![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 33 to 57 of 106. Go back in thread:
Posted by Hello321 on September 19, 2015, at 20:58:20
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes? » Hello321, posted by SLS on September 19, 2015, at 16:20:11
Youre jumping ahead of me on this. Ive posted on topics similar to this many times on this site and dont think ive ever mentioned these medications should be banned. I just think patients need to be fully informed on all possible outcomes theses treatments can have. And they should be done so in the such a way as one would describe what sunlight feels like to someone who has never felt the sun. The positive and negative effects need to be fully understood. If a patient doesnt have time for this, then their mood problems likely arent bad enough to require prescription treatment.
Respectfully, i believe it is naive for anyone to think the public benefits from full transparency by the Drug Companies or regulatory agencies. Or any Association that is tied to psychiatric treatments. Im about to be doing ECT again and saw the ECT doc monday to vet the treatment set up. I had a friend with me and at one point he asked if ECT can cause brain damage. The ECT doc said a big "no". But thats untrue and one would know this if they simply read a paper titled
"Electroconvulsive therapy reduces frontal cortical
connectivity in severe depressive disorder"Or talked to those who have experienced seemingly permant negative effects from tbe treatment on certain aspects of their life that the brain has control over. If a patient just experiences some memories being permanently wiped away after doing ECT, then just what is that? Something being permanently altered in the brain by the ECT, right? And if this effect is negative in any way at all, then isnt that permanent brain damage from the ECT? We just need full transparency. We cant be giving medical "professionals" a pass when they are wrong for what ever reason with their info their job requires them to be informed on. They make too much $ off poor, sick, helpless people for this to be acceptable. Even with something as simple as when my psychiatrist at my last appointment said 20mgs of Viibryd isnt a therapeutic dose, when that dose was approved as a therapeutic dose for the treatment of depression some months ago. Their job is too important for them to be getting by without knowledge on how to do it properly.
Anyway, the Tylenol and tbe other med you mentioned (cant recall it at the moment) have warnings on them for the possibility of such negative effects being caused by them. There is no warning for the most controversial negative effects antidepressants can cause. Any speak of homicidal thoughts being induced by a psychiatric often results in anyone bringing it up being lookdd at like a crazed conspiracist theorist. Then there are permanent effects some have experienced from them, like sexual dysfunction. Even a permant change in brain/neurotransmitter function that van result in a permant worsening of ones mental health looooong after the treatment has been stopped.
I guess i shouldnt refer to these things as permanent. Longterm is a better word i guess, since if these effects go away at any point after experiencing them over a long period of time, theyre not technically permenant. I know these possible effects i mentioned are controversial. But lets stop doing things to discredit those suffering from them.
SoOOoooOo i guess i believe if its possible a chemical out there could benefit someones mental illness, then they should have access to it after being fully informed on all known effects it can have by a fully knowledgeable doctor who is "on their game" everytime a patient is in front of them (which currently isnt the case). And more precautions should be taken to minimize the worst effects happening, maybe seeing their doc more often could minimize this. Tho i myself in the past decided to opt out of letting my psychiatrist know about any of the darkest thoughts/emotions ive felt from treatment. Basically, i dont want to be locked in a mental hospital. Im sure others are like this too. Or if they think these thoughts could have the law step in and some of their rights taken away, then they may just keep these thoughts to themselves. And if these thoughts start to just feel so right, then bad things can happen to themselves or others. And i guess continuing to pfescribe these meds can just result in "collateral damage" at times. We need to get past debating on if this is possible and get to how to minimize this outcome as much as possible.
Posted by Hello321 on September 19, 2015, at 21:14:40
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 19, 2015, at 20:58:20
I drove to walmart earlier and made it back home to reply to you because i understand the possible risks of driving my car with other people also driving on the same roads. If i werent aware that sometimes, in rare occasions, that i could go around a curve with a car taking up my lane speeding right at me, then id be likely to not know what i should do in such a situation. then i wouldnt be discussing with you the possibilities of terrible things happening while taking chemicals to alter your brain function. Tbe public needs to understand any severe dangers.
This might be simplistic, but i think ot still relates to thr discussion very well.
Posted by SLS on September 19, 2015, at 22:43:35
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 19, 2015, at 20:58:20
Sorry, Hello.
I haven't followed your posts closely enough, I guess.
Anyway, I still think the study you posted is an important one to look at.
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001875
Have you had bad experiences with antidepressants? What were they?
Have you ever responded to an antidepressant? Which ones?
> Youre jumping ahead of me on this. Ive posted on topics similar to this many times on this site and dont think ive ever mentioned these medications should be banned.
That's why I asked the question.
What would you do to remedy the problems you have identified?
