Psychiatric Drugs are Killing American Soldiers

 

Marine patroling a poppy field in Afghanistan. Photograph: Patrick Baz/AFP/Getty Images

via The Guardian:

Friday 1 February 2013 12.00 EST

Simon Rogers
US military suicides in charts: 

how they overtook combat deaths

US military suicides are increasing as deaths in action are going down. 

Find out what we know about the trend• Download the data
• More data journalism and data visualisations from the Guardian

US military suicides have never been so high since data was recorded:up to 349 for 2012.

It exceeded the Pentagon's own internal projection of 325. US government began closely tracking suicides in 2001 through the Department of Defense Suicide Event Report (DoDSER). It exceeds the 311 Americans who died in war zones last year. read the rest here

By the way...

Why in the hell are American soldiers guarding poppy fields?  Intentionally or not, it facilitates  "greater heroin availability, rising purity, and lower prices." 

Beginning of original post from 8-23-2011:

Antidepressants, neuroleptics and other psychiatric drugs can kill the person who takes them, or compel the person to commit acts of violent aggression including homicide.  Why are these events, and the psychiatric drugs which contribute to and/or cause them, not being reported more accurately in the news in the United States?  Does the income derived from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs serve another purpose?  Is the mainstream news media not reporting the news due to a Conflict of Interest? Is deriving so much revenue from the pharmaceutical industry preventing journalists from accurately reporting stories which are unfavorable or critical of a source of income for their corporate employers?  The United States and New Zealand are the only countries in the world where it is legal to market prescription drugs direct to consumers through print, electronic, radio and television advertisements.  

Who does all of this benefit most?

VIA: 

Column: Martha Rosenberg

Are US Soldiers Suicides Caused by Prescription Drugs?

by Martha Rosenberg,

Chicago 

"The suicide rate among US troops is astonishing.

"In 2009 there were 160 active duty suicides, 239 suicides within the total Army including the Reserves, 146 active duty deaths from drug overdoses and high risk behavior and 1,713 suicide attempts, says the Army's suicide report, released in July.

"Not only are more troops dying from their own hand than combat says the Army report, titled Health Promotion, Risk Reduction, Suicide Prevention, 36 percent of the suicides were troops who were never deployed.

"Also astonishing is the psychoactive drug rate among active duty-aged troops, 18 to 34, which is up 85 percent since 2003 according to the military health plan, Tricare. Since 2001, 73,103 prescriptions for Zoloft have been dispensed, 38,199 for Prozac, 17,830 for Paxil and 12,047 for Cymbalta says Tricare 2009 data, which includes family prescriptions. All of the drugs carry a suicide warning label.

"In addition to the leap in SSRI antidepressants, prescriptions for the anticonvulsants Topamax and Neurontin rose 56 percent in the same group since 2005 says Navy Times, drugs which the FDA warned last year double suicidal thinking in patients.... "

"Over 4,000 published reports of violent and bizarre behavior of people affected by antidepressants on the web archive ssristories.com reveal the same out of character violence and self harm in civilians, currently seen in the military.

"Twenty people set themselves on fire. Ten bit their victims (including a biter who was sleepwalking and a woman, on Prozac, who bit her 87-year-old mother into critical condition.) Three men in the 70s and 80s attack their wives with hammers. Many stab their victims obsessively -- one even stabs furniture after killing his wife -- and 14 parents drown their children, a crime seldom heard of before the 2001 Andrea Yates case. Yates drowned her five children on the antidepressant Effexor which manufacturer Wyeth (now Pfizer) "issued no public warning" about says the Associated Press.

"Then there's the North Carolina pilot on Zoloft who sings, "I'm going down for the last time," into the cockpit voice recorder before he crashes his plane in June. And the Mayor of Coppell, Texas, Jayne Peters who kills herself and her daughter in July over the grief of losing her husband. Police find antidepressants at the home.

"Such murder-suicides committed by women used to be rare says Betty Henderson the web site's moderator and researcher. "Before the SSRI antidepressants, women committed five percent of the murder-suicides and now they account for almost 15 percent of this type of violence," she said in an interview.

"Antidepressants are also causing women to become neo sexual predators says Henderson. "There have been more than a dozen recent cases of women school teachers molesting their young students under the influence or withdrawal of antidepressants. Who heard of this type of sexual aberration before the antidepressant craze?"
"In fact, the high percentage of civilian suicides on psychoactive drugs is probably the clearest indication that military life is not the only cause of the shocking troop suicides: In September alone, there were 18 civilian suicides, 11 murders, 2 murder suicides and other violence linked to people who were using or had used antidepressants, according to published reports.

"Also in the thirty day period, a 60-year-old grandmother in Seattle killed three family members and herself; a disc jockey in Bristol, UK set himself on fire; and a man in Exeter, UK man was determined to have stabbed himself in the heart. All were on antidepress-ants. Finally, in the month of September, legal proceedings began against two mothers and a father charged with killing their own children. read here.

Via: 9News in Australia:

Suicide brings a decade of war home

12:30 AEST Tue Aug 23 2011

A soldier kills himself and his wife. Another war veteran hangs himself in despair. Yet a third puts a gun to his head and pulls the trigger outside a gas station in a confrontation with Texas lawmen.

