![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 18 of 18. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by kazoo on June 6, 2001, at 23:19:43
http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/22092p-414786c.html
Posted by Wendy B. on June 7, 2001, at 7:55:31
In reply to Don't try this at home!, posted by kazoo on June 6, 2001, at 23:19:43
Kazoo,
Don't try which? Homicide/suicide junkets, or Paxil? (he he.) Seriously, though, seems a little far-fetched to blame the Paxil for a teeny-tiny bout of insane rage, no?Wish I could blame MY meds for something, however, most of the time I think they truly do keep me from entering that particular zone...
Take care, Wendy
> http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/22092p-414786c.html
Posted by tina on June 7, 2001, at 10:54:44
In reply to Re: Don't try this at home!(SmithKline/Paxil suit) » kazoo, posted by Wendy B. on June 7, 2001, at 7:55:31
Holy poo kazoo. That's inconceivable that a jury would agree that it was the Paxil that caused Mr. Schell to kill his family. Geez. That's a dangerous precedent to set. I'd hate to have had to sit on THAT jury...
> Kazoo,
> Don't try which? Homicide/suicide junkets, or Paxil? (he he.) Seriously, though, seems a little far-fetched to blame the Paxil for a teeny-tiny bout of insane rage, no?
>
> Wish I could blame MY meds for something, however, most of the time I think they truly do keep me from entering that particular zone...
>
> Take care, Wendy
>
>
>
> > http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/22092p-414786c.html
Posted by Kristi on June 7, 2001, at 12:58:35
In reply to Don't try this at home!, posted by kazoo on June 6, 2001, at 23:19:43
Amazing. How can they prove something like that? I don't get it... just like I don't get that whole MCDonalds suit. I had breast surgery, the surgeon left a hand towel sized "undetectable" cloth inside my chest. For years she was telling me the pain was in my head, along with other doctors because nothing showed up in exrays. A doctor just decided to "go in and look".... and wala. This cloth has been in so long it's embedded into my sternum and muscles. Major deformaties for life. Now... wouldn't you think that was slam dunk malpractice? Yet I'm having terrible trouble with MY lawsuit. I just don't see justice anymore. Sorry... had to vent.
> http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/22092p-414786c.html
Posted by Wendy B. on June 7, 2001, at 14:59:43
In reply to Re: Don't try this at home!, posted by Kristi on June 7, 2001, at 12:58:35
Kristi,
You have got to be kidding... Has this really happened to you? I am so terribly sorry. Yes, it does seem clear that your case is in no way "difficult" to call malpractice. Is the difference simply between the large drug company & a lone, incompetent doctor?
They could also just as easily have claimed that this guy NOT taking his Paxil would have caused him to go homicidally bonkers. Just flip a coin, guys...
Again, Kristi, you have my sympathy and best wishes for a huge settlement check...
Wendy
> Amazing. How can they prove something like that? I don't get it... just like I don't get that whole MCDonalds suit. I had breast surgery, the surgeon left a hand towel sized "undetectable" cloth inside my chest. For years she was telling me the pain was in my head, along with other doctors because nothing showed up in exrays. A doctor just decided to "go in and look".... and wala. This cloth has been in so long it's embedded into my sternum and muscles. Major deformaties for life. Now... wouldn't you think that was slam dunk malpractice? Yet I'm having terrible trouble with MY lawsuit. I just don't see justice anymore. Sorry... had to vent.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/22092p-414786c.html
Posted by stjames on June 7, 2001, at 17:55:19
In reply to Don't try this at home!, posted by kazoo on June 6, 2001, at 23:19:43
> http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/22092p-414786c.html
James here....
There have been several of these "AD's made me do it" suits and so far, in 20 years, no one has won.
James
Posted by kazoo on June 7, 2001, at 23:34:00
In reply to Re: Don't try this at home!(SmithKline/Paxil suit) » kazoo, posted by Wendy B. on June 7, 2001, at 7:55:31
> Kazoo,
> Don't try which? Homicide/suicide junkets, or Paxil? (he he.) Seriously, though, seems a little far-fetched to blame the Paxil for a teeny-tiny bout of insane rage, no?
