Psycho-Babble Medication Thread 15754

Shown: posts 14 to 38 of 38. Go back in thread:

 

A question for Sam...

Posted by Deb R on November 28, 1999, at 8:57:40

In reply to Breggin the question, posted by Sam on November 26, 1999, at 2:33:54

Sam, when I first came to this site I was looking for info. re: olanzapine/zyprexa. I did find a post which I responded to about the side effects of this drug, and the post was written by "Sam" - would this have been you? I found the posting by searching the archives and I think it was originally in '98 sometime? Please let me know as if it was you I would like to ask a few questions re: this drug. Many thanks.

Deb.

 

Re: A question for Sam...

Posted by Ali on November 28, 1999, at 12:43:21

In reply to A question for Sam..., posted by Deb R on November 28, 1999, at 8:57:40

> Sam, when I first came to this site I was looking for info. re: olanzapine/zyprexa. I did find a post which I responded to about the side effects of this drug, and the post was written by "Sam" - would this have been you? I found the posting by searching the archives and I think it was originally in '98 sometime? Please let me know as if it was you I would like to ask a few questions re: this drug. Many thanks.
>
> Deb.

Deb;
I would like to help if I can.What kind of questions did you have in mind?

Ali

 

Re: A question for Sam...

Posted by Sam on November 28, 1999, at 16:25:06

In reply to A question for Sam..., posted by Deb R on November 28, 1999, at 8:57:40

Sorry, wrong Sam.

 

Letters from the lunatic fringe ... (long post!)

Posted by Bob on November 28, 1999, at 19:47:22

In reply to Re: A question for Sam..., posted by Sam on November 28, 1999, at 16:25:06

No, not us ... Breggin and those looneys (and looney-tuners and lawyers) at www.antipsychiatry.org!

Sorry for the long post ... if you don't want to read it, scroll to the bottom in order to skip to my conclusions.

Ali, you're drawing a false dichotomy, but that's exactly what extremists want us to do. If Breggin has stats and KNOWS how to interpret them, then he would know just how unlikely it is that, within the usual allowance for error-due-to-chance, 9,999 people out of 10,000 on psychotropics not only do not need them, but are actually harmed by them. That's just for one study. Given that a collection of studies will fall across some range of results, to say that there is **no** statistical support makes his claims all the more ridiculous. Allow me to pick the studies for a meta-analysis, and I can give you any statistical spin you want, too.

Twain attributes this famous quote to Disraeli: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Often it's misquoted (if a true quote in the first place!) as "liars, damned liars, and statisticians." Given the studies I've seen on the efficacy of psychotropic meds, either Breggin is worse than a damned liar, twisting the stats to say what he means, or there's a conspiracy out there to do the same in the opposite direction. As with most dichotomies, the truth probably lies somewhere in between (but skewed, IMO, HEAVILY towards Breggin).

I've been tempted to pick up Breggin's book when I've had a minute or two in a bookstore to browse, but I can't say that I've read it. All the same, the arguments I hear coming from that camp also make a different fundamental mistake in interpreting statistics. Statistical results apply to (at best) populations or (at worse) specific samplings of a population. They do not apply to individuals. For instance, tho it may no longer be the case, there was certainly a time when the Average US Citizen was of the ethnic group "Caucasion--of European Descent". That statistical description of the norm does not mean you can pick out Person X out of all US Citizens and say with no doubt that this person will be Caucasian.

There have been times when my meds have made me ill. There have been times, including the present, in which they have aleviated my symptoms. But I wouldn't call psychotropics poisons or panaceas (particularly the latter!).

For those thinking that the philosophic discussion from a few threads above (more Disraeli for those following it--"Where knowledge ends, religion begins.") has no contact with the real world, this whole issue contradicts that notion.

Breggin's extreme basically states that since there is no single known or identified biological cause for what we call mental illness, then it simply is a social construct foisted upon those of us who have it by those of us who can profit by it. The other extreme would be that all "mental illness" is primarily biological in nature and, therefore, can (only) be treated by meds. Then there is a camp similar to Breggin's, perhaps, in that it can be claimed that all "mental illness" *does* have a social cause, and therefore only X-brand of talk therapy can work.

All these extremes fall prey to the desire to identify a First Cause. Although Aristotle's four causes supposedly have no place in Science, this notion of a First Cause is just too irresistible to those capable only of arguing from a single cause, single effect logic with no possibility for any sort of "feedback loop" or mutual causation.

In my case, you could argue that the death of my brother when I was eight and the atrocious way my parents dealt with that loss "caused" my depression. You could also argue that since I have consistently demonstrated far worse symptoms of depression than my two living brothers over the last 29 years that there is something fundamentally different about me in comparison. Since this difference dates back to our collective life growing up in my parents' home, one might suggest that a biological difference is more likely than one brought about by environment. That there is a history of individuals (not everyone, but select individuals) on both sides of my family tree that have exhibited similar extreme symptoms of depression also suggests a biological link, much in the same way some of us have red hair and some of us do not. Finally, that I respond to psychotropic medication also suggests a biological component to my depression.

