Psycho-Babble Medication Thread 579280

Shown: posts 7 to 31 of 57. Go back in thread:

 

Re: great article

Posted by Bill LL on November 16, 2005, at 15:08:43

In reply to Re: great article, posted by spriggy on November 16, 2005, at 13:03:49

I also agree with a lot of it. This would be my proposal:

Allow people to buy these types of drugs without a prescription. This would include most newer antidepressants, the newer sleep drugs, certain benzos, and ADD drugs. All are relatively benign when used responsibly.

Instead of a doctor's prescription, pharmacists who pass an acredidation exam would be able to sell you the drugs. The pharmacist would look at your current meds to evaluate potential side effects, and help you decide what to take. The pharm doc could see if you take drugs for high blood pressure, diabetes, etc. They could charge maybe $10 per pharmacy consultation or whatever.

Pharmacists are very well trained and their expertice is under-used. (By the way, I'm not a pharmacist and have no relatives are are).

This could expedite a person's search for his or her best treatment.

> I'm not sure what I think about it.
>
>
> I agree with most of what was written but I'm afraid of how it will be perceived.
>
> I was a little proud to see our very own medempowered made it in the NY times..
>
> Can I have your autograph? ROFL

 

AMY HARMON - Self Reporting

Posted by Nickengland on November 16, 2005, at 16:11:31

In reply to Article in NYT RE: Self-Prescribing/Medicating, posted by hawkeye on November 16, 2005, at 9:42:03

AMY HARMON - Writes an interesting report.

I think though that, in general when I read the newspapers reporters will write what grabs the readers attention.....Theres many sides to a story, but perhaps if some of the different views were to be put into print it wouldn't make the headlines so to speak and grab the readers attention...? So the most dramatic/headline grabbers get put into print - but thats what the reporters are paid to do right? I don't know i'm not a reporter lol

Out of all the threads, the report of this site and particular 'story' was very brief.

>For a hefty markup, dozens of Web sites fill orders for drugs, no prescription required, though to do so is not legal.

In the US - however the particular poster she mentions in this report (I think) comes from the UK - and although this news report is from the US, the person she mention buying the medication being from the UK I believe it is actually legal for them to purchase a medication from the internet because we have different laws to the US, but this wasn't mentioned...Its doesn't mention about places like Thailand and Spain where I think the laws differ and where people may be from posting on these forums which are in effect based internationally and whereby you can walk into these pharmacy's and buy many medications over the counter without a prescription in real life forgetting the internet.

>Instead, customers are asked to fill out a form describing themselves and their symptoms, often with all the right boxes helpfully pre-checked.

From what I understand that part of the report has not been thoroughly investigated..

>"Being a Patient
Young, Assured and Playing Pharmacist to Friends"

Please don't jump to conclusions ;-)

Be patient. Always check with your Pharmacist and rest assured you always have your friends.


 

Re: AMY HARMON - Self Reporting

Posted by linkadge on November 16, 2005, at 17:19:02

In reply to AMY HARMON - Self Reporting, posted by Nickengland on November 16, 2005, at 16:11:31

It was a very good article. It was accuate on so many levels. I wasn't comfortable reading it because a lot of it is familliar.


The one thing that I've learned after taking every drug in the book, is that there is nothing beyond stability. (ie There is no such thing as an edge. )


Linkadge

 

Re: AMY HARMON - Self Reporting

Posted by Nickengland on November 16, 2005, at 17:59:37

In reply to Re: AMY HARMON - Self Reporting, posted by linkadge on November 16, 2005, at 17:19:02

Hi linkadge,

>It was a very good article. It was accuate on so many levels.

Yeah, although my previous post picks up some of the report, I do agree. I've just re-read it a couple of times over as my first impression was slightly different - you're right the article is pretty accurate I guess...I just think that the report could have covered more sides, for example in my case the fact that had I had not used the internet for research the 'consultant psychiatrist I see doesn't even know about some of the medications commonly used for bipolar disorder...had I not suggested them, I wouldn't of gained relief and would have been stuck on the drugs he gave me which were making me worse...