> I just think patients need to be fully informed on all possible outcomes theses treatments can have.
Okay. What about penicillin?
http://www.rxlist.com/pfizerpen-drug/side-effects-interactions.htm
When was the last time you were informed of all possible outcomes this treatment can have?
> And they should be done so in the such a way as one would describe what sunlight feels like to someone who has never felt the sun.
Beyond telling a depressed patient that they might feel worse, what would you like to see a doctor say to them?
> The positive and negative effects need to be fully understood.
Do you think a doctor should discuss the statistics involved for all possible sequalae? Wouldn't that be the only way to properly present them?
http://www.rxlist.com/prozac-drug/side-effects-interactions.htm
> If a patient doesnt have time for this, then their mood problems likely arent bad enough to require prescription treatment.
How very condescending. Who are you to determine the extent of the suffering of others? Not cool.
By the way, each manufacturer's container for a medication includes a package label that lists the treatment-emergent adverse events, even if there are no causal relationships. All you have to do is ask your pharmacist for it. I don't think the pharmacist will have enough of these labels to place on each vial he fills, though.Why would you subject yourself to ECT believing that it will produce brain damage?
Next time you go to ANY doctor, before you leave the office, ask him to verbally list ALL of the possible side effects of the drugs he prescribes. That should be interesting.
One idea is to have all doctors hand out to each patient a list of the possible side effects of the drugs being prescribed. That might be a problem for people with OCD, phobias, non-compliance, hypochondriosis, psychosis, etc. Somewhere, there should be a balance. I don't think sitting down with each patient and describing all of the possible side effects is consistent with finding such a balance.
You have identified very real problems. However, I don't think they apply universally to all doctors, drugs, or drug companies.
- Scott
Posted by Hello321 on September 19, 2015, at 23:51:28
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes? » Hello321, posted by SLS on September 19, 2015, at 22:43:35
Ive never taken penicillin? Havent said anything hinting i might have taken it either. Why are you asking that question?
I read the lists of all recognized effects on certain medications. But all possible effects arent listed.
I was trying to describe a goal we should aim for with mental health treatment. A goal of insuring patients are able to make fully informed decisions on their treatment.
But maybe youre right, that we dont need to be helping depressed patients make informed decisions by insuring theyre fully aware of what they could be getting themselves into by altering their brain function with these treatments. We need to have those in positions of authority protect them. These people care. Why else would they be be in that position?. By elling them they could become homicidal from the treatment might make them less willing to take it. And those who are depressed, or OCD ridden patients to be making decisions on their healthcare when the doctor always knows best. He/She also cares. Yeah, the scariest info needs to be clearly presented to those in positions of authority. And are much too harsh for us little people. Lets do business as usual. And if we have collateral damage consisting of uninformed patients who just had no idea, at least the authority figures protected those who they felt they should basically make decisions for by not making certain important info ckear. Its nice to play the role of the ultimate protector. Like a mother figure.
I try to find a middle ground of keeping meds that could be helpful to some patients on the market, even if they do harm others, as long as every patient is informed. But maybe thats not the way to go. Maybe i should take a stand for not allowing sick people to not make partially informed decisions on their treatment. And vote and write letters to my reps in government explaining my thoughts on the matter. Maybe participate in protests too. So that laws that give the ultimate protective mother figures with my point of views the authority to protect the public completely by banning antidepressants.
But really, i just want sick people to be allowed to make the final decision based on a complete picture. And yes, every situation should be treated uniquely.
Posted by Hello321 on September 20, 2015, at 0:43:47
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 19, 2015, at 23:51:28
Should the suicide warning be removed from antidepressants to lower any possible anxiety a depressed/anxious person might experience about deciding to start an antidepressant?
Posted by SLS on September 20, 2015, at 5:40:49
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 19, 2015, at 23:51:28
The penicillin example: You either did not understand the concept of analogy or you have never been prescribed a drug without being shown the PDR by your doctor. Can you think of any instances when you have taken a drug without opening the PDR or its facsimile on the Internet? Antibiotic? Laxative? Aspirin? Hypoglycemic? Antihypertensive? Diuretics. Anticonvulsants? Antinociceptives? Choose a drug that you have taken other than one used for psychiatric purposes. We can then use RxList as a reproduction of the package label and see how you feel about the drug afterwards.
Would you agree that sufferers of mental illness are often plagued by cognitive impairments, poor judgement, psychoses, and an inability to comprehend information and make decisions?
As much information should be presented to the patient as makes sense in the clinical setting. It does not make sense to loan them a copy of the Physician's Desk Reference.
If you were a doctor, how would you present Prozac to your patient?