Suicides by veterans like these once would have left people reeling in this military community. But troops and their families here these days call it the "new normal" for a US Army that's spent a decade at war.

Melissa Dixon sees the stress in the tattoos she draws on soldiers back from combat.

"Some of them have issues with their wives or their loved ones, where they're fighting, or one will have a friend commit suicide," she said.

There's no place like Fort Hood in the Army. A post that sent soldiers from two divisions to Iraq three times since the invasion, it's logged more suicides since 2003 than any other — 107.

Soldiers at big posts like Fort Hood that have played key roles in deployments are at the greatest risk of killing themselves.

The post here in Killeen, northwest of Texas' state capital, Austin, set an Army record last year with 22 suicides.

Elsewhere, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, home of the 82nd Airborne Division, has lost 77 soldiers to suicide since 2003.

At Fort Campbell, Kentucky, home to the 101st Airborne Division, 75 soldiers have died by their own hand over the last eight years.

But the problem is widespread. Last year, a record 300 soldiers in the active-duty, Reserve and National Guard killed themselves.

The numbers appear to be down slightly in 2011, but 32 active-duty staff killed themselves in July, the highest since the Army began tracking the phenomenon in January 2009.  read the rest here.

SSRI Stories Note: The Physicians Desk Reference states that antidepressants can cause a craving for alcohol and can cause alcohol abuse.   Also, the liver cannot metabolize the antidepressant and the alcohol simultaneously, thus leading to higher levels of both alcohol and the antidepressant in the human body.

via guestofaguest.com from 2007

We came across something very disturbing in today's Metro.  In an article titled"A Soldier's Suicide: Did He Have to Die?" we read about the story of soldier Jason Scheuerman.  Jason took his own life in Iraq after numerous displays of suicidal characteristics and behaviors.  What was more horrifying was this statistic, imbedded halfway down in the article:

"At least 152 U.S. troops have taken their own lives in Iraq and Afghanistan since the two wars started, contributing to the Army's highest suicide rate in 26 years of keeping track."

This is so, so sad.  Not only are we loosing thousands of troops to the enemy (whoever that may be at the time), we are loosing hundreds of sons and daughters to despair.  And it doesn't end when they return home.  America is suffering an epidemic of suicides among traumatized army veterans.

"More American military veterans have been committing suicide than US soldiers have been dying in Iraq. At least 6,256 US veterans took their lives in 2005, at an average of 17 a day." [TimesOnline]

 As a nation, we need to step things up.  Jason is an example of several military leaders failing to take action.  On a mental health questionnaire he had admitted thoughts about killing himself, also that he was uptight, anxious, depressed, and had feelings of hopelessness and despair.  He had also made calls home saying goodbye, and spoke several times about wanting to kill himself.  His leaders many of the times played these claims of his off as exaggerated jokes by the soldier, and even gave him back his gun after serving him with 14 days of extra duty as punishment (minutes later they found him dead in his room).  Imagine the angst of his parents, who were soldiers themselves, and feel this should have been prevented.  His dad Chris:

"We will not see a statistical decrease in Army suicides until the Army gets serious about holding people accountable when they do not do what they are trained to do."

It IS time for our leaders both in the military and back home to step up and start aiding in the mental health of our troops and our veterans. Read it here.

Check out the website SSRI Stories link to stories specific to members of the military and veterans

Who is the idiot that put the active participants in an ongoing criminal enterprise in charge of protecting the victims?

The author's relevant Conflicts of Interest:
I am biased.  My son is a Risperdal victim.  J&J started illegally marketing the drug as soon as it was FDA approved. All due respect to the Justice Department, the investigation going back to 2004, is not going back far enough. J&J had been illegally marketing Risperdal for close to a decade by 2004. The DOJ fines and penalties are very small % of the money that J&J defrauded from the American people through Medicaid and Medicare, and have not caused J&J to alter the unethical manner in which business is conducted. More importantly, these fines and penalties do not help J&J's PRIMARY VICTIMS who are grievously harmed. There is no way to compensate those who mourn the loss of a family member, the parents and children of J&J's victims who were killed by iatrogenic homicide. How can it ever rectify the harm done to Risperdal  victims who were further victimized because the adverse effects of Risperdal were attributed to the patient's  "psychiatric disease," or attributed to yet another psychiatric disease, which required adding a comorbid diagnosis?  It does nothing for the parents who are taking care of an adult child that is disabled like my son is? My son requires a great deal of assistance, and probably will for the rest of his life. Don't misunderstand me, it is an honor and a priveledge to take care of my son; but, it is also a tragic that it is even necessary.  

a screen shot from Sheller FDA Petition Comments

I am getting real tired of the "news reports" in the mainstream media which are about risk for diabetes and obesity from the neuroleptic drugs, called "antipsychotics." Children are being prescribed neuroleptic drugs for virtually any and every diagnosis---this is clearly Human Experimentation, occurring in Standard Clinical Practice; referring to it as "off label prescribing" implies that that there is some statistically relevant evidence which supports using these teratogenic drugs with fatal risks in the manner they are being used. The evidence does not even support using the drugs for the diagnosis of schizophrenia as a "first-line treatment," the condition for which the drugs were originally developed and prescribed for.

