yourself" to the magistrate every time your case comes up for appeal. So you remain hospitalized as long as your insurance company agrees to pay for your care, based on the statements provided to the insurance company by the psychiatrist overseeing your care.
So finally you are forced to take psychiatric drugs, against your will, just so you can leave the hospital (and their $700/day charges, half of which are paid by the insurance company). You have been there for for over 40 days, over $10,000 in charges of your insurance "co-pay".
Do you call this "freedom"?
I call it a form of "police state", wherein the "police" are mental health professionals. They have what seems to me to be an inappropriate amount of influence in our society. George Orwell would be proud, for their power seems to provide some support to ideas found in his novel, "1984".
Heck, one psychiatrist told me, "Since I based your hospitalization on my belief that you needed to take Depakote, I cannot change my mind now that you are not hospitalized. It would look bad in the eyes of the insurance company!" Well, I have not taken Depakote, nor any other psychiatric drug, for over 3 years, and have not had any sort of psychiatric problem. Even though I have been locked in psychiatric wards for over 6 weeks in the past 5 years, I grow ever more confident that psychiatric diagnoses are quite often "full of sh*t".
gentleman1 ...@yahoo.com (Garfunkel)
Yes, but I furthermore feel that humans should be allowed to decide which chemicals they care to put in their bodies. Such a decision should NOT be one for a psychiatrist to make! ("Oh, it seems you have developed tardive dyskinesia because of the Haldol I prescribed. I'm so sorry you decided to follow my prescription orders. I hope that you won't mind living with tardive dyskinesia for the rest of your life." -- And no one really knows the long-term effects of drugs such as Prozac, Zyprexa, Paxil, Depakote, Risperdal, etc., for they are relatively new to the marketplace. But if the history of other psychiatric drugs is of any value, one can readily see that the "wonder drugs" of the past are now the "horror drugs" of today (e.g., thorazine, or the old dosages for haloperidol). It seems to me ridiculous to think that today's drugs will be held in any better esteem by those patients and doctors 20 years in the future, in 2024.
I think people should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding the use of psychiatric medications.
I think it is wrong for psychiatrists to impose their diagnoses, incorrect approximately 80% of the time, on patients and their families. I recommend the death penalty for such psychiatrists!
Somehow they must be held accountable for their irresponsible actions!
Somehow that group of individuals must come to realize that people who happen to find themselves in their offices should be allowed to make decisions for themselves -- to include the continuation or cessation of such office visits.
Psychiatrists should no more try to decide to force to take drugs people who enter their offices than family practice physicians force elderly patients to take flu shots. Have you ever heard of police apprehending an elderly person who refused to get a flu shot?
Let's try to get some uniformity, and individual freedom, incorporated into medical practices, to include psychiatric practices!
gentleman1 ...@yahoo.com (Garfunkel)
What is your office symbol in the Army? Is "ghq" supposed to be some Pentagon address?
"Hap Arnold" CinCUS...@ghq.army.mil
GHQ went out of business during my lifetime.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/hharnold.htm The Army Air Forces operated under GHQ before the pentagon was built.
As established in 1935, the GHQ (General Headquarters) Air Force was expected to commence battle before friendly ground armies made contact with invasion forces, but when the surface battle was joined all aviation-including long-range bombers-would support the friendly ground armies. Air Corps bomber, pursuit, and attack groups were ***igned to the GHQ Air Force rather than to separate bomber, fighter, and army-cooperation commands.
--
E Sempre l'Ora
--
...
<>...
"kc" kelly_marsops_NoS...@msn.com
if you have no psychiatric problems, why were you locked up? what was your behavior like? if there's nothing wrong with you mentally, i can only ***ume you were acting out or otherwise behaving inappropriately for the police to lock you up.
where i live, one does not get locked up for choosing their medication options. one gets locked up for behaving in an inappropriate way.
-kelly
"kc" kelly_marsops_NoS...@msn.com
and most of us do just this.
i trust my psychiatrist to make medication recommendations because she's been to a hell of a lot more school than i have, and she sees many patients and attends continuous seminars and cl***es to keep up on the new meds. of course, she also take my concerns and recommendations into consideration.
if she did not, i would seek another doctor.
in the united states, people are allowed to make their own decisions.
unless they've been mandated mental health care because they're dangerous to others, themselves, or they're criminals.
which are you again?
i'd like to see documentation of this 80% you speak of.
>I recommend the death penalty for such psychiatrists!
oh dear. and you say you don't have any need for medications. i think i must disagree. wishing death on people for helping others is hardly rational.
we already have the right to do that. except criminals, of course. what crime did you commit?
i get the feeling that you might be somewhat paranoid. perhaps you have some delusions of persecution. have you considered medication for your condition?
-kelly
"jake" inva...@invalid.com
so exactly WHAT were you saying about distorting peoples words?
causing umneccessary deaths..disfigurement..and ruining peoples lives whether due to greed.. incompetence or blind ***ertion of State authority and social control is NOT "helping people"..
is it?
you are ignorant ..deluded and abusive..
have you considered you are an obnoxious foolish and abusive troll that endangers others mental and physical health with your nonsense??
--
"Who does Not Know the Truth, is simply a Fool...
Yet who Knows the Truth and Calls it a Lie, is a Criminal."
- In "Galileo Galilei" by Berthold Brecht (1898-1956)
"jake" inva...@invalid.com
Dream on..
do you know ANYTHING about current mental health legislation?
It would appear not..