But can you tell me which came first?

The genes may have created a potential, but without my brother's death, would the potential ever have been realized?

I don't know about anyone else out there, but I doubt my depression has any one First Cause. As optimistic as one of my doctors would like me to be, I also don't believe it has a cure, or a reversal of some fundamental cause.

One thing for which I have to give the webmaster at antipsych some credit is that he includes critical email. Well, okay, the reason he does is so that he can present his "last word" to illustrate how these naysayers are wrong. But one of his smug answers is, I think, the best argument about why he (and his peers in the Movement) is (are) wrong. It gets back to another matter of creeping philosophy-- mind-body duality.

This one -- thinking the mind and body separate entitites -- is Descartes' fault, essentially. One writer tags the Webmaster as a dualist (a philosophical no-no in post-modern, post-structuralist circles). The Webmaster comes back stating that there must be a separation between mind and body. His explanations fail, tho. For example, he argues that if you could download all the thoughts and memories of someone with PTSD into a new body, the new body would still have PTSD. Therefore, the disease is the product of the mind and independent of the body. This would perhaps be true if all human bodies were created equal, but we all have different capacities for dealing with stress. We probably have internal differences in how we deal with typical stress from atypical, intense stress as well. Sure, you can argue that how one deals with stress is (at least in part) a learned behavior, but success at dealing with environmental stress is at the very heart of evolution and, therefore, at the heart of biology as well. Dealing with stress is a characteristic of all species and, one could argue, those species still around at this point in geological time must have highly-developed mechanisms for dealing with stress. But that only means that there is a range of functioning for individuals -- most being average for the species, some being exceptional in a positive sense, and some being exceptional in a negative sense.

Bottom line? Extremists like Breggin are useful for discussion in helping to draw the "black" and the "white" of the issue into focus for those of us who live in the gray. As for practice, I am willing to place my IRAs against anyone's accrued Social Security benefits, value to be determined at retirement age, that extremists such as Breggin cause more harm than they prevent, when their work is put into practice.

Okay, I've lathered on for long enough ... my two cents from the lunatic middle....

Bob

 

thanks Ali...

Posted by Deb R on November 28, 1999, at 20:39:31

In reply to Re: A question for Sam..., posted by Ali on November 28, 1999, at 12:43:21

Hi Ali - many thanks for your post, it is very kind of you to respond. I have been searching for info re: side-effects of Olanzapine mainly to do with Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome. There was a posting that I found from someone called Sam, but it was an old one - from Sept '98 I think.
I have had a good hunt around the web, but haven't found too much. I guess I just feel better if I am trying to do something to help my Mum. Mum developed NMS about three weeks after changing from Risperidone to Olanzapine and she was hospitalised for 4 weeks recovering.
I was hoping that the Sam on this thread was the same one as a while ago because that Sam mentioned he/she was searching for something similar...also to do with a family member.
Thats about it I guess - Mum is still on Olanzapine, although at a much reduced dose some problems still linger - some rigidity in the shoulders, liver and kidney problems, spiking temp and blood pressure to name but a few. I want her to come off all drugs, after all she is 73 years old and by all accounts, elderly folk should (?) be on much reduced doses I believe. Mum was on very high doses of Risperidone and Olanzapine before the NMS. I want to help her but am feeling pretty darn useless at the moment.
Thanks again Ali - my best wishes to you.

Deb.

 

Re: A question for Sam...

Posted by Deb R on November 28, 1999, at 20:42:07

In reply to Re: A question for Sam..., posted by Sam on November 28, 1999, at 16:25:06

> Sorry, wrong Sam.

Bummer, was really hoping it would be the same Sam. Oh well, thanks anyway.

Deb.

 

Re: thanks Ali...

Posted by Ali on November 28, 1999, at 22:53:16

In reply to thanks Ali..., posted by Deb R on November 28, 1999, at 20:39:31

> Hi Ali - many thanks for your post, it is very kind of you to respond. I have been searching for info re: side-effects of Olanzapine mainly to do with Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome. There was a posting that I found from someone called Sam, but it was an old one - from Sept '98 I think.
> I have had a good hunt around the web, but haven't found too much. I guess I just feel better if I am trying to do something to help my Mum. Mum developed NMS about three weeks after changing from Risperidone to Olanzapine and she was hospitalised for 4 weeks recovering.
> I was hoping that the Sam on this thread was the same one as a while ago because that Sam mentioned he/she was searching for something similar...also to do with a family member.
> Thats about it I guess - Mum is still on Olanzapine, although at a much reduced dose some problems still linger - some rigidity in the shoulders, liver and kidney problems, spiking temp and blood pressure to name but a few. I want her to come off all drugs, after all she is 73 years old and by all accounts, elderly folk should (?) be on much reduced doses I believe. Mum was on very high doses of Risperidone and Olanzapine before the NMS. I want to help her but am feeling pretty darn useless at the moment.
> Thanks again Ali - my best wishes to you.
>
> Deb.