The very real risks of obesity and diabetes however are not, at least in my mind, what is most alarming about the fact that so many children are being prescribed neuroleptic drugs; nor is the fact that the American people are being defrauded through Medicaid (still!) in order to pay for these "off label" prescriptions over 90% of the time.  Nor is it that journalists are failing to ethically report on any of the issues involved with prescription drugs, with rare exception. The articles are often lost amongst the prescription drug advertising and the press releases journalists publish without verifying the veracity of any of the "facts" which the press releases contain...I accept that this is what is passes for "reporting the news."  There is very little reporting in the mainstream news about the rampant fraud in academic research, there is even less about the questionable (to say the very least) FDA approval process; this keeps people misinformed, dangerous drugs stay on the market, and keeps people are unaware of the risks involved when seeking psychiatric treatment. Once drugs are  FDA approved, the manufacturers rarely do the required after-market testing, and are never held accoutable for this failure.  There is little effort to no effort invested in regulating the marketing of FDA approved drugs so there are no meaningful consequences for making false claims in direct-to-consumer and direct-to-professional marketing of FDA approved drugs.  Apparently, the fact that people are being harmed at an alarming rate, is not "news," it is rarely reported. All of this is due to the unethical conduct of public servants with glaring conflicts of interest, which is also rarely if ever, reported by mainstream journalists.

Add to this obfuscation of the facts regarding psychiatric diagnoses and the toxic teratogens used to "treat" them, is the fact that adverse effects (including death) do not have to be reported to the FDA by medical professionals--If the FDA's primary purpose is to protect people from the risks of prescription drugs, adverse events and adverse effects is data that should be required reporting, it is needed order to effectively assess a drug's safety profile.  The FDA's primary purpose is not to protect the American people from the risks for harm, if it were, prescribers would be required to report adverse effects and adverse events. Protecting patients from harm is only a stated purpose; it is a marketing tool, a cover story. I don't believe protecting the American people was ever the FDA's primary purpose; it certainly is not a purpose that is effectively or ethically served currently.

The primary purpose served by the modern FDA is to protect the interests of the pharmaceutical industry. People who are given a psychiatric diagnosis are automatically at risk for experiencing grave harm because diagnostic criteria and treatment standards are developed by consensus; and consensus is regularly substituted for empirical data.  There are two reasons for this, the first reason is there is insufficient evidence, and the second reason is the evidence does not support the marketing agenda in which it is claimed drugs sagfely and effectively treat a diagnosis.  Psychiatry in this way ignores ethical scientific research standards; and it is abdicates it's responsibility for exercising sound, ethical medical judgement. It is a systematic way to standardize Human Experimentation on people who are given a psychiatric diagnosis in standard practice. The unethically developed "Standards of Care" become an affirmative defense for unethical medical practice, they are in this used by professionasl to abdicate any and all liability for harm to patients. Calling it a Standard of Care when it ignores ethical, scientific research and ethical medical practice standards is such utter BS---no one can possibly believe deception, fraud, and unethical behavior are necessary to provide mental health care. It is a way to rationalize, justify and codify unethical behavior; it serves to absolve doctors of liability for the grievous harm inflicted on patients using dangerous drug saccording to unethical standards.

In standard clinical mental health practice, there is no empirical data that is used to objectively diagnose a person. More often than not, there is no evidence that would support the recommended treatment.  The treatment is usually teratogenic drugs with fatal risks, and/or electroshock. The reality is there is very little science and a whole lot of consensus. Consensus is evidence of agreement; it is not evidence of diagnostic validity; it is not an ethical basis for a medical treatment, much less a basis to force a person, since it does have the serious risks of causing disability and death! Patients are at a serious disadvantage, as soon as a psychiatric diagnosis is attached. Rarely is the harm done to them reported. In my experience, as the mother of a child who was the victim of a violent assault, once a psychiatric diagnosis was attached, the harm done to my son, including felony crimes committed by "professionals," can be reported; but are never investigated.

Adverse reactions from drugs, (if even recognized as an adverse reaction) are attributed to the psychiatric "disease" the patient is diagnosed with. The way the mental health psychiatric system is set up, the direct adverse effect of diagnosis and treatment upon the patient is not relevant; negative effects are rarely acknowledged, if at all. These effects are purposely not being collected; consequently the harm cannot be quantified by those with an ethical duty to do so. Indeed, the people who have an ethical and a legal duty to, "First, do no harm..." are covering up the evidence that they are doing a great deal of harm to a great number of victims whom they call patients. The majority of these victims are poor children and foster children on Medicaid, the elderly on Medicare, and traumatized Veterans on Tri-Care. They all have one thing in common: they were seen as a means to an end. Their psychiatric stigmatization was the means and meeting the marketing goals of the pharmaceutical industry was the financially lucrative ends. these particular populations were targeted for diagnosis and treatment because they had medical benefits which would pay the costs of their "care." They were used because the American people had seen fit to ensure these vulnerable people had their medical needs provided for. Pharma's illegal marketing campaigns targeted those among us who are the most vulnerable, and least capable of effectively defending themselves to meet their marketing goals...Isn't that special?