You know, if you can learn and process new information such that you can understand all of the side effects listed in the PDR, then you are not ill enough to be treated. I would argue that the patient who remains mute or dissociated or too severely psychomotor retarded in the doctor's office, and wants to leave as soon as possible, is precisely the one who needs the most aggressive treatment. There is irony there somewhere. Do I really believe that you don't need to be treated? Well, I imagine you are affected severely enough to want to turn to ECT, which you believe will damage your brain. Sometimes, one's verbal gifts can leak through enough to mask even the worst of depressions. If you add a little passion, someone's writing can seem perfectly fine and unaffected. Perhaps you fit into this category. Certainly, you are a good debater.
I am not a doctor, of course, and I wouldn't know where to strike a balance for each person needing treatment. I believe I would learn such balance after years of clinical experience and in communicating with colleagues and attending conferences, symposia, and CME. I would probably treat each person differently depending upon my clinical impressions of their illness, current mental state, and capacity to understand perspective. I would not tell them everything appearing in a PDR simply because they would not know how to interpret the information, and this may have a deleterious effect on compliance.
So... My answer is that I would not teach each patient everything there is to know about a drug. Neither would I stand mute writing on my prescription pad and having them leave with nothing more than a little blue piece of paper. Doctors learn more than just anatomy and physiology. They learn how to interact with patients of many different types of illness and illness severities. Optimized bedside manner should treat and inform. How and what to inform is the professional choice of the prescriber.
Regarding your writing letters, I think that's a good idea. I think it would help insure that doctors understand that there is an obligation to provide some information regarding the drugs they prescribe. Even though I don't agree with the extremes with which you would mandate such obligations, I think it would offer some new perspectives.
> But really, i just want sick people to be allowed to make the final decision based on a complete picture. And yes, every situation should be treated uniquely.
You can't have it both ways.
You either inform people about ALL adverse effects or you don't. In the latter case, a good doctor will draw from his clinical experience exactly what to teach each patient.
The black box warning on drug labels is justified in my opinion. We now see it for drugs that are not categorized as being psychotropics. The precipitation of suicidality is not limited to the realm of antidepressants. Until medical science can do better, these are the drugs we have to work with, and I thank God everyday for them. 100 years ago, I'm pretty sure I would have committed suicide before age 24. I also convey to God my anger for not being born 100 years from now, when medical science will have found a way to cure or produce life-long remission from bipolar depression. In the meantime, my immediate goal is to function well enough to return to employment. I still have a little ways to go. I will live a life of more mental energy, but be denied the recovery or improvements in interest, motivation, anhedonia, sex-drive, clarity of thought, sharp memory, animated affect, etc. That is no way to experience a life of limited years.
I have already tried ECT, but failed to respond to it. However, that was in 1991. The procedure has changed. Perhaps you will get lucky.
- Scott
Posted by Hello321 on September 20, 2015, at 16:52:38
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes? » Hello321, posted by SLS on September 20, 2015, at 5:40:49
Choose a drug that you have taken other than one used for psychiatric purposes. We can then use RxList as a reproduction of the package label and see how you feel about the drug afterwards.
Im currently taking the blood pressure med Benazepril. Ive read the list of side effects and took the chance anyway because i understand the possible benefit as well.
>
> Would you agree that sufferers of mental illness are often plagued by cognitive impairments, poor judgement, psychoses, and an inability to comprehend information and make decisions?
>
Yes.
> As much information should be presented to the patient as makes sense in the clinical setting. It does not make sense to loan them a copy of the Physician's Desk Reference. The PDR isnt needed i suppose. They just need to fully understand... cant think of the right word... but they need to understand more urgent information that would be needed when deciding to take a psychiatric treatment. Like what are the worst and best possible outcomes the treatnent could have on them. One could explain to me all day about everything i might experience driving on public roads. But to just make sure im understand the situation im in when driving, just inform me on the more severe things, like a car driving at me on my side of the road. It is much easier to understand and deal with less serious situations once im driving.
>
> If you were a doctor, how would you present Prozac to your patient? Id help them understand the best and worst possible outcomes of taking it.
>
> You know, if you can learn and process new information such that you can understand all of the side effects listed in the PDR, then you are not ill enough to be treated.Do you think i understand all the side effects listed? I hope i do. But i still receive mental healthcare. My condition affects me seriously enough for me to have ended up on SSDI. I cant move correctly. Hard to explain. But just reaching out my arm can ruin my whole day by draining me of mental and physical energy. I have severe anhedonia and feel like i can only connect with people a tiny fraction as much as my normal self. The person i was a before my first round of psychiatric medication in 2005 had its way with me. About a month into the treatment, my who world changed. These effects seem to be permanent.