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/issues/mental_health_index.htm Cognitive Liberty & Mental Health What exactly is "mental health" and who gets to decide whether or not your mind is healthy? Certainly, if a person's conduct is a danger to others, the State ought to intervene. But, history shows that various mental health labels have been exploited by the State for political purposes, and that people have been (and continue to be) subjected to "mental health" treatment against their will, although they pose no danger to others. Such State actions raise deep concerns, and ought to be recognized as human rights violations that are unconstitutional violations of the fundamental right to cognitive liberty and autonomy.
"kc" kelly_marsops_NoS...@msn.com
actually, yes i do. in *my* locale. i don't pretend to know anything about other places. which is why i said, "where i live".
that's all well and good, but who is "the state" they keep talking about?
here's what my state gov't has to say about involuntary commitment.
http://www1.dshs.wa.gov/Mentalhealth/mentalaw.htm Essentially, our law states that involuntary treatment can occur only when a mental illness exists and danger to life exists. The most important word in that definition is the word "and." Only when both situations exist - the mental illness and the danger - can freedom be taken away. "Danger" includes attempts, threats, or fear of suicide, violent acts, or such poor self-care that life is at risk. The law also allows for detention if a person with mental illness destroys property of substantial value i'm familiar with how difficult it is to get someone committed in my state, because i used to have a schizophrenic room mate. this in itself wasn't so bad, when he was on his meds. when he went off them, he became violent and abusive. i called the police repeatedly when he destroyed my property and threatened my person. and they couldn't even enforce an evection, because he had "established residence". let alone take him to a hospital. it was my word against his, and his was apparently as good as mine. shitty situation for me, good situation for mental health rights in this state.
-kelly
gentleman1 ...@yahoo.com (Garfunkel)
The doctors never really said why I was locked up, except for my willingness to believe various books, cl***ified as "non-fiction", concerning possible UFO and alien-abduction events. Books such as those by Whitley Strieber and Ret. U.S. Army Colonel Philip Corso.
Is it "strange" behaviour for someone to drive himself to his office for an 8-hour work day, put in the 8 hours, drive to his hair stylist for a haircut, get the haircut, come home, change clothes and take a bicycle ride in a nearby park, return home, cook dinner and begin to watch the evening news on TV?
That's when I heard the knock at the door : two police officers, with handcuffs, taking me away because my psychiatrist believed I wasn't taking the Depakote he prescribed.
Now tell me about this "free society" in which we live, in which people are allowed to make their own decisions regarding the use or non-use of psychiatric medications!
Psy-docs will do whatever they can to keep a person "in the system", as a paying customer! They need people who can help pay for the growing numbers in their professions!
Sigmund Freud would be proud! I'll bet there are many more dollars funneled toward mental health care, even adjusted for inflation, than there ever were at any time in human history. I doubt that most communities of 250,000 population or less had many psychiatrists before Freud's time. Now their numbers are growing, and they need to declare people "mentally ill" in order to obtain a source of funding through the insurance companies.
I just read today a Medscape article on the cost of bipolar disorder.
It said nothing about whether or not the patients being declared "bipolar" are, in fact, "bipolar". It just talked about how much it costs to care for them!
I certainly understand the article : If people without bipolar disorder are being declared to have bipolar disorder, and then they are being held in psychiatric hospitals for 6 weeks where their diagnosis is "confirmed" because they are telling the psychiatrists on staff what "f*cking as*holes" they are for confining people who are fully capable of returning to work, then naturally their is considerable expense to society. It is similar to the expense to society if plastic surgeons were to declare everyone over 60 as being in need of a face lift! Doctors can use their diagnoses to declare a society as being in need of their services! (Kinda like the way McLean Hospital in M***achusetts declared "hippies" of the 1970s as being "mentally ill" because of their attraction to the hippie lifestyle.)
lindaglasve ...@aol.comnojunk (Linda)
See: The Shadow DSM: Diagnosing the Diagnosticians http://fireflysun.com/book/shadowdsm.php PS: Do the words quoted as those of a reader in the intro to "In a Nutshell".
sound like something someone you know might have said.:) Linda There's a lone soldier on the cross, smoke pourin' out of a boxcar door, You didn't know it, you didn't think it could be done, in the final end he won the wars After losin' every battle.
---Bob Dylan Idiot Wind
"jake" inva...@invalid.com
=============== "In a Nutshell A reader wrote me with the following comment: "Encountering these psychologists and psyd's trolling usenet incited me to suspect those who become psychoT's and psyd's might have even bigger psych problems then the majority of their clients have." ========== I guess this does have a familiar ring about it!
:>))
"kc" kelly_marsops_NoS...@msn.com
and you never expressed any threats of violence to yourself or others?
where do you live that this was legal? where do you live that police would arrest someone for not taking depakote, when no violence or threat of violence was involved?
-kelly
"kc" kelly_marsops_NoS...@msn.com
and i believe this place would be better if people didn't take a single isolated event (and yes it sounds like a horrible and unfair experience, but it's hardly the norm) and use it to try to push their potentially dangerous anti-medication agenda.
some people do very well on medications. most of us sought psychiatric treatment of our own free will, and would like to discuss the real effects of our medications, without being flooded with posts about how terrible we are for trusting our doctors or taking medications.
i'm sorry if some folks have had bad docs. the easy solution would be to seek a second opinion. of course, this wasn't possible in "garfunkel's" case. but that doesn't mean the advice doesn't stand for the vast majority of readers here.
-kelly
| To Top |