Back to my original point, the things that are NOT being discussed are the serious adverse effects on sexual functioning that Risperdal and other psychotropic drugs have on human beings.  We are allowing children who are not sexually mature, to be given drugs which adversely effect normal sexual development and functioning; in effect, ensuring that many will never be capable of having a normal sexual relationship. If that is not a risk which should be of concern to their parents and the professionals who are alarmed about the diabetes and obesity risk, than I am Mary freaking Poppins! The rate children are being disabled and killed is not even MENTIONED by any of the "stake-holders" involved in the frantic efforts undertaken (supposedly on the behalf of foster children) when the THIRD Senate investigation was launched into the off label prescribing of teratogenic drugs to vulnerable children. The very people who we entrust to take care of our Nation's foster children do not appear to be concerned at all about how many of the children have been disabled and killed due to the direct negative effects of off label prescriptions taken as directed.  These are relevant facts which should be part of the discussion; however, they are in fact being ignored by the paid public servants in Child Welfare, Academic Researchers paid to do drug and psychiatric treatment research, grassroots advocates claiming to be the Nation's voice on mental illness, The American Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

Well I am WIDE awake and I want to know why are the worst risks faced by these children for brain damage, sexual development, and sexual dysfunction, sudden death, and chronic neurological impairment are being ignored by those who are "concerned." The study below is over; as usual, results are not available...

But more than this, I want to know who is the idiot who thought putting active participants in an ongoing criminal enterprise, in charge of protecting their victims was a good idea? 

Clinical Trials.gov
An Observational Study to Evaluate the Safety and the Effects of Risperidone Compared With Other Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs on the Growth and Sexual Maturation in Children

This study has been completed.

Sponsor:

Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.

Information provided by:

Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:

NCT01050582

First received: January 14, 2010

Last updated: May 25, 2012

Last verified: May 2012

History of Changes

  Purpose

The purpose of this observational study is to evaluate risk of prolactin-related adverse events (side effects) and the effects of risperidone compared with other atypical antipsychotic drugs on the physical maturity, growth and development of children exposed to these drugs

Condition	Intervention	Phase
Schizophrenia Bipolar Disorder Autistic Disorder Attention Deficit and Disruptive Behavior Disorders	Drug: Risperidone Drug: Other atypical antipsychotic drugs	Phase 4

Study Type:	Interventional
Official Title:	Evaluation of Growth, Sexual Maturation, and Prolactin-Related Adverse Events in the Pediatric Population Exposed to Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs

Resource links provided by NLM:

MedlinePlus related topics: Autism Bipolar Disorder Schizophrenia

Drug Information available for: Prolactin Risperidone

U.S. FDA Resources 

Further study details as provided by Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.:

Primary Outcome Measures:

• To compare Z-scores for height, age at current Tanner stage, and prolactin-related adverse events between patients exposed to risperidone and patients exposed to other atypical antipsychotic drugs. [ Time Frame: During the study visit and retrospectively during the time of exposure for up to 2 years prior to the study visit ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]

Secondary Outcome Measures:

• Assess the prolactin value and risk of hyperprolactinemia associated with risperidone as compared with other atypical antipsychotic medications in a pediatric population. [ Time Frame: One time during the study visit ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]
• Identification of subgroups of patients at high risk for changes in height or maturation. [ Time Frame: During the study visit and retrospectively during the time of exposure for up to 2 years prior to the study visit ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Enrollment:	244
Study Start Date:	October 2009
Study Completion Date:	July 2011
Primary Completion Date:	July 2011 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure)

Arms	Assigned Interventions
No Intervention: 001 Risperidone As per local prescribing practices	Drug: Risperidone As per local prescribing practices
No Intervention: 002 Other atypical antipsychotic drugs As per local prescribing practices	Drug: Other atypical antipsychotic drugs As per local prescribing practices

  Show Detailed Description

  Eligibility

Ages Eligible for Study:	8 Years to 16 Years
Genders Eligible for Study:	Both
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:	No

Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

• One or both parents (according to local regulations) or a guardian must have signed an informed consent document indicating that they understand the purpose of and procedures required for the study and are willing to participate in the study (If appropriate according to local regulations, the patient must also assent)
• Treated for schizophrenia, bipolar mania, autistic disorder, or conduct and other disruptive behavior disorders
• Had at least 6 months of exposure for an atypical antipsychotic drug within 24 months before the study visit (patients may or may not be taking the atypical antipsychotics at the time of actual enrollment, eligible patients can have exposure to multiple atypical antipsychotics, however, they cannot concomitantly be exposed to more than 1 atypical antipsychotic for a period of greater than 30 days)
• Had medical records or automated data available for at least 1 year prior to the start of exposure
• Height and weight were recorded at least once within 1 year before the start of exposure, and if available at any time points after the start of exposure in the medical records or electronic databases (not mandatory)

Exclusion Criteria:

• Have at least 1 medical record, at any time before the start of exposure, consistent with malignancy (other than non-melanoma skin cancer), pregnancy, or a developmental delay or abnormality associated with growth or sexual maturation delays not related to the specified indications
• Had exposure to prolactin elevating medications other than atypical antipsychotics and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)
• Had exposure to Paliperidone
• Cannot comply with study procedures

