»Use of drugs in psychiatry«
|
|||
 What the hell is the point of this thread? A man who isn't suffering from mental illness takes a dose of a drug which is apparently 'similar' to the "widely used drug haloperidol". (I have never heard of this drug so which people use it?) We are later told that it is a "neuroleptic" drug, but what on earth does neuroleptic mean? How on earth can you have an argument about whether this is good evidence or not when it is not obvious what it is attempting to prove? If you want to know what happens to a healthy person who takes this drug, I would say that the testimony of such a person after the drug has worn off would be excellent evidence. *shrugs* posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsPsychiatry and Anti-PsychiatryUse of drugs in psychiatry |
|
|||
|
The ONEder Man: and holy, you don't think if someone drops 300 hits of acid they are not going to cause some damage and change their brain chemistry a bit, but only bring about a dormant mental illness? i would beg to differ No but I would say that that degree of substance abuse might indicate a disorder (namely, the tendency toward substance abuse) which was wired into the brain by genes or early experience. The brain chemistry might change temporarily, but not permanently. A permanent change in total-brain chemistry (short of damage to the actual brain itself) by a substance is unthinkable. Now you can overdose on drugs and get brain damage as a result, that's for sure. But that's trauma and not illness. posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 holy_of_holies: The brain chemistry might change temporarily, but not permanently proof? and the same proof that you are going to give me links to are the same type you are trying to debunk in this very thread... scientists who have not had the experience, yet are convinced they know 
posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
The ONEder Man: holy_of_holies: The brain chemistry might change temporarily, but not permanently proof? and the same proof that you are going to give me links to are the same type you are trying to debunk in this very thread... scientists who have not had the experience, yet are convinced they know Well then it's just common sense...you probably know that there are side-effects of some antipsychotics that manifest as Parkinson's-like symptoms (tardive dyskinesia). These can become permanent...however, even if a person went into full Parkinson's disease (impossible unless it were already present) from taking an antipsychotic, this would not be a mental illness, but a neurologic one. I don't know of a single instance where it has been proven that the psyche can be made ill by a substance once the presence of the substance and/or the dependence thereon have gone away. There used to be a lot of hype about LSD and "persistent psychosis", but I've never seen any proof of it. posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
holy_of_holies: Well then it's just common sense no it's their best guess, as with most issues of the brain. to totally dismiss drug abuse as not being a cause or precurser to mental illness is to me, not possibly looking at the whole picture and like you said earlier, this comes down to experience. and just as you believe your experience contradicted the first post, i believe mine contradicts yours posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
holy_of_holies: I'm not going to look up your references for you, tozy...if I don't see it in front of me, I'm not going to go search for it...what am I, your secretary? Always a pleasure talking to you, too... How about you don't do it for me, but for yourself,... so that you know what you are talking about in regard to this man...? holy_of_holies: Unless he is mentally ill, he has no idea of what being mentally ill is like. Therefore he is not an expert on the experience of mental illness. Psychiatrists are trained to identify the outward symptoms of illness, not to experience it themselves. This guy is a fringe weirdo who thinks he knows what people like me go through because he had a bad reaction to a psychotropic at one point. Oh,… I was not aware that to be an expert in Psychiatry, you have to be mentally ill yourself? I thought that psychological expertise is based on study, research, data, experience with patients etc. So, even though this Professor of Clinical Psychology claims that…. My approach is grounded in a lot of experimental research. That is why, although I've tried hard to make my book readable to the non-specialist, the reference section is over 100 pages long. …he is just a weirdo, but not an expert? holy_of_holies: And he now has blood on his hands, because sick people who do not take the medication they require often make that choice at the advice of quacks like him You sure you did read the whole thing, not just the first few lines? About 40 per cent of patients have the same experience. That's the great unasked question of psychiatry: what was it like for you? Patients' experiences have been completely ignored.
(...) There's no doubt these drugs help some people by reducing the hallucinations and delusions. But there are really important caveats. First, something like 30 per cent of patients get benefits from the drugs - and we don't know which ones they will be. (...) I'm not saying drugs never work. If you talk to patients, some will tell you that drugs are a lifesaver and others that drugs have made their lives worse. Quite a few patients now on drugs would be better off without. Perhaps the best thing is to encourage patients to try them and let them decide. fatpie42: What the hell is the point of this thread? (...) If you want to know what happens to a healthy person who takes this drug, I would say that the testimony of such a person after the drug has worn off would be excellent evidence. How about a professor in this field, who does a lot of research and collecting data, decided to experience for himself the effect/side effect a particular drug can have on people to complete his knowledge with this experience. This test was not a stand-alone thing; rather this guy has synchronized his experiences with those made by patients. I thought this man's opinion might be an interesting aspect to the drugs or no drugs for mentally ill people-discussion in the "The Schizophrenic Brain"-thread. knn, I guess, made it a seperate thread. posted by tozy |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
tozy: holy_of_holies: Unless he is mentally ill, he has no idea of what being mentally ill is like. Therefore he is not an expert on the experience of mental illness. Psychiatrists are trained to identify the outward symptoms of illness, not to experience it themselves. This guy is a fringe weirdo who thinks he knows what people like me go through because he had a bad reaction to a psychotropic at one point. Oh,… I was not aware that to be an expert in Psychiatry, you have to be mentally ill yourself? I thought that psychological expertise is based on study, research, data, experience with patients etc. You are definitely misrepresenting what I said...read it again (though you may need to get out your English primer to understand it...) tozy: So, even though this Professor of Clinical Psychology claims that…. My approach is grounded in a lot of experimental research. That is why, although I've tried hard to make my book readable to the non-specialist, the reference section is over 100 pages long. …he is just a weirdo, but not an expert? Yes because he makes wild claims in interviews - never a good place to report your findings - and does not support them with references. That is weird. tozy: holy_of_holies: And he now has blood on his hands, because sick people who do not take the medication they require often make that choice at the advice of quacks like him You sure you did read the whole thing, not just the first few lines? About 40 per cent of patients have the same experience. That's the great unasked question of psychiatry: what was it like for you? Patients' experiences have been completely ignored.