The last times I walked into see my psychiatrist - his comment was "I think you're doing very well" The medication i'm taking he prescribed ~ I suggested.

Previous to this in the years, it has been, how are you doing? "Not very good at all...." He prescribed ~ he suggested.

The pharmacists dispense the drugs - but can't do so without the doctors say so. When your doctor is giving you drugs that are making you worse in the UK under the NHS, unless your privite, you have to do what you can to make sure you get drugs that make you better lol but then this would be an article for the UK I guess..

 

Re: Article in NYT RE: Self-Prescribing/Medicating

Posted by willyee on November 16, 2005, at 18:13:38

In reply to Article in NYT RE: Self-Prescribing/Medicating, posted by hawkeye on November 16, 2005, at 9:42:03

Personaly i have to agree with the idea of self medicating.


The system is just too difficult to work with.You have packed jammed doc scheldues,where u have to wait weeks .

You have ultra short sessions which are only a matter of minutes,almost absurd to think a professional can correctly evalute you and moitor you after not seeing u in weeks,seeing tons of people the same day before u,and having u in front of them for a few minutes.This is not the kind of care such a horrable dehibilating disease should have.


This day and age you have SOOOOO much more resources than you did just a few years back.And JUST BECAUSE im saying i might know more on current meds than my doc does not mean i believe i know more overall than my doc.There are a lot in the profession a doc has to know,insurance how to deal with reps et etc etc.

Also patients are different,but i still believe with the TIME,the RESOURCES a person has,i still have to say i believe a patieant can know more about there medication treatment then there p-doc.

This is why is INCLUDE my doc,i dont however exclude myself in treatment.

 

Re: Article in NYT RE: Self-Prescribing/Medicating » willyee

Posted by Nickengland on November 16, 2005, at 18:30:13

In reply to Re: Article in NYT RE: Self-Prescribing/Medicating, posted by willyee on November 16, 2005, at 18:13:38

Hi willyee,

I'm no way a fortune teller, but something told me that when I last saw Amy's thread when she was gathering information about her story, I knew there would be aspects of it I would agree with, but also I knew there would be parts of the truth which were not put into print and these aspects although may notbe relevant to the average joe (make the first page etc) are relevant in a sense to the reader as it shows what lengths people with mental illness have to go to gain relief...The people with mental illness seem to always have the short straw with stigma etc so to speak..

When someone goes to have a drink of alcohol tonight, be they a reporter or anyone in the general population, or smoking a cigarette even in a social setting ~ could it be considered a form of self prescribing - after all it is a drug..

Everyone has there own unique story, fortunately some can put theres in print for viewers of millions of people, whether its on the internet or in the newspapers - although I doubt these parts will be put into print lol

Kind regards

Nick

 

Biased Research and Free Gifts - for who?

Posted by Nickengland on November 16, 2005, at 19:07:07

In reply to Article in NYT RE: Self-Prescribing/Medicating, posted by hawkeye on November 16, 2005, at 9:42:03

>Direct-to-consumer drug advertising, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1997, has for most of their adult lives sent the message that pills offer a cure for any ill. Which ones to take, many advertisements suggest, is largely a matter of personal choice.

In todays news...

Crackdown on drug firm promotion

Ways to report side effects must appear on all promotional material
Drug firms will no longer be able to court doctors with prizes and lavish venues, following an overhaul of the industry's code of practice.
Companies must only offer economy air travel to delegates sponsored to attend meetings, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry adds.

The first changes to the industry's code in a decade also focus on patient safety and process complaints faster.

Companies that breach the code can be named and shamed, the ABPI said.

The new code comes into effect on January 1, 2006.

It bans the use of promotional competitions and quizzes.

As far as meetings and seminars are concerned, subsistence - food and accommodation - must be strictly limited to what is essential for people to attend the event.

And companies should avoid using venues renowned for entertainment facilities, it says.

Firms must make public a list of all patient organisations to which they provide financial support, and prominent information about how to notify drug firms about possible side-effects of their products must be displayed on all promotional material.