I would argue that the patient who remains mute or dissociated or too severely psychomotor retarded in the doctor's office, and wants to leave as soon as possible, is precisely the one who needs the most aggressive treatment. There is irony there somewhere. Do I really believe that you don't need to be treated? Well, I imagine you are affected severely enough to want to turn to ECT, which you believe will damage your brain.
I dont believe ECT will damage my brain. But i do believe there is a possibility. I see the possible benefit it can have, as well as the possible negative effects (even the ones the doctor denies) and decide if i should take the chance. K ,ade this decision even though i strongly believe my situation is bad enough to need treatment. But i do know there are some who arent mentally capable of making healthy decisions, so then those who care for them, like family or friends shluld be making the decisions. If no one is available, then i guess it sucks to be them and a doctor would need to be somewhere in line on the list of the one making the final decision on their bealthcare... But i had ECT done last year too. It doesnt exactly help my mood much per se. But it does greatly improve my movements to where i dont have look like a cripple in front of everyone with how i restrict my movements.
> I am not a doctor, of course, and I wouldn't know where to strike a balance for each person needing treatment. I believe I would learn such balance after years of clinical experience and in communicating with colleagues and attending conferences, symposia, and CME. I would probably treat each person differently depending upon my clinical impressions of their illness, current mental state, and capacity to understand perspective. I would not tell them everything appearing in a PDR simply because they would not know how to interpret the information, and this may have a deleterious effect on compliance.
>
The doctors giving out medical treatments generally, for the most part arent concerned enough with the end result of how the patient reacts to it. As long as they do nothing that can vet them sued and maybe their license taken away, and their employment isnt affected, then they can still go home at the end of the day and laugh with their family. Sure, they might have some concern and sentimental thoughts and "express their condolences".But theyre nowhere near the level of suffering a patient could experience in some cases.> > But really, i just want sick people to be allowed to make the final decision based on a complete picture. And yes, every situation should be treated uniquely.
>
> You can't have it both ways.Yeah i know, i think i just wrote that to help find common ground.
>
> The black box warning on drug labels is justified in my opinion.Even though this does lead to some opting out of trying psychiatric treatments for severe conditions? I suppose it is immoral to send a patient home without letting him know his suicidal thoughts could actually increase because of the antodepressant. That way be can recognize the situation better if it does happen as well as fprm a better idea of what to do if this does happen. That there is light is at the end of the tunnell, and that just decreasing the dose or stopping the antidepressant completely can improve things enough to bring him to the light of hope at the end of the dark tunnell of suicidal thoughts.
Now i just think the possibility of suicidal thoughts need to be expanded to all age groups and not just described as affecting those under 24. And the possibility of homicidal thoughts should also be added.
And tben there are the possible permanent effects these treatments can have. There isnt exactly a light the patient can reach for if they experienced any permanent effects. This might make a person put more thought into a decision to try treatment. It might cause them to opt out of it. Im pretty sure it would lead to a significant decrease in the amount of psychiatric prescriptions filled each year. It would especially affect how often psych meds are prescribed in cases where theyre not needed. Where the cons outweigh the pros. And im sure many who would greatly benefit would also opt out. Thats unfortunate. Tho id bet the ones with the worst illnesses would more likely to take the chancec with prescription treatment. In a similar way to how i understand ECT can lead to brain damage bad enough to significantly affect your life, but i see the possible benefit, i see how my illnesss affects me and decide to take the chance with ECT. Maybe i do have brain damage from the treatments ive already had and its not enough go really affect me, or i dont notice it. Who knows...
> I have already tried ECT, but failed to respond to it. However, that was in 1991. The procedure has changed. Perhaps you will get lucky.
>I dont know how the treatment has changed since 1991, but i do know describing ECT as "safer" today than it was in the 1950's could be a very misleading word to describe it. Today higher doses of electricity are used because of the anesthesia making it more difficulf to induce a seizure than when anesthesia wasnt used. Sure, you wont be having the terrible effects a bad seizure can have on your bones and teeth or whatever. But just like with higher doses of chemical prescriptions, im sure the higher amount of electricity sent through the brain is more likely to have negative effects.
Some things i write about might cause people to say "well thats not scientifically proven". But how do we know it isnt? Because thats what the authorities said? Because the guy on TV said that? Because "studies" by people we will likely never cross paths with in our life should be seen as trustworthy, with no agenda or conflicts of interests told us so? And we should believe if these people did have knowledge of such effects, that they would be fully willing to release them, with them clearly stating the full results they received? Sometimes studies that are released that come to a controversial conclusion tand goes against societys general thoughts on the matter are just ignored or discredited until a study is released by an organization the public sees as more trustworthy, like the FDA or APA that goes against the previous results. And there is much talk of how the methods used in the controversial study were deeply flawed. But zero mention of any flaws in the study that came to a more acceptable conclusion. Is this always because there were no flaws, no agenda or conflicts of interests by the ones doing the study? The ones sponsoring the study? Or the ones releasing the study to the public?
