Psychiatric Drugs Causing Compulsive Violence

[Monica]

To say depressed people do not follow guidelines is making an assumption. You assign them a role that they are helpless and incapable of taking care of themselves. Some will call that making a generalization and making short-cuts in thinking thru the issue here.

That wasn't intended as a generalization or an insult to depressed people. Lack of initiative, listlessness, inability to do the very things they know will help them...are all listed as symptoms of depression. I didn't make those up. I got all those straight out of a reputable book on teen depression, which I purchased when I was trying to help my son help one of his friends. I saw those symptoms firsthand.

Their ability to follow their treatment protocol depends on severity of the illness, complexity of their mental & physical health conditions, types of symtoms that they are experiencing, types of services they are hooked up to, various social context (like family and social support or mental illnesses in the family that complicates treatment), and many other contexts.

Of course. Nevertheless, to varying degrees, they are symptoms of depression, so they cannot be depended upon to prevent tragedies from not following the protocol. The very people depressed enough to not follow the protocol, are the very ones at risk. Hence, offering a protocol as a remedy for such risk is unreasonable. That was my point.

These things are highly ideographic - you have to understand difficulties or problems on a case-by-case situation. Although, people with depression do lack motivation, thus have difficulties in daily functions. So depressed people do have more challenges in adhering to treatment protocols.

Um...that's what I just said! So we are in agreement then?

One way to provide assistance to those who are taking medications (or thinking about it), is to maybe help them make decisions about their treatment by presenting balanced information (e.g., pros and cons).

Not all depressed people have such a support system. Therefore, to prescribe such meds to these people is irresponsible. And there's no way doctors can be expected to know the full background of the person's home life and support system. Many have no support system; that's one of the reasons they're depressed in the first place!

You potentially block a person from an optimal treatment method when you go out and become so anti about medications.

I am anti- prescribing dangerous drugs that can result in mass killings and/or suicide, yes. Especially based on a 15-minute office visit.

And, I don't consider it optimal treatment. Not by a long shot.

Sure it's toxic and I personally do not think medication treatment is helpful...

? We are in agreement again.

but there are people who use it temporarily as a way to relieve some symptoms so they could gather strength to engage in other forms of healing. There are those whos suicidal and homicidal ideations get exacerbated by the adverse effects of the meds.

So, are you saying that it's worth letting those who shouldn't have it, have it, even though they may kill themselves and others, so that a few others can get temporary, noneffective semblance of relief?

It's more constructive if this forum is used a way to educate and to relay alternatives (which you do, Monica)

than to politicize this issue.

Agreed!

The reject-something-completely strategy won't work... it could create unnecessary fear/anxiety in people.

Most drugs are a mixed bag. Pros and cons must be weighed out on an individual basis. But, when other people - innocent people who aren't even taking the drugs themselves - are put at risk by the ones taking the drugs, that creates a weight that cannot be overcome.

Some things should be rejected completely. Toxic drugs that, in your own words, aren't an effective treatment, but offer, at best, only a "temporary" relief, yet can, in your own words "exacerbate suicidal and homicidal tendencies" in some people...should, in my opinion, be rejected completely.

Quite simply, the risks (violence/death) outweigh the potential benefits (temporary relief).

Yes, I am in favor of denying some people the benefit of temporary relief, when that temporary relief might endanger others.

Especially when it's so difficult to gauge who's at risk...and the risks so grave. And, especially when natural alternatives exist in abundance (though they won't make the drug companies rich).

If dangerous 'quick fixes' were no longer available, then people would be forced to pursue natural, genuine (rather than "temporary, ineffective") solutions. And they will be less likely to kill themselves or others.

Ask the parents of those teens who committed suicide. Ask the parents of the Columbine shooters and the others who were on such meds, if they would have preferred such drugs not be available. Ask them if it was worth the quick fix. Those parents were just trying to help their kids. There are now many support groups for parents of teens who committed suicide or were violent because of those meds. The parents are devastated because they believe their kids never would have done those things, were it not for the drugs. Ask the parents of the innocent victims.

I have a great deal of compassion for people dealing with depression in themselves or a loved one. I've experienced bouts of depression myself, and I've been around some people who were depressed. The person wants nothing more than to take a magic pill and make it all go away.

Temporary or not, if that pill didn't pose a risk to others, I'd say, sure, give them the choice. But the fact that there is a tangible risk of violence to others...not only to self but to others...that rules it out as a viable choice.

Note that I am NOT talking about ALL drugs here. Obviously, people should have the choice to take drugs if they wish. I'm referring ONLY to this classification of drugs that lists 'sudden, compulsive urge to commit violence' as a side-effect.

Such drugs should be taken off the market, period. (in my opinion of course.)

First do no harm.