  Contacts and Locations

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01050582

  Hide Study Locations

Locations

United States, California

San Francisco, California, United States

United States, Colorado

Aurora, Colorado, United States

United States, Florida

Altamonte Springs, Florida, United States

Gainesville, Florida, United States

United States, Georgia

Smyrna, Georgia, United States

United States, Illinois

Naperville, Illinois, United States

United States, Indiana

Indianapolis, Indiana, United States

Valparaiso, Indiana, United States

United States, Massachusetts

Boston, Massachusetts, United States

Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States

United States, New York

Glen Oaks, New York, United States

United States, Ohio

Cleveland, Ohio, United States

Columbus, Ohio, United States

Belgium

Antwerpen, Belgium

Germany

Freiburg, Germany

Jena, Germany

Mannheim, Germany

München, Germany

Tübingen, Germany

Ulm, Germany

Würzburg, Germany

Greece

Athens, Greece

Netherlands

Nijmegen, Netherlands

Poland

Gdansk, Poland

Kielce, Poland

Lódź, Poland

Sosnowiec, Poland

Warszawa, Poland

Warszawa N/A, Poland

Sponsors and Collaborators

Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.

Investigators

Study Director:

Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L. C. Clinical Trial

Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.

  More Information

No publications provided

Responsible Party:	Clinical Leader Psychiatry, Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development, L.L.C.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:	NCT01050582     History of Changes
Other Study ID Numbers:	CR016687
Study First Received:	January 14, 2010
Last Updated:	May 25, 2012
Health Authority:	United States: Institutional Review Board United States: Food and Drug Administration

Keywords provided by Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, L.L.C.:

Schizophrenia Bipolar Disorder Autistic Disorder Attention Deficit and Disruptive Behavior Disorders Risperidone

RISPERDAL Antipsychotic Agents Prolactin Pediatrics

Additional relevant MeSH terms:

Schizophrenia Child Development Disorders, Pervasive Schizophrenia and Disorders with Psychotic Features Autistic Disorder Mental Disorders Bipolar Disorder Attention Deficit and Disruptive Behavior Disorders Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity Mental Disorders Diagnosed in Childhood Affective Disorders, Psychotic Mood Disorders Antipsychotic Agents Risperidone

Tranquilizing Agents Central Nervous System Depressants Physiological Effects of Drugs Pharmacologic Actions Central Nervous System Agents Therapeutic Uses Psychotropic Drugs Serotonin Antagonists Serotonin Agents Neurotransmitter Agents Molecular Mechanisms of Pharmacological Action Dopamine Antagonists Dopamine Agents

ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on October 03, 2012

'mental illness' is unlike any other illness

Dr. Bejamin Rush's 'Tranquilizer Chair 1811

THE beginning of  STIGMA--occurs when the degree of empathy, true acceptance, hope and love communicated both verbally and non-verbally--by EVERYONE--towards the person with a diagnosis, is absent, contrived or superficial.  Whether one has genuine respect, or has positive regard for another human being (or not) is expressed not only by our speech, but tone of voice, volume, the words that are used, facial expression, posture and gestures made.  People with psychiatric labels, even those who supposedly lack insight, are WAY more aware of any judgement, lack of acceptance, compassion and respect that is transmitted in our voiceless communication than the average 'normal' person; IMHO.  Obviously, people with a psychiatric diagnosis are easily harmed by lack of acceptance and respect; particularly when it is family members and mental health professionals who don't show them loving kindness,   acceptance.  Peter Breggin has said for a therapist to be helpful, the therapist and patient must have a positive regard  for one another.  This is true for all relationships, I believe.


It is not possible to convey any genuine regard and respect for a person, to gain their trust, and develop a therapeutic relationship with a person with a psychiatric diagnosis in a 15 minute 'medication management' appointment.

Why do some psychiatrists seem to have so little regard for the distressed humans they treat?   All that is discussed are the drugs and the effects the drugs may have---there is, in reality no real 'connection' or 'relationship' between the diagnosed and the 'doctor,'  if doling out of prescription drugs is the basis of the relationship.  When communicating by rote, which is what is necessary when doing a 'med check,' it is perfuntory and sterile; although this is considered professional objectivity or distance, it is not necessarily perceived as therapeutic or respectful by the patient.  A psychiatrist's relationship with a patient based on med checks, does not foster trust; at least not in in my own or my son's experience---why would it?  Being a 'mental health' professional of any sort, does not mean that those who come to you do not need you, the professional, to actually earn trust!  The fact is, I have met so many who seem to have the notion that being 'the professional' is all that is required, and seem to believe that having a medical license should be enough to magically inspire a person's trust and garnt unquestioning confidence in their professional authority; it is not.   


If the patient does not believe they are heard, or even feel as if the professional listened to them when they complain about the negative effects of the drugs prescribed, and the complaints voiced are minimized or dismissed altogether, this naturally breeds mistrust.   People with a psychiatric diagnosis who are also labeled with a lack insight are aware when their doctor does this, and when a doctor acts as if they are not important enough to listen to, they will logically assume it is due to a lack of respect for them.  The fact is, every person with a diagnosis of schizophrenia I have ever met was in fact cognizant of an almost universal lack of respect and lack of positive regard of mental health professionals which is apparently considered acceptable among bio-psychiatry devotees in the mental health treatment field; it is definitely pervasive. Apparently, because of the assumption that people with certain diagnoses lack insight, it is considered acceptable practice to minimize or disregard complaints; to not really pay attention to their subjective experiences, or value  the patients' understanding of what "the problem" is.  As a result, the necessity of trying to  develop a therapeutic relationship with them based on mutual respect and positive regard is not even considered or attempted.  It is more than strange to say the least, that people who are diagnoised with conditions that are poorly defined, and not very well understood, in such a negative manner. 