But yeah, im sure we could spend a lot of time discussing things.
Posted by SLS on September 20, 2015, at 17:11:23
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 20, 2015, at 16:52:38
> > Choose a drug that you have taken other than one used for psychiatric purposes. We can then use RxList as a reproduction of the package label and see how you feel about the drug afterwards.
> Im currently taking the blood pressure med Benazepril. Ive read the list of side effects and took the chance anyway because i understand the possible benefit as well.
Your doctor explained all of these things to you?
I didn't think so. That's my point. According to your standards of care, I advise you to never see that doctor again since you found it necessary to do your own research.
- Scott
Posted by Hello321 on September 20, 2015, at 17:18:53
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 20, 2015, at 16:52:38
At my last appointment with my psychiatrist, when i mentioned a bit about my negative experience with some psychiatric treatments, she ended up saying "anything should be expected from any of these medications". And she said in a very open ended way. I liked hearing these thoughts from her. Some (most?) psychiatrists are the opposite and seem to want to stay inside the box of what has been officially released on the possible effects. One psychiatrist that i saw, when i told him Wellbutrin actually had a negative effect on my sexual function, he said "Wellbutrin cant do that.". This is a bit more of a simple effect from the treatment than the more controversial ones discussed. But i still think this was an ignorant thing for a professional in treating mental illnesses to say
Posted by Hello321 on September 20, 2015, at 17:26:29
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes? » Hello321, posted by SLS on September 20, 2015, at 17:11:23
>
> Your doctor explained all of these things to you?
>
> I didn't think so. That's my point. According to your standards of care, I advise you to never see that doctor again since you found it necessary to do your own research.
>
>Ok.... now i think youre being a bit short with me on that idea.
I need help. I know these treatments can indeed have a profound effect on our biology. I do my best to understand their effects myself. And the only way to access them is through a doctor. So i go to a doctor for them. Id have a terrible time trying to have certain standards set that my doctor has to abide by and not see a doc again until these standards are set and abided by.
Blah
Posted by SLS on September 20, 2015, at 18:28:12
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 20, 2015, at 17:26:29
It may no longer be productive to continue this conversation. I guess we simply don't hear each other. I will try to reply to further posts, though.
I don't think you should demand from other people's doctors that which you don't demand or receive from your own. There is a lack of connection there somewhere. Perhaps this is an artifact of what I feel are the unrealistic demands you place on psychiatrists. Of course, a doctor should provide information to their patients. However, I don't see the expediency in sending their patients to medical school for each prescription they write.
It can be a monumental task to find a good doctor - one whose expertise and motivations you can trust. A good doctor will send you to the pharmacy with information along with the prescription script. A good doctor will answer your questions. A good doctor will provide you information, even if you don't have questions. In this case, a good doctor will exercise his judgement to determine what to tell you and what not to tell you.
Generally speaking, I would like to see the average psychiatrist avail themselves of the latest findings regarding drug side effects, and prepare their patients for the more common ones, including an exacerbation of the original illness. A good psychiatrist will also monitor their patient closely early in treatment, when suicidal ideations are most likely to occur. Weekly or biweekly visits seem prudent.
Regarding ECT, treatment protocols have changed since 1991. Even 15 years ago, Max Fink advised me to give it a try again based upon new information. For instance, I was given unilateral left. Unilateral right is now recommended. There have been changes in dosage and frequency. There are now bitemporal and bifrontal placements in addition to bilateral. Supposedly, high-dosage unilateral right is almost as efficacious as bilateral, but with much reduced cognitive side effects. Even this information is not the most current. I have not researched ECT recently. I will be interested to know what type of treatment they choose for you.
- Scott
Posted by Hello321 on September 20, 2015, at 19:27:16
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes? » Hello321, posted by SLS on September 20, 2015, at 18:28:12
> It may no longer be productive to continue this conversation. I guess we simply don't hear each other. I will try to reply to further posts, though.
>
I figured these posts would just end with us agreeing to disagree. This seemed a bit abrupt though. I thought this would just reach a point where weve said our peace.> I don't think you should demand from other people's doctors that which you don't demand or receive from your own.
I wish the the protocol in healthcare more closely lived up to the standard i described. I think it is a good standard. I just have to live with how healthcare currently is because theres not much else i can do. It wouldnt really be productive go in my doctors office demanding he live up to what i want from healthcare. If i were able to find a doc that lives up to that standard, i would avoid any other doctor that can only meet lesser standards.