(...) There's no doubt these drugs help some people by reducing the hallucinations and delusions. But there are really important caveats. First, something like 30 per cent of patients get benefits from the drugs - and we don't know which ones they will be. (...) I'm not saying drugs never work. If you talk to patients, some will tell you that drugs are a lifesaver and others that drugs have made their lives worse. Quite a few patients now on drugs would be better off without. Perhaps the best thing is to encourage patients to try them and let them decide. Many mentally ill people are not able to self-diagnose because there is so much societal stigma attached to mental illness (which tozy and knn are contributing to by their posts in this thread). That is, some people are unable to admit to themselves that they have problems, and it takes a trained professional to point out which behaviors are indicative of a problem. posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Allow me to contribute to the subject of this thread: When I was first hospitalized, it was right after college, I was unemployed, and my parents had cancelled my insurance in an attempt to force me to get a job...So I got arrested for a traffic offense and put in the worst hospital in town, the one where they put "indigent" patients, meaning patients who cannot afford to pay for treatment. I was pretty angry and hostile, but by no means was I out of control. But within a few days of being put in there, I had been jumped by a bunch of big ugly orderlies, stuck in a room, and shot full of Prolixin, an older-generation (nastier) antipsychotic. It was like they wanted to get me as doped up as possible, as fast as possible, so I wouldn't cause problems. And you can see by my attitude on these forums that I like to argue, so that was basically what got me in trouble in the first place. Anyway, Prolixin turned me into a zombie, I couldn't walk properly, I was depressed, I couldn't urinate except every couple of days, I couldn't read, I couldn't think straight, and they kept me in there in that condition for two and a half weeks (the police had specified a 72-hour observation period.) All I could think of was that this was what Arkham Asylum is like in the Batman comics. There were people screaming at night in there; screaming. And this one chick came in pregnant so they couldn't medicate her, and they strapped her down to a table instead, and she screamed all night. But once I was out, I still was not convinced I was sick because I had developed such an antipathy for psychiatry in general. But once I had a good doctor who explained to me that what I experienced was not my fault, but rather the fault of the system, and that it didn't mean that I was free from facing up to my problems (including the need for medication), I felt better. At one point I even signed myself into the hospital and this guy let me leave the next day without having me take a single dose of medicine. I don't see what it is about psychiatry that makes so many people reject it so zealously and actually campaign against helping sick people. Abortion, well that's debatable according to your perspective on morality, but the existence of psychiatric medicine is not morally debatable. There are tremendous abuses in psychiatry, but people who know how to work with the system almost always come out better than they were when they entered. It's almost like going into the military in time of war: a lot of the survivability is based on luck, but what really counts is what kind of a person you are after your most extreme experience is over. Anyway my blogging service has an option to allow me another blog or two for a lesser price, so I'm going to start a treatment journal soon, I'll post the link in this thread. My blogging handle will be "Arkhamite". posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
holy_of_holies: You are definitely misrepresenting what I said...read it again (though you may need to get out your English primer to understand it...) As I said,... always a pleasure talking to you... I'd say I contributed further to this point with my: tozy: How about a professor in this field, who does a lot of research and collecting data, decided to experience for himself the effect/side effect a particular drug can have on people to complete his knowledge with this experience.
