Posted by med_empowered on January 6, 2007, at 18:25:42
In reply to Re: Patient paid to accept neuroleptic depot injec, posted by linkadge on January 6, 2007, at 18:13:06
I seem to recall seeing studies from as early as the laste 50s and early 60s (back when "antipsychotics" were being called "ataractic" drugs") that showed, even then, that the drugs weren't helpful.
I'm not anti-drug per se, but I do think we have to be careful about the drugs we go around spraying people with. Antipsychotics have a pretty long history of causing bad side effects. I can see how giving someone who is psychotic a neuroleptic, especially if you conceive of acute schizophrenic psychosis as a psychosis-heavy form of Bipolar Mania, as some have suggested. Do it short term, minimize discomfort, stop the episode, prevent too much long term damage from their actions. But months and years of this stuff? It seems ill advised. Very, very ill advised.
If someone must be medicated in schizophrenia (and a lot of people seem to do fine, over time, w/o meds), there are other meds. Try the anticonvulsants. Use benzos. Maybe even give good 'ole placebo a whirl. Opiates may be effective. But neuroleptics? To say that the "only" drugs effective for schizophrenia have "unfortunate side effects" is inaccurate. There are other meds to use--they may not be specifically "antipsychotic," but there are indications that they work on some symptoms in a good number of patients. I think the problem isn't trying to medicate some of the symptoms of schizophrenia, at least for a while--that can actually give patients and families a needed break from active psychosis--I think the problem is that the meds being used (D2 blockers) tend to be unpleasant and carry unpleasant and unwanted side effects.
poster:med_empowered
thread:719688
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070101/msgs/719944.html