Posted by med_empowered on December 2, 2005, at 1:56:59
In reply to Re: Last resorts, posted by Ilene on December 2, 2005, at 0:50:30
The involuntary-treatment situation varies apparently from state-to-state. I was involuntarily hospitalized, but I still refused meds, and it wasn't a big deal. The nurses would tell patients who were having problems that "if you'd like, you can just refuse it". They were being kind of callous about it--kind of like well, you don't like it (b/c you're whiney and crazy) ? Then dont take it. But still...it was nice to have that option.
I think involuntary ECT happens occasionally, but it isn't common like it used to be. Its expensive, patients hate it, it has a bad reputation, etc. I'm not impressed by ECT; it just doesn't strike me as being nearly as effective or harmless as so many "experts" would have us believe. Also, its important to realize that ECT can be a BIG money maker; a full course can run the insurance company thousands of dollars, with minmal overhead...that means big $$$ for the hospitals and doctors that do ECT. I also read a survey where about 41% of psychiatrists said they thought it was "likely that ECT causes brain damage". That's almost half who will admit it in a *survey*. I'm also disturbed by this move in psychiatry towards more involuntary treatment--out-patient commitment, making it easier to hospitalize people, that sort of thing. Have you read about the new Haldol implants? Apparently, this "advance" in schizophrenia treatment will allow for an implant to release haloperidol over a 1year period. I think this "advance" is one of the scariest things I've ever heard of.
poster:med_empowered
thread:584162
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20051126/msgs/584424.html