The main purpose the additional label of anosognosia appears to serve is being used as a justification for  treating those lableled with it as if they are less than worthy of being heard, understood, or even listened to, because after all, they don't know what they are talking about, they lack insight...This supposed lack of insight psychiatry has attached is used as an excuse to continue to prescribe the teratogenic drugs which the patients say cause them harm, and some say do not help them at all. It is used to convince their loved ones that they must help to coerce treatment compliance, and must also mimimize and dismiss complaints, i.e. don't listen to or even believe the person with the diagnosis.  The anosognosia label serves to inform the uninformed in the general public.  Once one believes that people who have certain psychiatric diagnoses are also lacking insight, they will then be less likely to listen to a person in distress, accept and/or have positive regard for the person, they will be biased by their belief the person has no insight, and will become more likely to dismiss and disregard the person.  The label is, in a manner of speaking, a gaslighting of an entire group of people; that encourages people to automatically dismiss anything the person says if a patient with the diagnosis says the drugs make them sick, or cause them to feel traumatized, unable to function---because after all, according to the experts those are just the unpleasant but tolerable side effects of necessary medical treatment. No matter what, drugs are to be taken---even by those who are not experiencing an appreciable reduction in symptoms that justifies the inherent serious risks of taking the teratogenic drugs.  It is this way the people that psychiatry claims have the additional diagnostic label of anosognosia, are effectively de-voiced; and are  denied any choice. The patient's perspective is not considered at all, nor are the direct detrimental effects of the drugs, or the detrimental effects of a professional's lack of respect, positive regard, and lack of compassion for the person to whom they are treating.


Psychiatry according to the medical model, does not acknowledge that these drugs do not actually help a significant percentage of those with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, (or other diagnoses!)  It is psychiatry that will not redact fraudulently conducted or reported research from it's professional journals.   The lack of scientific standards and medical ethics is evidence of the lack of respect and positive regard for people diagnosed as mentally ill whom they serve, and who are presumably to benefit from their expert treatment.  This lack of respect emanates from this biomedical attitudinal bias, it is the root cause of, and the very source of the stigma of a psychiatric diagnosis.  It is attached to the psychiatric diagnostic label; it begins when a diagnosis is bestowed as a life sentence: you have a disease with no cure, you just don't know it because you lack insight. Psychiatry has been using it for well over a hundred years: e.g. you have a disease or defect that requires medical treatment with neurotoxic drugs, and electrical shocks, have only replaced psycho-surgery, insulin comas, ice-water baths.  The thing is, the claim has, intentionally or not, always serves to justify treating people as less than fully human, or worthy of ordinary civility, respect, and human compassion;  and it still does. 

The outright falsehoods about symptoms of distress and behavioral difficulties has been taught to society by the 'professionals,' along with the lies about what is and is not known about the drugs themselves.  This is how stigma became entrenched in our society with the distorted 'psycho-education' which psychiatry provided as a public service.  In spite of these falsehoods being recognized and are now 'common knowledge,' the biomedical devotees in psychiatry are arrogant and defensive; unwilling to acknowledge that the source of any mistrust of psychiatry as a profession is a direct result of their own outrageous, entrenched biases and their arrogant, irresponsible, and unethical behavior.   In light of the academic and financial fraud and the Real World Outcomes of their victimized patients, this mistrust is entirely justified.


This is a profession who seemingly does not understand that if a person wishes to be trusted, the individual must be trustworthy; a medical license does not in fact confer trustworthiness; it only authorizes the individual to practice medicine.  If a profession wants to be trusted, ethical and moral standards must be adhered to; mistakes made need to be acknowledged, consequences experienced and corrective action taken.  Being trustworthy does not require perfection.   It requires being willing to admit when you are wrong, and understanding that you are only the patient's partner/assistant/guide/healer with an ethical duty to serve the patient; including being able to admit when you do not know something.  One needs to encourage hope and  independence; or more accurately, a healthy interdependence.  Declarations that a diagnosis is indicitive of  disease accompanied by implied inter-personal superiority and an abusing one's medical authority, are behaviors not worthy of trust. Heavy reliance upon consensus, subjective opinions, anecdotal evidence and one's innate biases serves to discourage and inhibit a patient's chances for healing and achieving s ustained emotional growth; it fosters and unhealthy dependence upon others, and encourages a self-stigmatizing negative sense of self-worth.  It is anathema to the role of a healer.  


It should be obvious, but there can be no trust built or ethical care provided without being honest and forthright.  Telling the truth to your 'patient' and their family about the the diagnosis given, the drugs or any 'treatment' that you recommend, and letting them make an informed choice because you are the 'doctor' and being ethical and honest,  have given them all of the factual based information needed, and suport them if they desire to seek someone else's advice.  It is not appropriate or ethical for you to tell a patient or parent of a child what to do---unless asked.  It is not ethical to mislead them about any drug's potential benefits nor is it ethical to neglect to tell them the inherent risks.  Coercion, manipulation and force are not 'therapeutic,' nor are veiled threats of locking up a patient to gain medication compliance acceptable, it is abuse of power and authority---it is not medical treatment or therapeutic in any sense.   It is a psychiatrist's ethical duty to support and educate a patient; to edify them, encourage them and to treat them with respect, having a kind and positive regard for a patient in order to be helpful.  If a psychiatrist is incapable of doing this, he/she is a doctor who must be stopped; because this type of failure causes injuries which last a lifetime, and often has a lasting, devastating impact for generations...