Deb;
First some basic facts:
1.Olanzapine or "Zyprexa" is one of the new 'atypical' anti-psychotics alongwith Risperidone, Seroquel and Clozaril.
2.Supposedly, it has a lower incidence of NMS associated with it than the older drugs like Haldol etc. but it can occur.

Why is your mom on it?(diagnosis?) How long was she on it before she developed NMS and on what dose? What dose is she on now? Has she had problems with other meds e.g Risperdal? Why did she have to get off that? Was the dx of NMS confirmed? Sounds from your description of residual symptoms that it was. Why is she still on it if she did indeed have NMS?
and lastly , the million dollar question, what symptoms does she have remaining after she gets off the drug.At 73, there may be other alternatives for her.
Let me know the answer to these questions and I may be able to give you some helpful hints. Of course, you must discuss these with her MD before making ANY changes in her meds.

Good luck
Ali

 

To Ali...this is a long 'un

Posted by Deb R on November 29, 1999, at 8:21:55

In reply to Re: thanks Ali..., posted by Ali on November 28, 1999, at 22:53:16

You are a gem Ali...here we go

> Why is your mom on it?(diagnosis?)
- Ali, Mum is Schizophrenic.

>How long was she on it before she developed NMS and on what dose? What dose is she on now?
- Mum was changed from Risperidone (not sure of the dose of this, but very high) to Olanzapine about 3 weeks before developing the symptoms of NMS. Olanz dose was 27.5mg, along with Diazepam (not sure of dose, perhaps 5mg). Olanzapine dose is now 7.5mg, plus Diazepam about 2mg (is that dose possible? I think thats right anyway)

>Has she had problems with other meds e.g Risperdal?
- Mum has had leg shaking and jerking for as long as I can remember, not as severe as when she was on Modecate injections, Mum then looked as though she had full-blown Parkinson's disease. I think the TD is permanent now - leg shaking mainly. Mum has the most amazing muscle development in her legs, she has beautiful legs for a 70+ year old, great shape etc. That might sound like a weird thing to say, but I guess its because they are constantly moving.

>Why did she have to get off that?
- Mums Psych changed Mum to Olanzapine because she thought it would give some relief from all the "touching" things that were happening, Mum felt as though she was being touched by "someone" all the time, there is a name for this, but I can't remember what they called it.

>Was the dx of NMS confirmed?
- Mum had all the symptoms of NMS although the level in her blood of something called Serum Creatinase (bleah, not sure if that is the right name for it.) while "very high" was not as extreme as is usual for NMS.

>Why is she still on it if she did indeed have NMS?
- Exactly what I am trying to find out. The NMS diagnosis was confirmed by the Doctors (Mum was on a general ward while they discounted other medical conditions for nearly 2 weeks, still on the high level of drugs!) When I started to look into this NMS (Mum was admitted with this as a big query from her Psychiatrist) I started to ask questions, like why was Mum still on the drugs if she had NMS etc. Anyway, thats when they started to say that they werent convinced she did have it and they were still trying to work out what was happening. Mum did have it, I have no doubt. Especially when they actually got Mum's permission to video her for their teaching purposes!

>what symptoms does she have remaining after she gets off the drug.
-Ali, for one blissful week, Mum was off all drugs. You should have seen her animated face, she looked happy and actually smiled at me with her whole face, shining eyes. I was so happy after years and years of Mum with what I call 'the mask' on. Even the voices went!!! Mum wasnt hearing any voices at all!!! Why was that, when Mum said to the Docs (by this stage she was on the Psych ward) "I dont think I need the drugs as the voices have gone" ...they replied: "But what if they come back".

>At 73, there may be other alternatives for her.
- Ali, I am so hopeful...there must be something out there that can help Mum have a break from the drugs at least until her body can recover a bit more.

>Of course, you must discuss these with her MD before making ANY changes in her meds.
- Absolutely, I would be too scared to do it any other way. I have to be careful also to make sure it is what Mum wants to do, Mum is so compliant and will not question anything the Doc's tell her, years of conditioning I suppose. A lot has changed in Mental Health during my Mum's time. Thank goodness.

Ali, it feels good to be writing all this down, there is soooo much more I could write, once I get started I have to make sure I re-read it all the time so I don't rave on too much...many thanks to you for any input you may have. I appreciate your interest so much and I am very grateful you responded to my post...

sincerely,

Deb.