Self-regulation

Speaking at the launch in central London, Andrew Hotchkiss, ABPI board member in charge of the project, said: "The ABPI code of practice has been the gold standard for pharmaceutical industry regulation throughout the world for many years.

"Our aim was to ensure that it continued to be strong and effective as well as fully meeting all the changes and requirements that have occurred since the last review."

Jeremy Mean, senior policy manager at the government regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), said: "The control of medicines advertising in the UK is based on a long-established system of self-regulation supported by the statutory role of the MHRA.

"The MHRA warmly welcomes the new code, which includes positive changes to enhance patient safety to ensure that the code remains robust and rigorous."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4443320.stm

-------------------------------------------------


And interestingly...from the news in 2003

Doctors 'influenced by drug companies'


Some doctors may be prescribing unsuitable drugs
Experts have called for new rules governing the relationship between the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry.
It follows claims that some drug companies may have undue influence over what medicines doctors prescribe to patients.

Several studies published in this week's British Medical Journal (BMJ) suggest that this influence may cause some doctors to prescribe unsuitable and unnecessary drugs.

They raise questions about the free gifts given by companies to doctors and the way the industry funds research, medical conferences and education seminars.

Free gifts

Drug company representatives visit thousands of doctors every week to inform them about new or existing products. They often offer doctors free gifts, such as stationery, mugs or key rings. Sometimes the gifts may be more substantial.

One of the studies in this week's BMJ suggests this may encourage some doctors to prescribe unsuitable drugs to patients.

Doctors must not be, or be seen to be, influenced in prescribing matters by any incentives from the pharmaceutical industry

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, BMA

Researchers carried out a survey of 1,000 GPs across England. They found that doctors who see company reps at least once a week are more likely to consider prescribing new drugs and to agree to patients' requests for medication even if they don't need it.

They suggested that in some cases reps may even target those doctors who are most likely to prescribe their products.

Doctors are expected to only prescribe new drugs if there is medical evidence to show they are effective.

The researchers said doctors should be given better guidelines to ensure they only prescribe such medicines.

'Biased research'

A separate study, by researchers in Sweden, suggests that even doctors who rely on research to decide which drugs to prescribe may also be unwittingly colluding with the pharmaceutical industry.

The researchers said this was because studies into new drugs were sometimes biased. They suggested that industry-funded trials were in some cases only published if they included favourable results.

The UK-based pharmaceutical industry strives to maintain the highest possible ethical standards

Dr Trevor Jones, ABPI

And they said a lack of access to negative studies meant some doctors were probably prescribing drugs on the basis of biased research.

Their findings were backed up experts in Canada. They reviewed 30 studies analysing research projects, which had been funded by a pharmaceutical company.

They found that these studies were more likely to come up with results that favoured the company compared with those that received funding from other sectors.

But they also found that these studies were less likely to be published in medical journals.

Richard Smith, editor of the BMJ, said the studies showed that the relationship between the medical profession and industry needed to change.

"Our central argument is that doctors, drug companies and most importantly patients would all benefit from greater distance between doctors and drug companies," he said.

Ray Moynihan, a medical journalist and guest editor of this week's BMJ, said the findings highlighted an unhealthy relationship between the medical profession and the drugs industry.

"We hope this will spark a broad debate about how to clean up the unhealthy aspects of the relationships between doctors and drug companies," he said.

Patient's needs

The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) said companies were expected to adhere to strict guidelines when informing doctors about new products. It said the onus was on doctors to ensure they prescribed effective medicines.

Dr Trevor Jones, the association's director general, added: "The UK-based pharmaceutical industry strives to maintain the highest possible ethical standards in its dealing with healthcare professionals and other stakeholders."

The British Medical Association (BMA) said it hoped the studies would lead to a debate about the best way to prevent drug companies from inappropriately influencing doctors.

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the BMA's head of science and ethics, added: "The guidelines in the UK put fairly strict limits on hospitality, gifts, sponsorship but should be constantly reviewed especially against any evidence of abuse or ineffectiveness.

"The individual needs of the patient are paramount when a doctor is prescribing medication.