This test was not a stand-alone thing; rather this guy has synchronized his experiences with those made by patients. holy_of_holies: Yes because he makes wild claims in interviews - never a good place to report your findings - and does not support them with references. That is weird. This interview is about a book written by the man, which includes, as he says in the interview, a reference section 100 pages long. Everybody is free to read the book. holy_of_holies: Perhaps the best thing is to encourage patients to try them and let them decide Many mentally ill people are not able to self-diagnose because there is so much societal stigma attached to mental illness (which tozy and knn are contributing to by their posts in this thread). That is, some people are unable to admit to themselves that they have problems, and it takes a trained professional to point out which behaviors are indicative of a problem. Mentally ill people may not be able to self-diagnose, but once their illness has been diagnosed, they can be actively involved in the treatment, by being more senstive towards their experiences and feedback? I believe that is what he wants to say with the above quote. Holy, I am still not sure that you have read the whole thing: this man is neither against nor for drugs. All he says is that drugs have often been trifled with (as your negative experience is proof of), that doctors should be more careful in prescribing drugs, considering a balance between postive effects and negative side effects, and that they also should consider more carefully possible alternatives. As for the social stigmata contributed by me,... could you elaborate on that? holy_of_holies: I don't see what it is about psychiatry that makes so many people reject it so zealously and actually campaign against helping sick people Do people reject psychiatry per se,...or some methods used by psychiatry? posted by tozy |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
tozy: holy_of_holies: Yes because he makes wild claims in interviews - never a good place to report your findings - and does not support them with references. That is weird. This interview is about a book written by the man, which includes, as he says in the interview, a reference section 100 pages long. Everybody is free to read the book. LOL..."Oh I have all the answers...just buy my book!" Why haven't I heard all these dire statistics reported in the media? Must be the big media conspiracy... tozy: Holy, I am still not sure that you have read the whole thing: this man is neither against nor for drugs. All he says is that drugs have often been trifled with (as your negative experience is proof of), that doctors should be more careful in prescribing drugs, considering a balance between postive effects and side effects, and that they also should consider more carefully possible alternatives.
As for the social stigmata contributed by me,... could you elaborate on that? If this man claims to be a Clinical Psychologist and is not "for" drugs, he should be censured. As for you, I don't care to repeat your propaganda. tozy: holy_of_holies: I don't see what it is about psychiatry that makes so many people reject it so zealously and actually campaign against helping sick people Do people reject psychiatry per se,...or some methods used by psychiatry? What business is it of yours anyway? Are you a doctor? Do you have a better alternative (excluding knn's religion of scientology)? You remind me of a man who gets off on criticizing gynecology because he thinks it sounds bad...you have found a convenient target for your unscientific blather and you mean to pursue it...it's a kick in the face for people who depend on this branch of medicine - not to escape reality, but to find it and be able to survive. To read this uneducated nonsense from the likes of you, mymla, and knn makes me physically as well as mentally ill. And please don't claim to have no opinion on this: you in my opinion are even more over the top than knn in that you actually read up on psychiatry and still post such nonsense... posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
holy_of_holies: LOL..."Oh I have all the answers...just buy my book!" Why haven't I heard all these dire statistics reported in the media?
(...) If this man claims to be a Clinical Psychologist and is not "for" drugs, he should be censured. Hm,... he seems to be important and serious enough to be included into the audio interview section of Schizophrenia.com... holy_of_holies: As for you, I don't care to repeat your propaganda. Do you not care or is there not really anything to repeat?... holy_of_holies: What business is it of yours anyway? Are you a doctor? Do you have a better alternative (excluding knn's religion of scientology)? You remind me of a man who gets off on criticizing gynecology because he thinks it sounds bad...you have found a convenient target for your unscientific blather and you mean to pursue it...it's a kick in the face for people who depend on this branch of medicine - not to escape reality, but to find it and be able to survive. To read this uneducated nonsense from the likes of you, mymla, and knn makes me physically as well as mentally ill. And please don't claim to have no opinion on this: you in my opinion are even more over the top than knn in that you actually read up on psychiatry and still post such nonsense... Nope,... I do not read up on psychiatry. I just happened to stumble over this article, upon reading it remembered your thread and thought this might be an interesting addition to it,...that's all. I am not aware that I have expressed any opinion about psychiatry in this thread; I was merely trying to clear up misunderstandings about this article (not very successfully, I might add...). So, even though this rant of yours doesn't come unexpected, since it is not a first for me,... I believe it is utterly undeserved, since you just don't know my opinion. In fact,... you are quite wrong about what my opinion is... Edit: I've even edited knn's thread title,... any better? 
posted by tozy |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: A man who isn't suffering from mental illness takes a dose of a drug which is apparently 'similar' to the "widely used drug haloperidol". (I have never heard of this drug so which people use it?) Haloperidol (or short Haldol) is/was one of the most often used drugs in psychiatry. It causes the face to get swollen (patients are called laughingly "haldol hares". This is so famous that it even has been featured in a music clip. I'll tell you which, when I recollect it when I am off my current drugs 
posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
tozy: Edit: I've even edited knn's thread title,... any better? 1) If you give in to mentally ill persons (Holy of Holies) you encourage mental illness 2) The new title is worse for Google. 3) It's your thread, so you can do with the title what you want  
This is only a "side remark post". Don't answer this post or it will be offtopic. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: is/was Which one, knn? I await with bated breath your response... posted by holy_of_holies |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
holy_of_holies: Which one, knn? I await with bated breath your response... I would say "was & is". 1) Everyone can order Haldol online at online pharmacies 2) Haldol may be still considered first choice as an anti-psychotic in first episode. And is even used often as a long-term choice in established schizophrenia. 3) Although I couldn't find accurate worldwide statistics online I would say that haloperidol is being overtaken by other mental drugs. 4) Since Haloperidol is an old drug, patents may be running out soon thus it may be cheaper than other drugs in poor countries. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 12 February 2012, 20:31 php B.B. |