>
> Wish I could blame MY meds for something, however, most of the time I think they truly do keep me from entering that particular zone...
>
> Take care, Wendy
>
>
>
> > http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/22092p-414786c.html^^^^^^^^^
I am not making light of this story. I don't think it's funny that you should assume that I am. This is serious stuff.
With four people dead, this is not a case of "...a teeny-tiny bout of insane rage."
Is this incident any different from someone high on an illegal drug, such as PCP, and killing three people then themselves? What makes this incident even more horrific is that the man killed his own family. That's a hard act to follow.
The obvious question before the jury was probably: "Would this man have done the same thing if he hadn't taken the PAXIL?" Do you think the murderer's suicide (sort-of) points to the answer?
Here's a web-sight (sic) for sore eyes: http://pssg.org/resources.htm
Interestingly enough, there's no mention of the doctor in the suit. Do you think pill-pushers should be made accountable for their role in this kind of thing? (Did somebody say 'incompetence' or was that 'unqualified'?)
kazoo
Posted by judy1 on June 7, 2001, at 23:46:12
In reply to Re: Don't try this at home!(SmithKline/Paxil suit), posted by kazoo on June 7, 2001, at 23:34:00
I came out for this one. SKB has settled hundreds of lawsuits concerning Paxil outside the courtroom. That they let this one go to jury surprised me. If only a small percent of people react to this drug like in this case, that's too many. I take this very seriously too, and more so that physicians don't warn their patients of possible side effects with any psychotropic med- judy
Posted by stjames on June 8, 2001, at 1:12:19
In reply to Re: Don't try this at home!(SmithKline/Paxil suit) » kazoo, posted by judy1 on June 7, 2001, at 23:46:12
That they let this one go to jury surprised me.
James here....
I suspect Smith feels this one in bogas and they can win it. In truth, all that link from kazoo said was man takes AD, then shoots person. Not a whole lot of facts. I can't take one side or the other till I have seen some transcripts and commentary. Otherwise it just sturs people up.
Sad but true, I no longer think a "jury of peers"
is in many cases unable to make the right choice, hince OJ.One of the early Prozac cases that made sensational headlines and had everyone worked up.
The press never mentioned the outcome. The patient
withheld a history of significant mental illness, in patient treatment, and sucide attempts from the doc and through the trial till the other side
produced documents to these facts.I do not think a settlement proves anything. One often settles to avoid costs and press. Liability insurance often requires an org to settle.
I do not think we can hold pdocs responsible for not being able to read minds. Given the usual HMO allowed short consult, how can they tell if the patient is not telling the truth or has more serious issues that they will not speak about ?
I am not relesaing pdoc from all responsibility here but dxing and treating mental illness is a science based almost totally on what the patient says, and is at such more art than science.James
Posted by kazoo on June 8, 2001, at 2:42:15
In reply to Re: Don't try this at home!(SmithKline/Paxil suit), posted by stjames on June 8, 2001, at 1:12:19
> One of the early Prozac cases that made sensational headlines and had everyone worked up.
> The press never mentioned the outcome. The patient
> withheld a history of significant mental illness, in patient treatment, and sucide attempts from the doc and through the trial till the other side
> produced documents to these facts.
>
^^^^^^^^
What you're referring to here is the Joseph Wesbecker incident that happened in 1989. Wesbecker, a 47 year old printing press operator, went on a "spree killing" at the Standard Gravure printing plant in Louisville, Kentucky. Yes, he was depressed and stressed to the max, and out on disability leave, and it was a combination of all these factors (job, money, family, divorce, etc.) that he sought psychiatric help for relief to begin with. He was subsequently given PROZAC, which only served to exacerbate this host of pre-existing conditions. Though the press may not have reported the outcome of the case, the book did: "The Power to Harm: mind, medicine and murder on trial," by John Cornwell (1996)...the plaintiffs (survivors) in the case lost to the dubious legal wranglings of Eli Lilly's legal machine. This is an excellent book, one which I can recommend for anyone interested in this subject, because it's an exercise in the nearly infinite number of variables associated with the mind and chemicals ... it pits psychopharmacology against known/unknown pathological behavior. The interesting aspect of this particular case was that CRIMINAL CHARGES were lodged against Lilly in addition to CIVIL CHARGES.