"Doctors must not be, or be seen to be, influenced in prescribing matters by any incentives from the pharmaceutical industry."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2946276.stm

Kind regards

Nick


 

Re: Article in NYT RE: Self-Prescribing/Medicating

Posted by Emily Elizabeth on November 16, 2005, at 23:23:48

In reply to Re: Article in NYT RE: Self-Prescribing/Medicating » willyee, posted by Nickengland on November 16, 2005, at 18:30:13

I must say I have mixed feelings about this article. As I was reading it, I found myself getting mad at many of the people who were being interviewed. It seemed that a lot of them were essentially using psych meds recreationally (e.g., taking a stimulant so that you can stay up and clean or party) First of all I guess that I would like to have that luxury--taking meds is my desperate attempt to feel OK, and it doesn't always work. I don't quite know how to express it, but I feel like well, maybe these kids that she is interviewing are spoiled or something. If you have been up late you have to go to sleep. That's how it works. Don't abuse a drug that some people need to just feel normal. It's almost insulting. Does anyone understand what I'm trying to say? Does anyone else feel this way?

Also, I worry that pieces like this help cement the idea in people's mind that psych meds are something people take simply because they want to. That they are optional and not an actual medical treatment for a medical problem. We don't need any more stigma.

That said, it was interesting. Although I agree w/ the person above that said that it was unfortunate that the Babble reference was somewhat unflattering. Why did she choose something that broke one of the rules of the boards? Not the most representative choice to say the least!

Best,
EE

 

Re: Biased Research and Free Gifts - for who?

Posted by Phillipa on November 16, 2005, at 23:29:14

In reply to Biased Research and Free Gifts - for who?, posted by Nickengland on November 16, 2005, at 19:07:07

She E-mailed me and I did not answer. If this article nails the drug reps and cuts down on prizes rewards, etc. then its a good thing. I myself hope the doctors will see how unhappy their pts are with their advise. And yes pdoc's aske their pts which med they would like to try. Where is their knowledge? Pdocs needs school for medication education not some dug rep peddling pills and samples in return for using their meds for doctors earnign vacations etc. Fondly, Phillipa

 

Re: Article in NYT RE: Self-Prescribing/Medicating

Posted by Iansf on November 17, 2005, at 1:36:03

In reply to Re: Article in NYT RE: Self-Prescribing/Medicating » willyee, posted by Nickengland on November 16, 2005, at 18:30:13

> Hi willyee,
>
> I'm no way a fortune teller, but something told me that when I last saw Amy's thread when she was gathering information about her story, I knew there would be aspects of it I would agree with, but also I knew there would be parts of the truth which were not put into print and these aspects although may notbe relevant to the average joe (make the first page etc) are relevant in a sense to the reader as it shows what lengths people with mental illness have to go to gain relief...The people with mental illness seem to always have the short straw with stigma etc so to speak..
>
>
She interviewed me, but it became clear very quickly that I didn't fit the pattern she had in her head, which was that self-prescribing was something only people in their 20s and 30s do and it's happening to a large extent because of the Internet. I'm in my 50s. I have friends who are in their 40s, 50s and 60s who also try to take control of their treatment. I started doing my own research 10 years before I even heard of the Internet. But because this information didn't fit her thesis, she ignored it. She even told me she'd spoken to several other people who were in their 40s and 50s. But all of us got left out because it disrupted her premise. Rather than adjust her premise, she preferred to adjust reality. It doesn't necessarily negate much of what she said, but I do find it rather insulting.

 

I'm sorry everyone

Posted by med_empowered on November 17, 2005, at 1:54:51

In reply to Re: Article in NYT RE: Self-Prescribing/Medicating, posted by Iansf on November 17, 2005, at 1:36:03

hey! I am very sorry that my post (which completely violated psycho-babble rules+regulations) was the **only** post from this excellent website that was posted. At the same time...I'm kind of disturbed that this whole article focused on self-prescribing while ignoring what psycho-babble and many other wesbites are *really* about--patient information and empowerment, with the goal of working towards a more equal doctor-patient collaboration, rather than the traditional mode in which a patient is "worked on" or "treated by" a certain physician. I'm also alarmed that the author alleges there is some sort of trend towards self-prescribing without offering up any sort of hard evidence (numbers, quanititative data)...everything seems to be based on a few interviews which, as one poster stated earlier, seem to have been hand-picked to fit the author's "theme".