 

Yeah....what Bob said! (how my depression agree's)

Posted by CarolAnn on November 29, 1999, at 9:39:31

In reply to Letters from the lunatic fringe ... (long post!), posted by Bob on November 28, 1999, at 19:47:22

If I followed Bob correctly, he was basically saying that depression can be both biologically inherent *and* have a specific cause. I have to agree. As far as my biology: My father's whole family are alcoholics(in denial), and actually my grandmother(dad's mom) had(before dying) a history of depression including undergoing Electro-shock treatments! Most of my mother's family are drug addicts(also in denial). With these genetics is it any wonder that I would be predisposed to depression as well as substance abuse(although my "substance" of choice has always been food)??
Anyway, none of this was helped by being raised by a verbally abusive mother and an emotionally passive father. Now, according to some Doctors I should be cured of my depression after undergoing two years of talk therapy and totally resolving all my childhood "issues". Yet, here I am seven yrs. later and not only still suffering depression, but getting worse do to the difficulty of finding effective medication for my particular case. My bottom-line belief is that some people are born with a depression gene which gets "activated" by any number of causes: dysfunctional family, specific event(causing grief), traumatic experience, ect. There are probably some(very few,I would think) people who have the depression gene, but either never have anything happen to activate it or have the gene activated for no apparent reason. Regardless, depression must be treated a a true medical condition and not some kind of mental funk that will go away if we just ,"snap out of it!". CarolAnn

 

Re: Yeah....what Bob said! (how my depression agree's)

Posted by Bob on November 29, 1999, at 15:42:09

In reply to Yeah....what Bob said! (how my depression agree's), posted by CarolAnn on November 29, 1999, at 9:39:31

> If I followed Bob correctly, he was basically saying that depression can be both biologically inherent *and* have a specific cause....

Well, now that you mention it, I think I'd say there are two primary "dimensions" of the problem. One is the nature/nurture (HAH!, or lack thereof) thing -- to what extent is it from your genes or your environment? The second dimension is the single cause/cluster of causes -- to what extent are there a cluster of factors that each contribute in their own inimitable way, or is there some social/genetic "event" that turns the trick (activates it, knocks down the first domino)

Bob

... hmmm, any other applications of political science (other than the Domino Theory) to psychological science? When do we get our Marshall Plan to rebuild our lives? hmmm.....

 

Re: Yeah....what Bob said! (how my depression agree's)

Posted by Noa on November 29, 1999, at 15:54:26

In reply to Yeah....what Bob said! (how my depression agree's), posted by CarolAnn on November 29, 1999, at 9:39:31

Carol Ann and Bob, I would agree. But I would add that the influence goes in the other direction, as well. That is, whether it is one's predisposition toward depression, or environmental experiences that start the ball rolling, once one has depression, it instigates actual changes in brain chemistry and physiology. In essence, it becomes a complex system of mutual influences, and for some of us a perpetually growing problem.

I was reading a book, called "Mapping the Mind" (sorry, don't recall the author), and in it there was something about how some people are born with more sensitive amygdalas, which makes them more sensitive to the most subtle social cues and causes them to feel hurt by them. Of course, the amygdala is more developed and active in the infant and young child, well before the hippocampus and neocortex are fully able to process thoughts and memories. So, you have a sensitive infant, prone to picking up the slightest signs of maternal or paternal negative feelings, and that amygdala flares up big time, and the infant takes in the negativity. In a good environment, where the parents are sensitive to the child's needs, perhaps the child with the sensitive amygdala will do fine. But give that environment any significant emotional challenges, and it seems like a recipe for emotional distress, depression, anxiety, etc. I think someday we will be able to assess infants quickly and easily at birth, and to teach parents to know their children and their individual emotional styles and needs, and to know their own styles, as well, and how to optimize how the two coexist. For me, I think I am that sensitive infant who picks things up without knowing what they are, just on an intuitive, subconscious level. Like Carol, my mother was extremely critical and insensitive, and my father, passive. My extended family had less substance abuse issues, although there were some, which, of course, I never heard about until recently. Similarly with depression. Only recently did I learn my father's mother was treated with ECT in the late forties, early fifties. She had a hard life, but so did my grandfather, and he was always easygoing and calm. And my mother's father was an alcoholic, I think self medicating for a chronic depression triggered by the death of his two to three year old son, who was hit by a truck while playing ball (my mother was a baby at the time), not to mention many other losses in his life (he immigrated to the US by himself as a teenager, was joined by two sisters, but never saw the other sisters or his parents or extended family again; his parents died before WWII, I believe, and all the others were killed in the Holocaust-something he never ever spoke about).