If youre really intending to say you just dont like my ideas of what the standard of transparency should be in healthcare, then just say that. But i would like to know where you draw the line for just how informed a depressed patient should be by his psychiatrist? I guess just enough to make them feel informed while still having the patient agree to take what ever treatment the doctor says is best? And making the psychiatrists job more difficult? You said you agree with the suicide warning being placed on psychiatric meds. Im guessing you agree with every patient that could benefit from treatment being aware of the possibility of these thoughts being induced? But then it seems youd prefer a mentally ill patient not be informed of certain risks associated with treatment if it would cause them to opt out of taking medication.
If you think im wrong about the other possible severe reactions a patient can experience that arent listed in the official list of possible reactions, then you just have to say it.
As ive said, when it comes to myself, i basically just inform myself the best i can about a treatment that might be helpful and see if i can get it from the only source, a doctor. If you have a better idea on how i can go about trying a possibly beneficial treatment, id like to hear it.
> It can be a monumental task to find a good doctor - one whose expertise and motivations you can trust.
Yes it can be.
> Generally speaking, I would like to see the average psychiatrist avail themselves of the latest findings regarding drug side effects, and prepare their patients for the more common ones, including an exacerbation of the original illness. A good psychiatrist will also monitor their patient closely early in treatment, when suicidal ideations are most likely to occur. Weekly or biweekly visits seem prudent.
>True
I will be interested to know what type of treatment they choose for you.
>
>
I dont recall which type of ECT she said id be receiving. But im having it done in the morning and i will likely be asking what type it is. I just remember it is the same type i had last time, since ive already had experience with it.
Posted by baseball55 on September 20, 2015, at 19:40:47
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 20, 2015, at 16:52:38
> Now i just think the possibility of suicidal thoughts need to be expanded to all age groups and not just described as affecting those under 24. And the possibility of homicidal thoughts should also be added.
Why? Where's the evidence for this?
Posted by Hello321 on September 20, 2015, at 19:43:06
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 20, 2015, at 19:27:16
Juet want to say that shapes my ideas for such standards in mental healthcare is the experiences ive had with the current business as usual. Ive experienced too much emotional turmoil and a worsening of my condition because of them. Ive gotten the short end of the stick when dealing with it. I dont know where else to go to receive the care id prefer, and its probably too late for it to matter anymore for my situation. But im positive there are many out there who it would make a positive difference.
Dont feel obligated to resoond to this post or the one before it.
Posted by Hello321 on September 20, 2015, at 19:56:59
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes? » Hello321, posted by baseball55 on September 20, 2015, at 19:40:47
> > Now i just think the possibility of suicidal thoughts need to be expanded to all age groups and not just described as affecting those under 24. And the possibility of homicidal thoughts should also be added.
> Why? Where's the evidence for this?Ive gone over this enough. Just read the posts in the tbread to discover why i typed that. It might require taking all of it into account and not just certain parts. If you already did that, then theres no point in me typing anything else concerning those statements and you might just have to wait for those in positions of authority, like the FDA, to let you know how to feel about those statements. or i giess you already know how you feel. Just stick.with that.
Dont know any better way to put it. But... yah.
Posted by SLS on September 20, 2015, at 23:44:04
In reply to Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 15, 2015, at 21:57:16
I imagine this thread has become old and tiresome for you. I admire your persistence. It would be a great loss were you to disappear. I'm glad that people like you stick around to offer alternative ideas and concerns.
Once more, I think it would be helpful to scrutinize your words in order to understand why some people passionately disagree with your purporting things as fact and proposing a rationale for your proprietary conclusions. I don't agree with your arguments, but I appreciate the humanity for which your passions are there to protect.
------------------------------------------
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20150901/msgs/1082509.html
"This seems about right considering Antidepressants have already been shown to decrease the concern for ones own wellbeing. And when one is less concerned about themselves, surely theyre likely to be less concerned about the wellbeing of others."
> This seems about rightNothing wrong with that.
> considering Antidepressants have already been shown
This begs for citations and a demonstration of a consensus such that your statement represents a putative finding.
> to decrease the concern
The word "concern" is particularly salient. The word can be construed to mean the level of desire to care for oneself. Suicide can be the result of an individual having enough concern for their wellfare so as to humanely terminate a life of intolerable pain. I would call this auto-euthanasia.
> for ones own wellbeing.
The word "wellbeing" needs a definition rather than a list of adverse effects. Adverse effects stand on their own as observable phenomena. Whether or not they generate or are generated by a difference in the level of desire for self-care needs to be demonstrated.
> And when one is less concerned about themselves
This is a perfectly reasonable clause to set up a hypothetical condition.