> I do not think a settlement proves anything.
^^^^^^^^^
Not so! What a settlement of this kind does is two-fold: it sets a precedent, and it creates a "shadow of doubt" in the minds of the public (and legal system) about the relationship of these drugs and violence (in certain individuals). And it also serves notice that more research must be done to determine why some people, in the process of getting "help," actually get worse and do horrible things. The remedy *is* worse than the malady when people are slaughtered.
> I do not think we can hold pdocs responsible for not being able to read minds. Given the usual HMO allowed short consult, how can they tell if the patient is not telling the truth or has more serious issues that they will not speak about ?
> I am not relesaing pdoc from all responsibility here but dxing and treating mental illness is a science based almost totally on what the patient says, and is at such more art than science.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's far more scientific than you think, my friend! A QUALIFIED doctor can pretty much tell when a person is lying (at least during those times I've tried), and even so, via the use of inductive reasoning (meaning based on previous actions/behavior as in the Wesbecker case), the use of drugs should weigh heavily on the doctor's course of therapy; however, not all doctors are the same, some more competent, sensitive and compassionate than others. So, in addition to more research about the effects of these drugs on certain people, a screening, or filtering, system should be in place to weed out those physicians who are incompetent, or are restricted time-wise to prevent digging deeper into their patient's past.I guess "doctor shopping" has a new meaning now and isn't as bad as we think.
But, all-in-all, james, I do agree with what you say.
(a crabby) kazoo
Posted by Wendy B. on June 8, 2001, at 5:58:29
In reply to Re: Don't try this at home!(SmithKline/Paxil suit), posted by kazoo on June 7, 2001, at 23:34:00
> > Kazoo,
> > Don't try which? Homicide/suicide junkets, or Paxil? (he he.) Seriously, though, seems a little far-fetched to blame the Paxil for a teeny-tiny bout of insane rage, no?
> >
> > Wish I could blame MY meds for something, however, most of the time I think they truly do keep me from entering that particular zone...
> >
> > Take care, Wendy
> >
> >
> >
> > > http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/22092p-414786c.html
>
> ^^^^^^^^^
>I am not making light of this story. I don't think it's funny that you should assume that I am. This is serious stuff.
Kazoo: I wasn't making light of the story, but of the insane legal system that can claim to know the man wasn't already homicidal BEFORE he walked into the Dr's office... Perhaps I was unclear... Also commenting on the inability of the system to judge what I believe St James is referring to as the outcome of of an "art," not a science - psych-medicine. I have to agree with him.
> With four people dead, this is not a case of "...a teeny-tiny bout of insane rage."My quote, here, was OF COURSE originally meant as an attempt at I-R-O-N-Y, and yeah, I do think we can and do bring humour into the discussion about these types of events all the time, in order to understand and to deflect some of the horror. You posted the thing, Kazoo, you kinda have to expect controversial answers to such a heated topic.
> Is this incident any different from someone high on an illegal drug, such as PCP, and killing three people then themselves? What makes this incident even more horrific is that the man killed his own family. That's a hard act to follow.>(...)
> kazoo
Yours,
Wendy
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 8, 2001, at 12:08:28
In reply to Re: Don't try this at home!(SmithKline/Paxil suit) » kazoo, posted by Wendy B. on June 7, 2001, at 7:55:31
Its so easy to blame everything n something else, its so nice to know that we are only like we are due to our medication!!! Why was he on paxil if he was so stable huh??
So pathetic in my opinion!
> Kazoo,
> Don't try which? Homicide/suicide junkets, or Paxil? (he he.) Seriously, though, seems a little far-fetched to blame the Paxil for a teeny-tiny bout of insane rage, no?