Its taken so long for patients, particularly in psychiatry, to give a voice and be able to assume an active role in their treatment. The concept of "patient-centered therapy" is pretty new, which seems ridiculous when you realize that it is, in fact, the patient whose very LIFE is being affected by whatever treatment is offered. I can't help but feel that this article has portrayed many of us as being misinformed, uninformed, or simply drug-seeking. Much of this article strikes me as being poorly supported, highly biased, and ultimately damaging to well-informed patients seeking the very best possible treatment for themselves and those they care about. That said...I *am* sorry that my post (again, sorry I broke babble rules with that) was the **only one** selected from this site.

 

Re: Bias was predictable

Posted by blueberry on November 17, 2005, at 4:08:31

In reply to Article in NYT RE: Self-Prescribing/Medicating, posted by hawkeye on November 16, 2005, at 9:42:03

When Amy Harmon first came to this board, I asked whether the NYT had a liberal slant or a conservative slant. Once I found out, it was a slam dunk to know in advance how this article would be biased. That's why I didn't participate. It was an interesting article though, and actually wasn't quite as extremely biased as I had expected, though still considerably biased.

 

NYT ''new trends'' » med_empowered

Posted by pseudoname on November 17, 2005, at 6:05:47

In reply to I'm sorry everyone, posted by med_empowered on November 17, 2005, at 1:54:51

m_e,

I hope I didn't sound as though I was shaking my finger at you for the post that she quoted. Clearly, she would've found another example if you hadn't put a small toe over Bob's line. Your post in fact was much more about how to warn people away from a particular illegal source.

I agree that patient-empowerment psychiatry is a much bigger deal than her drug-diversion angle.

You are right that "the author alleges there is some sort of trend towards self-prescribing without offering up any sort of hard evidence (numbers, quanititative data)."  I guess because it *seems* to me personally like there's "more" self-prescribing, I was buying her premise, too, without actually thinking about it. I could ask myself, "More" compared to what?

In Slate's Press Box column a few weeks ago, Jack Shafer criticized the NY Times for asserting numerically unverified "new trends" and using weasel-words like "many" instead of quantitative data. On Sept 20, for example, the Times said there was a new trend for "many" young Ivy-League women to choose babies over careers. Problem? The Times reported the exact same new trend TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO!

http://www.slate.com/id/2126760/

 

Re: NYT ''new trends''

Posted by med_empowered on November 17, 2005, at 6:23:32

In reply to NYT ''new trends'' » med_empowered, posted by pseudoname on November 17, 2005, at 6:05:47

You have a point. For instance, a friend of mine was talking about how the NYT proclaimed that "feminism is dead" recently. I live in a college town, so I can tell you...feminism is *not* dead. Sweeping pronouncements such as this are inappropriate and unsupported by data (im in social sciences; data is my life blood). Plus, without getting too political here...I've lost pretty much all respect for the NYT after the whole Judith Miller thing. These days, I read "The Utne Reader" "Harper's" ""The Progressive" "Mother Jones" and "In these Times" (I double quoted everything to see if the amazon.com magical thing would happen).

 

med_empowered

Posted by Glydin on November 17, 2005, at 6:37:34

In reply to Re: NYT ''new trends'', posted by med_empowered on November 17, 2005, at 6:23:32

I don’t want you to feel badly over the fact ONE (as in ONE example) post of yours was cited for the article. You are a part of this community and you took this particular encounter private at which time it then became a private matter between you and another poster. This encounter happened to fit the angle of the article. You contribute to this board in ways other than the exchange cited.

 

Re: med_empowered

Posted by linkadge on November 17, 2005, at 8:45:04

In reply to med_empowered, posted by Glydin on November 17, 2005, at 6:37:34

What I think is the most dangerous part of it all, is that we are overestimating the safety of the drugs.

