Posted by med_empowered on September 23, 2005, at 5:18:42
In reply to Re: My opinion on antipsychotics » Chairman_MAO, posted by yxibow on September 23, 2005, at 0:26:06
hey! To the original poster..I am truly sorry that you developed TD; I don't know why you were given Geodon or how severe your symptoms are, but I empathize with your situation and I urge you to try to find someone to help you treat it.
Now about the neuroleptics/antipsychotics...one thing I read that I thought was interesting is that the term "antipsychotic" wasn't coined by psychiatrists or patients; it was coined by the pharmaceutical industry. In the late 1940s, Thorazine was synthesized. It was being used as a pre-operative sedative in the early 50s in Paris when some docs thought that the calming, tranquilizing effect it had on patients could be of use to the institutionalized psychiatric patients of that era. So...patients were given Thorazine. In the actual study, Thorazine was never called an antipsychotic. The docs never claimed that it treated psychosis or restored people to stability. In fact, Deniker, one of the docs in the trial, referred to Thorazine as a "chemical lobotomy;" thorazine was also referred to as a "pharmacological substitute for lobotomy". Patients weren't treated and then released; they were treated and kept in the wards, where the docs and staff were happy that they were quiet and not causing so much trouble. The term "neuroleptic" was coined to describe Thorazine; it means "nerve-seizing," because Thorazine was (rightly) seen as seizing the mind of the patient, making him or her less spontaneous, less emotional, less human. It was also noted at the time Thorazine caused what is now known as EPS; unlike today, though, the docs also noticed that it caused symptoms similar to encephalitis lethargica, a brain-damaging illness that popped up somewhat regularly in the past. Interestingly enough, while someone has encephalitis lethargica, they are act similarly to those treated with Thorazine; after the disease, the brain is often damaged in such a way that the person has involuntary movements for the rest of their lives. So it is with Thorazine and the other antipyshoctics. Anyway, when the decision was made to market Thorazine, it was suddenly transformed from a "chemical lobtomy" into a "revolutionary treatment for insanity," and the drug promptly began a revolution in psychiatry (and society at large). Its worth noting that, until about 1964, Thorazine was believed to work primarily by an unusual form of sedation--"sedation without necrosis"--not through some sort of magical, anti-psychotic action specific to those with schizophrenia. The dopamine theory of schizophrenia was developed after studying how *existing* drugs for schizophrenia worked, not how the minds of those diagnosed with the disorder functioned or mal-fucntioned. The idea that antipsychotics "correct" some sort of "chemical imbalance" is not only weak, its not even an "idea" or "theory" in the truest sense of the word; its based on the observation that the damaging, much-despised drugs given to those with schizophrenia (often against their will) dampen dopamine. So..basically, we don't *know* that dopamine malfunction causes schizophrenia, but we do know that if you dampen dopamine enough you can make a patient shut up and quit making trouble. Now, the atypicals supposedly represent some sort of revolution in the world of psychiatry, but there seem to be two groups of people who benefit most from this supposed "revolution": drug companies and psychiatrists. Drug companies, of course, can now charge outrageous prices for drugs that are only marginally better than the old meds and still claim that they are "on the cutting edge of schizophrenia treatment." Please. They may well be on the "cutting edge" of false advertising and price gouging, but their reformulated Haldols don't represent all that much of an advance in improving the lives of those with schizophrenia. Since the atypicals have been in use, suicide rates in schizophrenia have *not* fallen, employment rates have *not* risen, and the numbers of people recovering has *not* increased--in fact, "recovery" from schizophrenia is viewed, in industrialized nations at least, as impossible; once schizophrenic, always schizophrenic, forever and amen. (In developing countries such as India, this view is rejected--and it appears that many, perhaps most, schizophrenics do in fact recover, with or without high-priced drugs). Then there are the psychiatrists, who are now RXing these expensive, side-effect ridden pills for everything from florid psychosis to mild insomnia. They benefit by being able to claim that they are, in fact, helping people, empowering people with their skills and expertise. Overall, its not true. Schizophrenia tends to be diagnosed unusually often among minorities (especially immigrants) and the poor. These are the people in society who are already at the fringe, who have already been victimized. What, exactly, does giving such a person Seroquel do? Fine, the "symptoms" are under "control". Do they have housing? Are their lives fulfilling, productive, enjoyable--in other words, worth living? It amazes me that psychiatrists demand the right to forcibly hospitalize and treat "schizophrenics," but they give a blank stare when asked if perhaps the money would be better spent offering these people food and shelter while leaving their brains alone. I read a study recently in which they found that when you factor in things that aren't usually counted in company studies--like social isolation, personal fulfillment, basically happiness--life hasn't improved all that much for those with schizophrenia. And, what does it say to the rest of us when psychiatrists prescribe these harsh drugs for things like depression and anxiety? To me, it betrays an utter and complete lack of respect for those of us trying to improve our lives. Depressed? Take this mind-numbing drug that costs lots of $$$, may cause TD and/or diabetes/weight gain, may cause akathisia, and will in general do little more than calm you down and make you more placid. Treatment? That isn't treatment. For too long, psychiatric "treatment" has meant subtracting from the personality, from the soul of the very person ostensibly being "saved" or "treated". This is definitely the case with neuroleptics, especially when given to the non-psychotic. And yes, I know...neuroleptics supposedly emptied out the mental hospitals (that's a myth, actually; government policy, not medication, did that) and they were/are "amazing," etc. etc. Its not true. The very fact that we ever *had* people suffering in the back wards of dirty, understaffed hospitals shows just how little psychiatry (and much of society) values the "insane". Talking to yourself? Seeing things? How about we throw you in an asylum, isolated from the rest of humanity, for the next 10-15 years, all the while preventing you from escaping or even trying to live a life outside? Is that *treatment*? Is that *respect* ? Of course not. The problem with neuroleptics is part of a bigger problem--psychiatry's constant degradation, abuse, labelling, and mistreatment of those it aims to "treat". Think about it: when was the last time a cardiologist had someone tossed into a hospital against their will for years because of "treatment resistant illness?" The potential is there--and it is realized sometimes--for psychiatrists and psychiatry in general to work *for* those in need of help, to truly *empower* people to lead productive lives. But the lure of money (from drug companies) and power (over the lives of "patients") has made psychiatry less a helping profession than a system of control and sometimes even imprisonment behind a medical facade. If you've read this far, sorry this was so long and ramblng--I just kind of pumped this out while sitting here at my computer, thinking over the experiences I've had or seen or heard about. No, I'm not "anti-psychiatry" or a "flat-earther". I am, however, strongly, staunchly "pro-humanity" and "pro-freedom"; these values define myself and my life, and they are increasingly at odds with psychiatry, at least as it is currently practiced.
poster:med_empowered
thread:558119
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20050921/msgs/558425.html