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.
poster:Hello321
thread:1082509
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20150901/msgs/1082746.html