If we were mixing raspberry and blueberry fruitloops it would be a different issue.

Doctors may appear "dumb" may just be rightly conservative.


Linkadge


 

Shafer on Harmon's article » med_empowered

Posted by pseudoname on November 17, 2005, at 9:27:38

In reply to Re: NYT ''new trends'', posted by med_empowered on November 17, 2005, at 6:23:32

In an email this morning, I suggested to Jack Shafer that Amy Harmon's article was an example of unsupported NYT trend-spotting like the earlier Ivy-grad motherhood article he criticized. He replied,

> I read this one closely. I don't think they
> crossed the line and asserted that their
> information was anything but anecdotal.

In truth, the drug-diversion article wasn't as empty and "hand-waving" as the motherhood article. And there was a little hard data (the study that found 14% of one college's students admitting diverting prescription drugs to/from friends). Also I don't think the overall picture is fallacious, as it may have been in the motherhood story.

But I think the article implied that it proved more than it actually proved about self-pharmacy trends.

 

Re: Shafer on Harmon's article

Posted by linkadge on November 17, 2005, at 10:34:51

In reply to Shafer on Harmon's article » med_empowered, posted by pseudoname on November 17, 2005, at 9:27:38

Ritalin abuse in university is very common. In my university it is very common.

Linkadge

 

Re: Shafer on Harmon's article

Posted by Laurie Beth on November 17, 2005, at 10:38:57

In reply to Shafer on Harmon's article » med_empowered, posted by pseudoname on November 17, 2005, at 9:27:38

"But I think the article implied that it proved more than it actually proved about self-pharmacy trends."

I agree.

For example:

"For a sizable group of people in their 20's and 30's, deciding on their own what drugs to take - in particular, stimulants, antidepressants and other psychiatric medications - is becoming the norm."

Technically, this might be true. Perhaps for several young adults (out of how many millions in the US?), the "norm" is to decide what meds to take (and, also implied by context, to obtain them illegally). But the very use of word "norm" is intended to mislead the reader into thinking that she's saying that the NORM AMONG YOUNG ADULTS is to decide on their own what meds to take. Saying that "some people in their 20s and 30s decide on their own" what psychotropic meds to takewould hardly be news, right?

But in some instnaces, it seems to me that she DOES cross the line between misleading the reader into thinking that more is being claimed, and actually claiming more but not supporting it. Take this:

"The behavior [referent unclear, she seems to be referring to 'trad[ing] unused prescription drugs, get[ting] medications without prescriptions from the Internet and, in some cases, l[ying] to doctors to obtain medications that in their judgment they need'] ... is on the rise" [along with the "use of marijuana and cocaine"].

And what about the reference to "increasing casual misuse of prescription medications by young people"? Where is the support for this statement?

I don't really see any support in the article for a trend.

But what I find more problematic is (1) as medempowered says, people who are trying to become knowledgeable about their medical care and question or make suggestion to their pdocs or GPs about medication are being lumped with people who break the law by obtaining meds and dispensing meds illegally, and (2) people who are trying to get adequate treatment for serious mental illnesses are being lumped in with those who want to "party" or clean their house late, those who try to "regulate every minor mood fluctuation" will illegal obtained meds, and those who "want to enhance their performance at school or work" with same.

-Laurie

 

Re: Shafer on Harmon's article

Posted by linkadge on November 17, 2005, at 10:57:42

In reply to Re: Shafer on Harmon's article, posted by Laurie Beth on November 17, 2005, at 10:38:57

I have an unsubstantiated theory, that antidepressants themselves can be condusive to this type of behavior.

Before I ever took an AD, I never obsessed so much with drugs, neurotransmitters, bla bla bla.

Its when I took an antidepressant all of this behavior started.

It was the same with my mother. When she first started a TCA back 20 years ago, she started buying all of these books on drugs, started memorizing all of the names of the TCA's etc, started hording benzodiazapines etc.

After she started lithium, she just stopped caring about all of that.

