![[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 Angielala on February 15, 2005, at 14:41:59
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/02/15/zoloft.trial/index.html
This reminds me of when the Phil Hartman story came out... What do all of you think of this?
Posted by Phil on February 15, 2005, at 18:08:04
In reply to *TRIGGER* Zoloft Murder in the News, posted by Angielala on February 15, 2005, at 14:41:59
It's hard to know what to think. It would be interesting to know more about the boys background.
It's kinda weird how the insanity defense has turned into the 'evil drug defense'.
I know one thing: He will be greeted with open arms at the big house.
Posted by Glydin on February 15, 2005, at 19:23:46
In reply to Re: *TRIGGER* Zoloft Murder in the News, posted by Phil on February 15, 2005, at 18:08:04
I think there is an interesting factor in defense rationale as time has gone on. One can find the defense of untreated mental illness as a reason and now there is a trend to implicate the treatments.
Posted by Angielala on February 15, 2005, at 19:41:12
In reply to Re: *TRIGGER* Zoloft Murder in the News, posted by Glydin on February 15, 2005, at 19:23:46
Something ele that seems odd to me- in that article, it says that this boy was on a trial package of Zoloft... meaning he was only on it for less than a week?
Posted by Phil on February 15, 2005, at 20:29:34
In reply to Re: *TRIGGER* Zoloft Murder in the News, posted by Angielala on February 15, 2005, at 19:41:12
> Something ele that seems odd to me- in that article, it says that this boy was on a trial package of Zoloft... meaning he was only on it for less than a week?
>>>Good point. Obviously at a low dose for as little as a couple of days. What? Maybe slight constipation, so he shoots his grandparents? Put 'agitation and excitability' down as side effects.
Posted by Angielala on February 15, 2005, at 21:06:26
In reply to Re: *TRIGGER* Zoloft Murder in the News » Angielala, posted by Phil on February 15, 2005, at 20:29:34
These are the things that really get me with stories like this one.... for people like us, who have wither been on Zoloft, or something similar, know that being on them for a few days will not cause you "blinding craziness"... but those who have never been on a drug like that, or don't know anyone who has been- they are going to meet somsone on Zoloft someday and think "Oh no, I remember that kid who killed his grandparents was on Zoloft" This is where the stigma starts- the news.
It really really really bothers me.
Just like Andrea Yates... people who find out that I'm Bipolar and pregnant and have no idea what being bipolar means, start thinking "Oh no- I hope she doesn't drown her kids like that Yates chick"- like some of my in-laws seem to think.
Even if there is a follow-up story explaining that Zoloft didn't cause this kid to be angry and pick up a gun and shoot his grandparents, people aren't going to read that... people like reading about the "nuts" who kill because they are crazy and on drugs.
Ok, I'm getting myself upset.
Sorry.
> > Something ele that seems odd to me- in that article, it says that this boy was on a trial package of Zoloft... meaning he was only on it for less than a week?
>
> >>>Good point. Obviously at a low dose for as little as a couple of days. What? Maybe slight constipation, so he shoots his grandparents? Put 'agitation and excitability' down as side effects.
Posted by sunny10 on February 16, 2005, at 8:42:00
In reply to trigger trigger trigger, posted by Angielala on February 15, 2005, at 21:06:26
I just want to caution you. If there is blame to be placed, don't place this one on the heads of the press.
This is just one of many cases where the defense lawyer is trying to affix blame on anything/anyone other than the defendant. If you want to get this sort of thing to stop, you'll want to file a grievance with the Bar Association, not the newspaper...
Posted by Angielala on February 16, 2005, at 12:14:35
In reply to Re: trigger trigger trigger, posted by sunny10 on February 16, 2005, at 8:42:00
I never thought of it like that before- you are so right!
> I just want to caution you. If there is blame to be placed, don't place this one on the heads of the press.
>
> This is just one of many cases where the defense lawyer is trying to affix blame on anything/anyone other than the defendant. If you want to get this sort of thing to stop, you'll want to file a grievance with the Bar Association, not the newspaper...