> surely theyre likely to be less concerned about the wellbeing of others.
This is conjecture without supporting facts or an explanation of mechanics.
Personally, I am not sure that your posts serve the wellfare of the community. If I thought so, I wouldn't have posted along this thread. I could be wrong. It is a matter of perspective and judgement. Sometimes, mine are way off.
- Scott
Posted by Hello321 on September 21, 2015, at 6:03:25
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes? » Hello321, posted by SLS on September 20, 2015, at 23:44:04
My thoughts used to align more with the thinking of most mainstream ideas about healthcare. Until i was shown this way of thinking is unlikely to help progress in any way. I remember a lot about my way of thinking in the past and i honestly miss having that viewpoint. I think its comparable to childhood innocence and it feels good.
Posted by SLS on September 21, 2015, at 6:50:44
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 21, 2015, at 6:03:25
> My thoughts used to align more with the thinking of most mainstream ideas about healthcare. Until i was shown this way of thinking is unlikely to help progress in any way. I remember a lot about my way of thinking in the past and i honestly miss having that viewpoint. I think its comparable to childhood innocence and it feels good.
I really do understand this. My shift in perception was not as great as yours, but I was both perplexed and angry to learn that doctors didn't know everything there was to know about my illness. I couldn't believe that the doctors at a famous university medical center didn't know how to get me well, despite their initial promises to me that I was treatable. I learned that they weren't omniscient, but they really did mean well.
- Scott
Posted by Hello321 on September 21, 2015, at 7:32:41
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes? » Hello321, posted by SLS on September 20, 2015, at 23:44:04
I just come here to post my thoughts or seek info at times. The info i post that your psychiatrist and the FDA tells you isnt a possible reaction to treatment is from my own personal experience with treatment. Ive posted about it often since i began using psychobabble. I didnt realize my worsening condition was a result of the treatment in about the first year of treatment. But not too much longer after that, it became clear. I get the feeling some users on babble have had similar experiences to mine. But since their experience isnt backed up by what theyve been told, they just go about their life being clueless as they only stay as informed as their doctors think they should be, assuming their doc isnt also clueless.
I dont really know anything about your situation, scott. But negative experiences i describe are a possibility for you as well. This can be a scary thought. And maybe some would prefer to stick to what theyre told by the "experts" whose opinions based on numbers hold more value than actual experiences by those who are suffering.
Maybe the FDA will come out with "new" information one day that will change your way of thinking about some things ive written on. If you continue to stay interested, just check with them every so often so you can know what to think.
Im trying to go about this as politely as i can. And maybe i am just going too far. Maybe you really havent had a chance to observe things that at least hint that we are being given the run-around. That we should call BS on many things concerning mental healthcare. Or maybe your fear response to these scary thoughts is too great. After Mirapex had its way with me in the past, my fear response was gone. I could keep my eyes closed while driving and feel no fear. And no fear in other situations either.
Anyway, it has just gotten too tiresome for me to continue discussing mental health topiics with those who still have their child-like innocence with their thoughts on them. I just cant do it anymore. But do remember to never let your experiences affect your thoughts on things where we should just let the experts do the thinking for us. If you unfortunately
ever do feel like you or someone you love has suffered because you werent made aware of certain effects the treatment could have. Just remember that you asked for it ;)
Posted by SLS on September 21, 2015, at 8:53:43
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 21, 2015, at 7:32:41
I find your verbiage to be less than respectful.
I've been in the "game" for over 30 years. Please don't intimate that I am somehow naive. You seem to believe that you have a monopoly on some truth. You don't. I have worked as a patient. I have worked as a research assistant to doctors. I have been a research patient at the NIMH. I researched and began writing a paper that was a critique of FDA practices 30 years ago. I have been seen by doctors from major university hospitals. I was one of the first to have a PET scan performed on his brain. I have tried almost 10 experimental drugs that you will never know about. I have followed compounds developed from synthesis to FDA approval. Family members work for pharmaceutical companies in their clinical trials and drug development divisions. There's more, but that should be enough. I've done a lot of reading and picked a lot of brains along the way. I may not be as smart as you, but I might be more experienced than you. I wouldn't know.
I pleaded with members of the Psycho-Babble community in 2000 that they become aware of the potential of Prozac and other drugs to induce suicidal states. Your epiphanies are new for you, but not for me. You assume too much about the people here; that they are somehow "behind" you in knowledge and perspective. It looks to me like the opposite is true. Most of us do indeed recognize the capacities of drugs to make things worse instead of better. My illness is so bad, that I would drink elephant piss with a beer chaser if it meant being cured.
With all due respect, you don't know what I know - and what I don't know.