I think its a deceptive path to take. For a short while I thought I could determine my fate by which drugs I took, but then I realized the more time I spent obsessing about drugs, the less time I spent doing the things that were *actually* going to improve the quality of my life.

In short, I think some drugs can actually create a psudo drug seeking behavior.

Linkadge

 

obsessing about treatment generally » linkadge

Posted by pseudoname on November 17, 2005, at 11:36:35

In reply to Re: Shafer on Harmon's article, posted by linkadge on November 17, 2005, at 10:57:42

> I think some drugs can actually create a psudo drug seeking behavior

It's certainly possible. People *do* get hung up on finding "the perfect med."

But the obsessive sort of behavior you describe in your mother and yourself reminds me of nothing so much as my experience with (medication-free) psychoanalysis and other therapies. I spent WAY too much time, money, and energy believing I could determine my fate by solving some unconscious conflict or by engaging some technique thoroughly enough or by reading enough original psychology texts to gain true insight. I invested heavily in those pursuits and in various "therapeutic dyads" for YEARS rather than doing the things that could actually have improved the quality of MY life.

I think the potential pitfall you describe is not something inherent in medication; it's in the promise of finally obtaining that elusive relief from persistent, mysterious problems.

 

Well said. (nm) » Laurie Beth

Posted by pseudoname on November 17, 2005, at 11:38:53

In reply to Re: Shafer on Harmon's article, posted by Laurie Beth on November 17, 2005, at 10:38:57

 

Interesting response by a psychiatrist

Posted by mcd on November 17, 2005, at 12:54:25

In reply to obsessing about treatment generally » linkadge, posted by pseudoname on November 17, 2005, at 11:36:35

I found this blog by a psychiatrist who is furious about the article.

http://shrinkette.blogspot.com/

"A doctor with intensive training can have trouble with these meds...and these patients are going to do better on their own?"

Sometimes.

"They are as careful with themselves, they say, as any doctor would be with a patient. No doubt, that's true...if their doctor is an incompetent criminal."

Doesn't have to be a criminal...sometimes incompetent, usually just indifferent and rushed during a 15 minute (every two or three months) appointment. Or influenced by the Florida golfing vacation (um, I mean "conference") put on by the drug company.

It's also interesting to read the responses, mostly from other psychiatrists.

 

Re: I'm sorry everyone » med_empowered

Posted by Emily Elizabeth on November 17, 2005, at 13:06:07

In reply to I'm sorry everyone, posted by med_empowered on November 17, 2005, at 1:54:51

I agree w/ others that you don't need to appologize. (In fact, I appologize if my post sounded like it was scolding you.) You offer so many helpful insights. You certainly are worth quoting, but it was a poor choice of a quote to use. Also, it was taken out of context. I guess that is the danger of the media, huh?

Best,
EE

 

Public Stigma Perception

Posted by Nickengland on November 17, 2005, at 14:36:23

In reply to Re: I'm sorry everyone » med_empowered, posted by Emily Elizabeth on November 17, 2005, at 13:06:07

Maybe its just me lol

I was just wondering with the title

"Young, Assured and Playing Pharmacist to Friends"

And with what other things are mentioned, when you read inbetween the lines..do you feel any level of sarcasium is in the title of the article?

I need to think about something else (after my long post to Amy!) but I can't help but feel that parts of her story gives the message that, we, (and a growing number) of mentally ill people are firstly - breaking the law ~ whilst at the same time playing.... Also suffering from Genetic mental illness?!!!!!

This doesn't sound very good for millions of readers to think about psychiatric people with what is already a big enough problem throughout the world with stigma?...that a growing number of the young generation is acting illegally - also playing?

To me I think the news story only touches the surface, of such a deeper issue which requires large amounts of investigation and research - then the title would perhaps read differently because it was touching on more of the core issues. Maybe i'm wrong. However, if I had afew months (Like Amy) to investigate this! LOL Of course my version would be UK-ish ;-)
But i'd provide a global prospective. I might start playing reporter as a part-tme job to my already media portrayed Pharmacist Job ;-) (joke) lol


Go forward in 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.