Psychiatry as a profession will not regain respect or be trusted until: 


1. It is 'standard practice' to respect and protect the Human Rights of those who are labeled 'mentally ill.'


2. It is 'standard practice' to follow the "Medical Ethics Guidelines for Informed Consent" for ALL diagnoses and patients!  No excuses!


3. It is 'standard practice' to tell the truth to patients and about patients to others, when necessary. (police and courts)   Your duty is to the patient, not their parents, or any one else who is distressed by them and wants to confine them!


4. Psychiatry stops disseminating inaccurate information and bio-medical propaganda through advocacy groups' education and information campaigns, and public service activities; people need facts, not fallacies!  It has bred fear, intolerance and discrimination against people given a psychiatric diagnoses; causing further harm and social isolation more than anything else.


5. Stop conducting 'research' and 'clinical trials' the primary purpose of which is not to help, heal or treat patients; but to expand the drug market---if it is not for an ethical, medical or therapeutic purpose, and primarily to benefit the patient, it is not medicine; but marketing!


6.  Conduct and report research ethically, completely and accurately---


7.  Teach students of psychiatry an accurate history of psychiatry and the use of drugs and electroshock.  Unless psychiatry students are taught an accurate history of this 'medical specialty' any changes are doomed to be superficial and cosmetic.  Specifically, psychiatrists should not be taught that coercion, manipulation and social control of others is 'therapeutic treatment!'


It was for the practice of eugenics that these techniques became 'standard practice.'    It was acceptable to mislead and misinform any patient or family member about both the diagnosis and the treatment of 'mental illness,' because based on ignorance and bigotry, 'mental illness' was perceived to be  definitive  evidence of a genetic inferiority which should be extinguished.  Those who were physically or cognitively 'defective' or diagnosed 'mentally ill' were treated as less than human, by psychiatrists.   While there are psychiatrists today who do not and have never held such views, the fact that they were trained in school to use  'standard practices' which were developed by people who very much believed in the inferiority of people diagnosed 'mentally ill.'   Historically, psychiatry like any profession, developed practices based on the what was being done in clinical practice.  In this country from the late 1800s up into the 50s and 60s lobotomy, sterilization, water torture,  insulin coma, electroshock were all considered effective 'treatment' or a 'standard practice' and psychiatry 'treated' those in their care without regard for their dignity or humanity.  It is psychiatry that used these ideas to formulate public policy.  The historical record is shocking for medicine in general, what I find disturbing is the fact that there is so little NEED for those who practice psychiatry to even be taught an accurate history, or even examine exactly what the facts are.   


Some things are indefensible.   I personally find it reprehensible that a profession which has allowed it's members to abuse, coerce, and forcefully "treat/torture" and further stigmatize patients by telling the world they have brain defects; and additionally, they have no idea what is 'good for them' (or they would take their medicine!)  Psychiatry has been instumental in the effort to implement laws and public policies which deny psychiatric patients any human dignity and any hope for a better life.  How can it be in any person's 'best interest' to deny them their Constitutional Rights---which are Human Rights---how is this 'therapeutic' or 'necessary medical treatment' to strip a person of their Human rights with a diagnosis?  It is within the biomedical model the idea that the people who are given a diagnostic label are less than fully human, and don't need their rights protected.


Psychiatry fails to hold members  to any ethical, moral or legal standards, in research, education, and direct clinical care.  APA members inexplicably cling to the delusion that because psychiatry is a 'medical' profession, everything that is done in Standard Practice is actually ethical and necessary to 'medical treatment.'   The fatal outcomes and the traumatized and disabled survivors are evidence that this is not in fact the case.


The fact that many are in fact living in permanent disability with horrible conditions, due to receiving 'psychiatric treatment' which amounted to inhumane traumatizing abuse is cavalierly dismissed as, "Scientology" or  "anti-psychiatry propaganda" yet never respectfully addressed, nor are the dead or disabled even acknowledged---less than humans---need no acknowledgement.    


I am just a mother, who has seen my child, a victim of violent crime; be further traumatized by dangerous drugs in massive doses---drugs not approved for children and every time it was a psychiatrist, not a Scientologist, or antipsychiatrist who prescribed the drugs which did the corporeal  and psychic damage.  Every time it was a psychiatrist who told me the lies and used analogies substituted for facts, it was always a psychiatrist who has questioned why I have no respect for their 'authority.'   I am a mother who willingly takes care of my precious son, who is now a disabled young man; but was once upon a time, my little boy.   I love him beyond measure.  It is he and I who have memories of separation, isolation, degradation, and invalidation which are the traumatic experiences of Standard Practices used by psychiatry.