In any event, I think the relationship between biology and environment is complex, mutually influential, and dynamic. It continues to evolve as we speak (each time I have an episode of depression, I know those seahorses are shrinking!!). As a society, we love simple answers, unambiguous and static. I guess that is what you are referring to when you use the term "first cause" (I only peripherally followed the whole evolution discussion; I am not familiar enough with the concepts to follow along easily and haven't had the energy to focus enough to learn right now). But, as the saying goes, nothing is simple, there are no easy answers. Breggin may have some good points, and clearly the pendulum is swung toward medication which means there is going to be some overdiagnosis, misapplication of drug therapies, etc., as well as too frequent dismissal of the efficacy of various other forms of treatment, or problem solving strategies, including talk therapy. Not to mention "side" effects. On the other hand, that is no reason to condemn the entire practice of using psychotropic medication, as many of us know we have been helped at least to some degree by them. For me, my talk therapy is very helpful, but without some modicum of stability from medication, I would not make good use of the talk therapy, nor would I be able to put any of my insights or improved cognitions into action.
And it is never simple. I have been on a repeated quest to find a good combination of medications that work and are tolerable.

But our society loves simplicity, and simplicity is in vogue right now. The media loves simple, dichotomous controveries. When the big Prozac article appeared in Newsweek a few years back, it irritated the hell out of me, as many blockbuster Newsweek stories do, because of how the story is structured in that dichotomous either/or way. AARRGGHH. But even more, the media was playing up the hype that Prozac, et al. give people a whole new personality, one that is based on 1990's values of productivity, etc. I was so irritated. I was on prozac at the time, and did not feel it changed my personality at all. But it did help me fell less depressed. And to have the media making a moral issue out of a medical treatment that I was needing and getting help from, well,,,,,AARRGGHHHH.

The Newsweek headlines are a good barometer of how our society likes to think--in all or nothing, either/or terms. Is Day Care Bad for Babies? Do Parents Matter? And so on.

But we, here, at Babble, are a smarter than the average bear bunch, and can tolerate ambiguity and complexity, no?

 

Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists

Posted by Zeke on December 1, 1999, at 20:07:24

In reply to Re: Yeah....what Bob said! (how my depression agree's), posted by Noa on November 29, 1999, at 15:54:26

Like many others, I want Breggin and the anti-psychiatry folks to be able to have their say. But they seem to me to be extremely biased and selectively ignore crediable science that doesn't fit their view. And this has the potential to do much harm to desperate persons unfamiliar with modern psychiatry and neuroscience.

My personal beef with Breggin is his attack on Ritalin, Dexedrine and other ADD meds. But rather than babble myself, I recommend you read Dr. Russell Barkely's review of Breggin's book, "Talking Back to Ritalin," available at the CHADD website: http://www.chadd.org/news/Russ-review.htm (regardless of whether ADD is your concern.)

One observation about Breggin is that he seems to complain that psychiatry conferences are biased in the other direction -- pro med -- it almost sounds like a conspiracy theory. But then when he is invited, I see comments about how must interrupt his busy schedule to prepare for and attend these meetings. In the Colorado case he had to fly in from London. I suspect Breggin spends much of his time in the well paid role of expert witness in court cases, testifying to 'Prozac Rage' and the like.

Breggin seems to find endless behavioral side effects od psychiatric meds -- eg, stimulant cause obsessions; antidepressannts cause mania. Though very overstated there is some truth here. The problem here is that if substances can produce behavioral effects, then some substances -- some effects -- should be beneficial and therapeutic for certain behavioral disorders. But for Breggin, any effect is a bad, dangerous and potentially fatal effect.

Now before many of you go out and buy his books, I suggest you visit his website: http://www.breggin.com/

Since schizophrenia is a central theme of this thread, I might also suggest an article by Dr. Al Siebert (who is an advisor to Breggin's organization), "If Schizophrenia is a Disease or Illness Why Doesn't it Act Like One?": http://www.thrivenet.com/schizo/articles/proofact.html My question is, how is a disease or illness supposed to act? Actually schizophrenia is probably better considered a disorder than disease -- by which Siebert means infectious disease. His opening anecdote about no vaccine for schizophrenia meaning that is is not a disease is nonsense -- I don't know od a vaccine for epilepsy either -- so is epilepsy also unreal? He also interprets studies such that hospitalization makes schizophrenia worse -- but he fails to see or note the obvious logic that the less severe the illness, the less hospitalized one would be. He is right that some recover completely without any treatment, but this is simply consistent with the rule of thirds.

