Posted by andrew on May 29, 2000, at 1:32:30
In reply to Hi Kellie, posted by SLS on May 28, 2000, at 13:32:56
The information about serotonin syndrom elsewhere on Dr. Bob's site should provide some clues as to how mass murder might be related to the use of pdrugs. Many people talk here about the agitation and mania they experience taking SSRI's and other AD's. Few people smart enough to be interested in this site are so viscious as to be interested in mass murder, so it might be hard to understand how a pdrug-augmented manic episode could escalate severe angst to the point that a person executes a murderous plan conceived while they were depressed. Put yourself in someone elses shoes and think again.
School counselers might want to take notice. The social conflicts associated with depression don't neccessarily evaporate just because someone starts taking a prescribed drug.
Harris was planning the school shooting long before he did it - he posted his plans on a web site months in advance apparently during the same period he was taking Luvox. I am not aware of evidence of when he took his last dose. He was rejected by a military recruiter because of his Luvox treatment a few days before the shooting. Harris is only one of several recent mass-shooting suspects who had been taking ADs.
Power to Harm is an interesting text that explores the correlation of mass murder with SSRI's. It details a shooting at a newspaper press room in Louisville, Ky. and the subsequent civil trial in which Lillie was the defendant.
The shooter was prescribed Prozak but his doctor noticed the guy was so agitated he told him to quit taking it. The shooter liked it, though, and continued taking it. The author says that was the trial that set the precedent for later civil litigation concerning drug maker's liability for criminal acts committed by people on SSRIs. Several other civil suits were pending at the time, but were dropped after Lillie won the Standard Gravieur case. The author contends that Lille paid an undisclosed sum of money to the plaintiffs in exchange for their agreement to not introduce evidence of incomplete clinical testing of Prozak (during the FDA approval process) and to not introduce evidence of Lillie's previous CRIMINAL convictions (misdemeanor) for falsefying drug testing data.
The argument that mentally ill people are more likely to commit person crimes and that there actions are not related to pdrugs has been around for a while. It is the first line of argument of pdrug companies, but we need to remember they are motivated in part by profit interests. Corporate leaders have a long well-documented history of spin-doctoring information to protect their profits. The legal legacy surrounding these medicines is at least as informative as the drug-makers arguments.
poster:andrew
thread:32651
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20000526/msgs/35052.html