>
> Wish I could blame MY meds for something, however, most of the time I think they truly do keep me from entering that particular zone...
>
> Take care, Wendy
>
>
>
> > http://www.nandotimes.com/business/story/22092p-414786c.html
Posted by Willow on June 8, 2001, at 18:48:49
In reply to Re: Don't try this at home!(SmithKline/Paxil suit), posted by NikkiT2 on June 8, 2001, at 12:08:28
I've become cranky from my meds, but I usually give warning for everyone to stay away from me, sorta like a growl I guess! I hope no postal workers hear of this.
Willow
p.s. welcome back Nikki!
Can I quote you?
> So pathetic in my opinion!
Posted by kazoo on June 9, 2001, at 2:14:31
In reply to Re: Don't try this at home!(SmithKline/Paxil suit), posted by Willow on June 8, 2001, at 18:48:49
> I've become cranky from my meds ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You? Cranky? My dear, my dear, my dear, you are quite normal!Will you marry me?
I am very rich, very handsome and I don't drink milk.
(a fond) kazoo
Posted by judy1 on June 9, 2001, at 15:48:11
In reply to Re: Don't try this at home!(SmithKline/Paxil suit), posted by stjames on June 8, 2001, at 1:12:19
I couldn't agree with you more that it is the patient's responsibility to tell his/her pdocs the truth about their psychiatric history so that an informed decision can be made for treatment. I also agree that the 10 minute HMO visits often prevent that (and sometimes with tragic results) I am 'guilty' of such an act- went in for depression and left with prozac and 2 days later hosp with a psychotic manic episode. I think that's an importnat point too- that there is a class of patients that react to SSRI's within a couple of days with rage, mania, etc. Maybe an answer would be to follow up in a shorter period of time than the normal 6 weeks? with an HMO. Interestingly to me is the point that MAOI's and TCA's don't have this sort of rx (except mania) or we don't hear about them?- take care, judy
Posted by Willow on June 10, 2001, at 3:52:56
In reply to Re: Don't try this at home!(SmithKline/Paxil suit) » Willow, posted by kazoo on June 9, 2001, at 2:14:31
"..., you are quite normal!"
Perhaps, in an abnormal way? Honestly, though I don't think anyone before has said that I am normal.
>
> Will you marry me?
>
"I am very rich, very handsome ..."Aw, you hurt my feelings! Do you believe me to be so shallow? (hmph, I have this feeling that you'll make fun with this)
"and I don't drink milk."
... but then who could I blame the empty pitcher on???
"Will you marry me?"
You're able to play with my heart, even though I've read some of your posts and have taken the assumption that you can be a habitual flirt! By any chance are you an aquarius and/or blonde?
Doting Willow
Posted by Willow on June 10, 2001, at 16:15:49
In reply to Re: Don't try this at home!(SmithKline/Paxil suit), posted by Willow on June 10, 2001, at 3:52:56
> "..., you are quite normal!"
>
> Perhaps, in an abnormal way? Honestly, though I don't think anyone before has said that I am normal.
> >
> > Will you marry me?
> >
> "I am very rich, very handsome ..."
>
> Aw, you hurt my feelings! Do you believe me to be so shallow? (hmph, I have this feeling that you'll make fun with this)
>
> "and I don't drink milk."
>
> ... but then who could I blame the empty pitcher on???
>
> "Will you marry me?"
>
> You're able to play with my heart, even though I've read some of your posts and have taken the assumption that you can be a habitual flirt! By any chance are you an aquarius and/or blonde?
>
> Doting Willow
Posted by kazoo on June 11, 2001, at 3:34:05
In reply to Kazoo looke up one ^^ np, posted by Willow on June 10, 2001, at 16:15:49
Yes, my dear, I have glanced toward the Heavens, in awe and wonderment, at a star scintillating your radiance.
I am a Leo with my moon in Scorpio, and very hairy. Woof! Woof!(a poetic) kazoo
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
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.