In re Noa's comments on the amygdala: Please look at the research done by Dr. Joseph LeDoux, who is certainly an expert on the amygdala. LeDoux focuses on fear and the amygdala and asserts that "fear is forever" -- once a fear is learned it can't be simply unlearned (by the amygdala) but has to be compensated for by the (frontal) cortex. I suggest the following URLs:
http://salon.com/books/it/1999/04/07/neurology/index.html
http://www.psych.nyu.edu/dept/news/nytimes0299.html
http://www.feedmag.com/brain/parts/ledoux.html
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct97/ledoux.html

Lastly, take a look at these columns from the Denver Post re Breggin and company...
http://www.denverpost.com/news/carman1111.htm
http://www.denverpost.com./news/green1112.htm
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/edits1114a.htm

As Diane Carmen says in her Denver Post article, "And doesn't it seem peculiar that drugs such as Ritalin and Luvox are commonly prescribed to treat attention deficit disorder in countries all over the world but they only produce school shootings among American kids?"


 

Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists

Posted by bigbertha on December 1, 1999, at 23:32:03

In reply to Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists, posted by Zeke on December 1, 1999, at 20:07:24

>Since schizophrenia is a central theme of this
thread, I might also suggest an article by
Dr. Al Siebert (who is an advisor to Breggin's
organization),
"If Schizophrenia is a Disease or Illness Why
> Doesn't it Act Like One?":

Well stated, Zeke. In addition, today it was
announced by US and British researchers that
chromosome #22 had been completely gene-mapped.
Some of the genes on this chromo. are those
that cause leukemia AND schizophrenia!
Oh well, somebody has to graduate at the bottom
of the class.

 

Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists

Posted by Noa on December 2, 1999, at 8:11:05

In reply to Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists, posted by bigbertha on December 1, 1999, at 23:32:03

Zeke, thanks for the info.

As for Breggin, I have heard him speak as a participant in conferences offering voice to a number of perspectives.

I just received a brochure for a conference that I would like to go to (the Family Therapy Networker). It is usually a great conference, and they offer a lot of good workshops. But I was dismayed to see that Breggin is one of the presenters, and that there is another presenter who has a similar anti-psychiatry approach, but there are no pro-psychopharmocology presentations. I am inclined to write them a letter of complaint, because it worries me that all these mental health practicioners are there to learn how to help clients, and they are offered two possible workshops on pharmocology that are ANTI pharmocology, and there are no opportunities to learn how medication can help their clients. It seems irresponsible, if you ask me. I don't know if I will muster up the energy to write such a letter.

 

Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists

Posted by Dr. Bob on December 2, 1999, at 18:37:53

In reply to Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists, posted by Noa on December 2, 1999, at 8:11:05

> I just received a brochure for a conference that I would like to go to (the Family Therapy Networker). It is usually a great conference, and they offer a lot of good workshops. But I was dismayed to see that Breggin is one of the presenters, and that there is another presenter who has a similar anti-psychiatry approach, but there are no pro-psychopharmocology presentations. I am inclined to write them a letter of complaint...

Or you could go and complain in person: during the question-and-answer periods after their presentations! :-)

Bob

 

Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists

Posted by Bob on December 2, 1999, at 20:51:30

In reply to Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists, posted by Dr. Bob on December 2, 1999, at 18:37:53

> > I just received a brochure for a conference that I would like to go to (the Family Therapy Networker)....
> Or you could go and complain in person: during the question-and-answer periods after their presentations! :-)

Hey Noa! Where's the conference at? Maybe I'll go and challenge him to spend two weeks with me off in the woods somewhere -- he can say "Just get over yourself already" as often as he likes and I'll even let him take an ax ... hell, a chainsaw if he prefers ... me? No meds and a swiss army knife.

Only one of us is gonna walk outta those woods in one piece.... ;^)

Bob

 

Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists

Posted by Noa on December 2, 1999, at 20:56:55

In reply to Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists, posted by Dr. Bob on December 2, 1999, at 18:37:53

Well, that isn't really my style. Plus, I am not going to waste my precious conference time going to those particular sessions. They'll just irritate me. There are lots of other sessions that are much more worthwhile.
And, actually, it is the conference organizers with whom I have the beef. I can't fault Breggin (and whoever the other guy is, I forget) for speaking about what they believe in, but I fault the conference organizers for not offering more of a balance, and for not seeing the education of non-medical therapists about psychopharmocology as valuable.
Hey, Dr. Bob, you interested in attending? Maybe you could be a speaker at their conference next year. They hold it every year in Washington.

 

Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists

Posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 1999, at 0:14:50

In reply to Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists, posted by Noa on December 2, 1999, at 20:56:55

> Hey, Dr. Bob, you interested in attending? Maybe you could be a speaker at their conference next year. They hold it every year in Washington.

I think I'm already going to be going to Washington once, I think that'll be enough, but thanks for thinking of me. :-)

Bob

 

Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists

Posted by Noa on December 4, 1999, at 8:29:11

In reply to Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists, posted by Dr. Bob on December 4, 1999, at 0:14:50

When will you be in Washington, may I ask?

