Posted by Lorne on August 6, 2005, at 22:35:24
In reply to Re: meds?, posted by Sonya on August 5, 2005, at 15:25:00
Dear Sonya,
Let me give you an example of what I'm speaking about.
Someone comes on line and says they have a history of episodic schizophrenia, they are HIV positive, and smoke. They've heard about a new atypical anti-psychotic called Clozaril that dosen't have the nasty side effects of some other anti-psychotics. Should they take it?
Sure, who would say not take it? Side effects are a bummer and who needs them? Of course you never hear from this guy again, because he dies quickly. Clozaril drops your white blood cell count, and smoking slows its absorbtion rate into the system.
Is this an extreme example, not really. First generation anti-depressants can interact with certain foods and can cause fatal reactions, lithium can be toxic, certain anti-anxiety drugs, such as klonopine, can kill you if you stop taking them suddently. The theraputic range on a drug can be close to its toxic level, or a drug below its theraputic range can be worthless.
We all recognize that a clinician offering medical or psychiatric advice on-line is not offering informed advice, because he has not assessed the client. Why can't we say the same thing when a lay person does it?
As far as being supportive, I'm trying to save the guys/gals life. Thats good support no matter how you look at it.
Lorne
poster:Lorne
thread:537421
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/subs/20050722/msgs/538531.html