Don't be so judgmental of the capacity of others to make brilliant observations and well-informed, insightful decisions.
- Scott
Posted by Hello321 on September 21, 2015, at 14:04:32
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes? » Hello321, posted by SLS on September 21, 2015, at 8:53:43
> I find your verbiage to be less than respectful.
Thats unfortunate
>
> I've been in the "game" for over 30 years. Please don't intimate that I am somehow naive.There are people in many positions that that have been in these positions for many years and youd expect them to understand the full picture of the best protocols when it comes to their line of work.
One particular field i can think of is the politician. Have you ever thought your ideas were better thaan a certain longtime politicians when dealing with a specific situation?You seem to believe that you have a monopoly on some truth. You dont.
Neither do you.
>
You assume too much about the people here; tat they are somehow "behind" you in knowledge and perspective.I dont believe that they are behind me at all on this.
>
> With all due respect, you don't know what I know - and what I don't know.
>
I can say the same to you.I'll just repeat what i said in my last post. If a unique treatment that seems very promising in helping your situation is released, but upon taking it you experience a massive decrease in your mental health. And you were not at all informed about such a terrible reaction being a possible result of the treatment, would youu feel an injustice occured? That you were wronged and deserving of compensation?
Or if a someone took prozac and became homicidal to the point they took the life of someone you care very much about, Would you be okay with that?
And realize you just have to accept it for the greater good?You should be. After all the thoughts you posted, you have no right to object if a situation like either of these occur. Youd deserve no compensation and no special access to anything that might help you deal with such events. You would need to realize that these are simply unfortunate events that happened to you or a loved one, and that these have to occur as collateral damage because of what the authorities perceive is the greater good. Youd deserve to just be left behind if you are going to continue demanding we not be made fully aware of the worst possible negative effects.
If for some reason you think youd be cool with these events right now, im sure youd be singing a different tune if they did actually happen to you.
Posted by Hello321 on September 21, 2015, at 15:32:02
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 21, 2015, at 14:04:32
If youd care to, list some "professionals" with extensive careers that you still feel you are more knowledgeable on certain fundamental topics than that they are involved in on a regular basis.
Certain psychiatrist, maybe? An MD? Politicians? certain people in charge at the FDA? EPA? You might feel that increasing fuel mileage and safety standards is a bad idea because it would make new cars more unaffordable for those with a lower income. And that man-made global climate change is a myth, with all the laws/regulations put in place by them being unnecessary or even harmful to the public. Maybe you feel the US should keep its nose out of the business of other nations more, even while there are top level army generals who think the opposite? Maybe you think abortion in certain/most/all cases is wrong, while the mother with her unique situation in life sees it as being for the best. I could go on.
Im sure you have ideas on certain controversial topics that go against the ideas of many with extensive careers dealing with these topics. So no, a history of dealing with these things doesnt always equate to having the best ideas.
Posted by SLS on September 21, 2015, at 16:01:00
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 21, 2015, at 14:04:32
> Anyway, it has just gotten too tiresome for me to continue discussing mental health topiics with those who still have their child-like innocence
Yes. I have reached the same conclusion about those who still have their pathological need to be "right" about everything.
The next time you feel an unsurmountable urge to tell me or others what I'm thinking or what my doctor has said to me, try hard not to betray your child-like innocence. The irony no longer amuses me.
My unsolicited advice to you is to spend more time worrying about yourself and the ECT you are about to have. You never investigated what different methods and protocols were available. You haven't even asked your doctors which ones they have planned for you.
Irony.
- Scott
Posted by baseball55 on September 21, 2015, at 20:53:18
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 20, 2015, at 19:56:59
> Ive gone over this enough. Just read the posts in the tbread to discover why i typed that. It might require taking all of it into account and not just certain parts. If you already did that, then theres no point in me typing anything else concerning those statements and you might just have to wait for those in positions of authority, like the FDA, to let you know how to feel about those statements. or i giess you already know how you feel. Just stick.with that.
>
> Dont know any better way to put it. But... yah.All I'm saying is this is based on one study in Sweden. Surely, the result, like all results of research, need to be replicated.
Posted by baseball55 on September 21, 2015, at 20:57:49
In reply to Re: Young people on SSRI's commit more crimes?, posted by Hello321 on September 20, 2015, at 19:56:59
Another problem with this study is that it's difficult to tell whether these results are significant. For example, if the prevalence of violent crime is 0.1% and that rises while on SSRIs to 0.119%, is that significant, given sample size and low frequency to start with?
There is also the question of causality. Are the young people on SSRI ON SSRIs because of an increase in irritability, anger and other, non-typical presentations of depression? If so, would the incidence of crime be EVEN HIGHER if they were not given SSRI's?
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | 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.