 

Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists

Posted by Dr. Bob on December 5, 1999, at 0:59:56

In reply to Re: Back to the Anti-Psychiatrists, posted by Noa on December 4, 1999, at 8:29:11

> When will you be in Washington, may I ask?

If they accept the workshop proposal that we submitted, for the annual convention in August:

http://www.apa.org/convention/

Bob

 

Re: Yeah....what Bob said! (how my depression agree's)

Posted by Joanna on December 9, 1999, at 23:18:54

In reply to Yeah....what Bob said! (how my depression agree's), posted by CarolAnn on November 29, 1999, at 9:39:31

> If I followed Bob correctly, he was basically saying that depression can be both biologically inherent *and* have a specific cause. I have to agree. As far as my biology: My father's whole family are alcoholics(in denial), and actually my grandmother(dad's mom) had(before dying) a history of depression including undergoing Electro-shock treatments! Most of my mother's family are drug addicts(also in denial). With these genetics is it any wonder that I would be predisposed to depression as well as substance abuse(although my "substance" of choice has always been food)??
> Anyway, none of this was helped by being raised by a verbally abusive mother and an emotionally passive father. Now, according to some Doctors I should be cured of my depression after undergoing two years of talk therapy and totally resolving all my childhood "issues". Yet, here I am seven yrs. later and not only still suffering depression, but getting worse do to the difficulty of finding effective medication for my particular case. My bottom-line belief is that some people are born with a depression gene which gets "activated" by any number of causes: dysfunctional family, specific event(causing grief), traumatic experience, ect. There are probably some(very few,I would think) people who have the depression gene, but either never have anything happen to activate it or have the gene activated for no apparent reason. Regardless, depression must be treated a a true medical condition and not some kind of mental funk that will go away if we just ,"snap out of it!". CarolAnn


This is in response to the original thread and the follow ups: Psychiatric drugs:poison or panacea?
I am now faced with the possibility of needing to start taking medication again, having been on a psychotropic drug twice in my past. I have never been one to say no to taking any necessary medication whether for a "physical" or "mental" condition. I am grateful that there are medications that can be used to treat depression and other disorders! Thank God they exist. I am amazed at the reaction educated-informed people have re: meds. (I am assuming here that this author/dr. has some education in his history). The points that have been made in this on-line observation/conversation are really thought out and well spoken. I particularly appreciate the comment that rarely is anything "ALL" or "NOTHING" but this person is saying these meds are NEVER good for anyone. The fact is, there are so many variables but the fact that some people have some negative reactions should not eliminate them as treatment options.
With all that said, I am finding myself very hesitant to wanting to go back on them. The counselor I am seeing didn't indicate that he felt it was urgent or even necessary at this time: just that in light of my history combined with present life events, it is something I might want to consider. I actually had thought about it before he even mentioned it, but there is a sense right now that I really don't want to need them, I guess is the way to describe it. Of course if almost anybody else I knew were to ask my opinion if they faced the same thing, I would ask them if they thought they'd be better off with or without and encourage them not to hesitate if they really thought they would be helpful. Yet, I am hesitating even though I know it could be just what I need to do at this particular time.
Well, I guess I have just been thinking out loud. (With an "audience" that probably has some insights and thoughts that are relevant to this concern). If anyone wishes to reply I am open to hearing your thoughts. In the end, I will have to decide for myself. Take care all-
Peace - Joanna:)

 

Re: To Ali...this is a long 'un

Posted by Ali on December 13, 1999, at 10:00:11

In reply to To Ali...this is a long 'un, posted by Deb R on November 29, 1999, at 8:21:55

> Deb, sorry I haven't replied, but my back's been out and I can't sit for too long without pain.

Anyway, the way I see it, at 73 your mom may be able to manage without antipsychotics or on a very low dose.My suggestion, which you should discuss with her MD would be to reduce Olanzapine by 2.5 mg every week( or slower if need be, perhaps 1.25 mg every week or every other week) and see how she does.
If her symptoms recur, the dose can be increases slightly.Be aware that at her age, we also risk agitation and confusion by making any medication changes but she may do OK.
If she has (presumably) had NMS and is now symptom free, a trial off the meds is definitely warranted.Discuss it with her MD.

