Posted by Rick on October 26, 2002, at 16:59:01
In reply to Re: RATIONAL USE OF BENZODIAZAPINES (5.) » Squiggles, posted by Alan on October 26, 2002, at 15:41:05
Well said!
In additional to the irrational reasons you and others have cited, I believe that some of today's benzophobia was fueled by the early days of benzos -- especially Valium -- when many GP's would indiscriminately hand them out like candy. You had people coming in with what was clearly a depressive, rather than anxious, disorder, and the doc would throw benzos at the patient.
Long before I had ever heard of social phobia (even though I sure had it!), I asked a college counselor to prescribe something to help me get through job interviews without shriveling and quavering. She refused, but later left me a note which included a reluctant prescription for Valium. (I guess I've always been good at laying guilt trips.) I was completely naive to anything but over-the-counter drugs at that point, and found the Valium useless -- not even a placebo effect.
I'm so glad different benzos have different properties, because for my social phobia the difference between Valium (or my pdoc's "beloved" Tranxene) and Klonopin is night-and-day.
BTW, in all fairness to Tranxene (drugs have feelings, too, y'know), I understand it can very smooth and effective for GAD.
Rick
> > Once again, the amount of dose, the length of time,
> > the abruptness of cessation, and the increase or non-increase
> > of dose over time, are variables that will influence
> > the severity of withdrawal with these drugs.
> ================================================
> And if I may interrupt, here is of where much of the misunderstanding lies within the tightly knit anti-benzo movement.
>
> Since an individual's respose to a drug is so highly idiosyncratic as to the above mentioned points, especially regarding psychotropics, not just bzds, it is virtually impossible to extrapolate that these variables apply to the population in general. They are mere basic medical guidelines that don't increase the risk TO THE INDIVIDUAL as implied by the anecdotal and highly indiviual adverse responses to these meds as reported by a small minority of the population at benzo.org and similar sites.
>
> Statistics and pharmacokenetic curves in some texbook or pharmrep presentation do not apply to the individual - which becomes quite evident when one understands that these medications are so highly effective IF PRESCRIBED, DIAGNOSED, AND MANAGED properly....or to directly use the words of the report..."Used rationally".
>
> The key complaint is that Benzo.org-like sites seize on risk appropriate to the individual and then mistakenly generalises for the population.
>
> So what does the average consumer think when they read this? Where does it leave their naturally anxiety ridden, hyperaroused, med phobic minds? Oh! This must apply to me...extrapolating in the same style by example of that which the benzo.org folks have already (mistakenly) used as their model.
>
> Terribly misleading as to proportionality of risk/benefit assesments applied to any medication much less bzds. What is particular unethical is the exploitation of the "A" word (addiction) when it is used as a pejorative.
>
> Refusing to accept the distinction to "sustained medical dependence" is a conscious choice to continue exaggeration of risk to the individual consumer. The term "Addiction" is used as inflammitory rhetoric to push an agenda that would otherwise be a relative non-issue.
>
> This is not to minimise those cases that have bad experiences coming off of bzds but to acknowledge that it happens to a small minority of the poulation henceforth the use of "RATIONAL USE" as the title of the report.
>
>
> Alan
>
>
poster:Rick
thread:124171
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20021025/msgs/125349.html