If psychiatry wants to be respected and trusted, psychiatrists need to do what any and everybody else does. Psychiatrists like anybody and everybody else, must actually earn trust and respect; neither are issued with a diploma or medical license.  Psychiatrists need to act honorably, respect those who seek help, and be accountable.   Telling the truth helps make all these things possible.   Lying is not acceptable--to mislead, or fail to fully inform about either the risks or potential benefits of a prescribed treatment is unethical.  To misinform, mislead, coerce, manipulate, or force harmful drugs or ECT with real risk of permanent disability and sudden or decades early death---after the profession has been misinforming everybody about the actual nature of the diagnoses themselves, and the safety and efficacy of the neurotoxic drugs--is fraud, not medical treatment.  The drugs used to treat the symptoms of distress and emotional trauma, which are often the effects of ignorance, poverty, and all types of abuse and other environmental influences, are no panacea, the psychiatrists who claim to be treating 'diseases' by force if necessary, are committing medical fraud; there is no place for fraud in medical practice.


Dismissive patronizing attitudes, manipulation and coercion as  'standard practices' were developed during the several decades of the psychiatric profession 'medically treating' the 'genetically inferior' by practicing eugenics in State Institutions and social services.  Some of the standard practices, attitudes and 'widely accepted wisdom' prevalent in bio-psychiatry today, originated during the widespread eugenics movement from this era; and were accepted then due to the ignorant notion that subjective observation was evidence of genetic inferiority.  Individuals who were labeled genetically inferior, with a 'brain disease' were considered unworthy of respect, or humane treatment.  People with psychiatric diagnoses led miserable existences in which abuse and torture were considered 'treatment' in State run facilities; and this 'medical treatment' was provided by psychiatrists...


It is this type of treatment that was forced upon my son, I am a witness, and I am a mother who could not rescue my son fast enough.  It took years for me to believe my friends who told me I need to forgive myself.  That it is not my fault, I am not the one who beat him or abused him---in my heart, I failed because my son was harmed so very badly and I couldn't stop it; it still has not stopped...

I am insulted when a person says I should be proud for not walking away from him, for not giving up.   It is the only option I have.   He is my son.  I love him. 

Why are force, coercion, manipulation, and lying to those diagnosed and about those diagnosed to their families, and the general public considered acceptable by the members of the APA?  If the drugs are so safe and effective, why are people being disabled, and dying from illnesses and sudden death as a direct reselt of taking the drugs?    More importantly, if psychiatric drugs are so very safe and effective, why is so much fraud, illegal marketing and dishonesty necessary to practice psychiatric 'medicine'?   Why is it necessary to take children away when a parent exercises their Parental Rights to make decisions for their own flesh and blood?   It is because psychiatrists who are devotees of the biomedical madness believe as one psychiatrist told me, "Parents who objected to medical treatment they would see as at best ill informed and at worst impaired themselves." This is why psychiatrists have felt themselves justified and have purposely mislead, and outright lied to everybody. A belief that anyone who doesn't recognize their superior brains and apparently their psychic abilities; is either simply 'misinformed' or IMPAIRED. This quote is from a psychiatrist who is a 'Human Rights activist.'

If psychiatry is no longer practicing eugenics; and a diagnosis of  'mental illness' is just like any other illness, because the people who are diagnosed are not genetically inferior; and psychiatry is practicing medicine; why is psychiatry still using the same 'standard practices' developed when psychiaty was practicing medicine by implementing eugenics as a Standard of Care?   Just as importantly, why are subterfuge, academic fraud, financial corruption, illegal marketing, and court orders necessary; but Informed Consent for 'treatment' is NOT required, and barely paid lip service?   I do have a biased, but I believe understandable view.  It is based on the ten psychiatrists who all misinformed, and all of them apparently had no ethical qualms about the harm done by their ethical, diagnostic and treatment failure...


How is the modern biomedical model of psychiatric practice different from what the Germans did in the 30s and 40s?   I see no difference myself.   I know I have to this day, never been respected by any of the psychiatrists who have harmed my son, and would not allow me to protect my own child.  I will not stop trying to help my son recover, or stop protecting him as best I can from an under-recognized pathology. 


I call it pathological psychic psychiatry psychosis.  A diagnosis that is characterized by delusions and grandiosity particularly, a belief in one's superior intellect, and one's innate ability to determine what another person can tolerate in terms of physical and psychic trauma.  People with this diagnosis are emotionally capaple sociopaths, with an ability to commit crimes without guilt and use of coercion, seclusion, chemical lobotomies, and give Electrical Shocks to gain behavioral compliance.   These crimes committed by psychiatrists with pathological psychic psychiatry psychosis, are medically necessary.   The people who have pathological psychic psychiatry psychosis can diagnose a disease in anyone's brain by simply looking at them and talking to people who are unhappy about the patient's behavior...Is that a skill or what!  To be able to pull a disease out of a collection of subjective observations, like a magician pulls a rabbit from a hat, that is mighty handy!  I wonder if these psychiatrists demand respect bucause their diagnosis of pathological psychic psychiatry psychosis, allows them to know there is no way in hell they can earn it.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

George Santanyana

"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names."  

John F. Kennedy

'When a doctor cannot do good, he must be kept from doing harm."  Hippocrates


first posted with the title, 'If Mental Illness is Like Any Other Why Don't We Court Order Exercise?' on July 19, 2011
picture found at  mentalhealthstigma.com