Good luck!!
>
> You are a gem Ali...here we go
>
> > Why is your mom on it?(diagnosis?)
> - Ali, Mum is Schizophrenic.
>
> >How long was she on it before she developed NMS and on what dose? What dose is she on now?
> - Mum was changed from Risperidone (not sure of the dose of this, but very high) to Olanzapine about 3 weeks before developing the symptoms of NMS. Olanz dose was 27.5mg, along with Diazepam (not sure of dose, perhaps 5mg). Olanzapine dose is now 7.5mg, plus Diazepam about 2mg (is that dose possible? I think thats right anyway)
>
> >Has she had problems with other meds e.g Risperdal?
> - Mum has had leg shaking and jerking for as long as I can remember, not as severe as when she was on Modecate injections, Mum then looked as though she had full-blown Parkinson's disease. I think the TD is permanent now - leg shaking mainly. Mum has the most amazing muscle development in her legs, she has beautiful legs for a 70+ year old, great shape etc. That might sound like a weird thing to say, but I guess its because they are constantly moving.
>
> >Why did she have to get off that?
> - Mums Psych changed Mum to Olanzapine because she thought it would give some relief from all the "touching" things that were happening, Mum felt as though she was being touched by "someone" all the time, there is a name for this, but I can't remember what they called it.
>
> >Was the dx of NMS confirmed?
> - Mum had all the symptoms of NMS although the level in her blood of something called Serum Creatinase (bleah, not sure if that is the right name for it.) while "very high" was not as extreme as is usual for NMS.
>
> >Why is she still on it if she did indeed have NMS?
> - Exactly what I am trying to find out. The NMS diagnosis was confirmed by the Doctors (Mum was on a general ward while they discounted other medical conditions for nearly 2 weeks, still on the high level of drugs!) When I started to look into this NMS (Mum was admitted with this as a big query from her Psychiatrist) I started to ask questions, like why was Mum still on the drugs if she had NMS etc. Anyway, thats when they started to say that they werent convinced she did have it and they were still trying to work out what was happening. Mum did have it, I have no doubt. Especially when they actually got Mum's permission to video her for their teaching purposes!
>
> >what symptoms does she have remaining after she gets off the drug.
> -Ali, for one blissful week, Mum was off all drugs. You should have seen her animated face, she looked happy and actually smiled at me with her whole face, shining eyes. I was so happy after years and years of Mum with what I call 'the mask' on. Even the voices went!!! Mum wasnt hearing any voices at all!!! Why was that, when Mum said to the Docs (by this stage she was on the Psych ward) "I dont think I need the drugs as the voices have gone" ...they replied: "But what if they come back".
>
> >At 73, there may be other alternatives for her.
> - Ali, I am so hopeful...there must be something out there that can help Mum have a break from the drugs at least until her body can recover a bit more.
>
> >Of course, you must discuss these with her MD before making ANY changes in her meds.
> - Absolutely, I would be too scared to do it any other way. I have to be careful also to make sure it is what Mum wants to do, Mum is so compliant and will not question anything the Doc's tell her, years of conditioning I suppose. A lot has changed in Mental Health during my Mum's time. Thank goodness.
>
> Ali, it feels good to be writing all this down, there is soooo much more I could write, once I get started I have to make sure I re-read it all the time so I don't rave on too much...many thanks to you for any input you may have. I appreciate your interest so much and I am very grateful you responded to my post...
>
> sincerely,
>
> Deb.

 

Re: To Ali...thanks

Posted by Deb R on December 14, 1999, at 9:08:18

In reply to Re: To Ali...this is a long 'un, posted by Ali on December 13, 1999, at 10:00:11

Hi Ali,
I was glad to hear from you as I was a bit worried I may have put you off with the long post! How is your back going? Hope you aren't in too much pain anymore?

Thanks for the info, I will add it to my little file which I am taking to Mum's next appointment and see if we can get something positive happening. I have bloody had enough of it all really and think I am cracking up myself, seriously I feel dreadful and am not coping terribly well with anything. Bleah! Anyway thanks again Ali - look after yourself and just know that I am grateful to you.

Deb.

 

Re: To Ali...thanks

Posted by Ali on December 14, 1999, at 11:34:30

In reply to Re: To Ali...thanks, posted by Deb R on December 14, 1999, at 9:08:18

>Deb;
I think the thing to stress to her MD is that you, as her caretaker, are willing to accept the risks associated with getting her off the meds on the chance that she may do better without.I think any reasonable doctor can see the logic to that and the bottom line is that if she needs to, she can always go back on the meds.
Keep me posted.

Ali
Hi Ali,
> I was glad to hear from you as I was a bit worried I may have put you off with the long post! How is your back going? Hope you aren't in too much pain anymore?
>
> Thanks for the info, I will add it to my little file which I am taking to Mum's next appointment and see if we can get something positive happening. I have bloody had enough of it all really and think I am cracking up myself, seriously I feel dreadful and am not coping terribly well with anything. Bleah! Anyway thanks again Ali - look after yourself and just know that I am grateful to you.
>
> Deb.

 

To Ali

Posted by Deb R on December 15, 1999, at 9:13:37

In reply to Re: To Ali...thanks, posted by Ali on December 14, 1999, at 11:34:30

Ali,
Thanks, will be in touch when/if something happens. Meanwhile look after your back!

Deb.



This is the end of the thread.


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD, bob@dr-bob.org

Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.