Posted by sunny10 on February 16, 2005, at 12:42:54
In reply to Re: trigger trigger trigger, posted by Angielala on February 16, 2005, at 12:14:35
"what do you call 100,000 lawyers falling off a cliff.... a good beginning."
"A couple examples of natural cannibals (?)
sharks and lawyers..."(just jokes; no offense to any lawyers among us...)
Posted by Angielala on February 16, 2005, at 13:13:47
In reply to Re: trigger trigger trigger, posted by sunny10 on February 16, 2005, at 12:42:54
One of my good friends is in her last year of law school at Suffolk. She's always bragging about how wonderful lawyers really are and how smart they are.... she's also one of my friends that speaks about my Bipolar and the drugs I take for them as if she knows more than me and my doc (she's studying to be a regulortory affairs-FDA- lawyer).... so I passed that story along to her jsut now and thanked her collegues... hahaha
Sometimes it's fun to try and tick her off. (She gets very indignant, so it'll be fun to try and watch her explain why the lawyer is right) haha
> "what do you call 100,000 lawyers falling off a cliff.... a good beginning."
>
> "A couple examples of natural cannibals (?)
> sharks and lawyers..."
>
> (just jokes; no offense to any lawyers among us...)
Posted by sunny10 on February 16, 2005, at 13:19:23
In reply to Re: trigger trigger trigger, posted by Angielala on February 16, 2005, at 13:13:47
Posted by sunny10 on February 16, 2005, at 13:21:05
In reply to Re: oops, wht did I start?!?! (nm) » Angielala, posted by sunny10 on February 16, 2005, at 13:19:23
Posted by Angielala on February 16, 2005, at 14:55:10
In reply to Re: oops, WHAT did I start, I mean!! (nm) » sunny10, posted by sunny10 on February 16, 2005, at 13:21:05
Posted by AuntieMel on February 17, 2005, at 10:34:43
In reply to trigger trigger trigger, posted by Angielala on February 15, 2005, at 21:06:26
The kid was only 12 when it happened. Do people really know what side effects a 12 year old will get?
I think the fault is on whoever prescribed the meds without sufficient monitoring.
Posted by AuntieMel on February 17, 2005, at 10:35:39
In reply to trigger trigger trigger, posted by Angielala on February 15, 2005, at 21:06:26
I throw a lot at the prosecutors that tried a 12 year old as an adult.
Posted by sunny10 on February 17, 2005, at 12:24:23
In reply to Re: and one more thing » Angielala, posted by AuntieMel on February 17, 2005, at 10:35:39
the fact is, no one can or will ever be able to tell if the medication had anything AT ALL to do with it! It is impossible- all it does it to establish "reasonable doubt", which is all this lawyer has to do.
And, perhaps you are correct, the defense attorney only came up with this theory because they were extremely concerned about him being tried as a adult. As long as he can try to place the blame on "meds given to a child", he is also making the jury see him as a juvenile...
But the fact is, the amount of meds in the trial packet would not have been enough to "create a new personality that murders".
Have you read the DSM-IV categories? I'm surprised that ANYONE can be put away for a crime anymore... Almost everyone would be considered to have one disorder or another the way they present their clients in a court of law! Tell me that most lawyers themselves wouldn't be assigned a few diagnoses!
I'm beginning to believe that the only "sane" ones out there are those of us at Babble!
Posted by AuntieMel on February 17, 2005, at 15:21:57
In reply to Re: and one more thing » AuntieMel, posted by sunny10 on February 17, 2005, at 12:24:23
I know one thing for sure about us babblers.
No prosecutor would want us on a jury.
Posted by sunny10 on February 18, 2005, at 10:12:54
In reply to Re: I know one thing for sure » sunny10, posted by AuntieMel on February 17, 2005, at 15:21:57
that is so funny- the last time I got called for jury duty was over a year ago...
I had just come out of an all day outpatient day program and did not feel strong enough for a trial, so I provided them with records of my outpatient admission and release papers. The release papers had an MDD with GAD diagnosis, so I never heard from the court system again !!!
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.