Upcoming Events

Sligo | Rights and Freedoms

no events match your query!

New Events

Sligo

no events posted in last week

User Preferences

  • Language - en | ga
  • text size >>
  • make this your indymedia front page make this your indymedia front page

Blog Feeds

forward

Dublin Opinion
Life should be full of strangeness, like a rich painting

offsite link Irish Labour movement 1889-1924: Lecture Five - 1913 Lockout 09:47 Fri Oct 17, 2014

offsite link Global Finance, Money and Power: Lecture Six - Tax Havens 07:09 Thu Oct 16, 2014

offsite link Irish Labour Movement 1889-1924: Tutorial - Erin?s hope & Class in Ireland 13:44 Mon Oct 13, 2014

offsite link Irish Labour Movement 1889-1924: Lecture Four - Jim Larkin and Larkinism 09:15 Fri Oct 10, 2014

offsite link Global Finance, Money and Power: Lecture Five - Market Institutions 19:48 Wed Oct 08, 2014

Dublin Opinion >>

Irish Left Review
Joined up thinking for the Irish Left

offsite link Welcome to the New Tax Avoidance Scheme, Same as the Old Tax Avoidance Scheme Mon Oct 20, 2014 16:26 | Michael Taft

offsite link Revealed: EU science chief promised to be ?flexible? towards Israel?s war crimes Thu Oct 16, 2014 15:21 | David Cronin

offsite link Austerity is Over? Now Back to the Real World Wed Oct 15, 2014 17:21 | Michael Taft

offsite link A New Kind of Trade Unionism Emerging Wed Oct 15, 2014 16:24 | Irish Left Review

offsite link Open Letter on the Housing Crisis Tue Oct 14, 2014 15:50 | Irish Left Review

Irish Left Review >>

Human Rights in Ireland
www.humanrights.ie

offsite link A new Constitutional Settlement for Northern Ireland: Queries from International Law Mon Oct 20, 2014 10:27 | Aoife O'Donoghue

offsite link Why Budget 2015 must be that last of its kind Fri Oct 17, 2014 08:36 | Liam Thornton

offsite link Socio-Economic Rights & Budget Analysis: Some Notes on Available Resources, ?Progressivity? and Non... Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:55 | Liam Thornton

offsite link Legal pathways to reproductive justice and abortion rights #repealthe8th Mon Oct 13, 2014 15:00 | GuestPost

offsite link Options for Constitutional Reform #repealthe8th Mon Oct 13, 2014 14:30 | Fiona de Londras

Human Rights in Ireland >>

NAMA Wine Lake

offsite link Farewell from NWL Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake

offsite link Happy 70th Birthday, Michael Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake

offsite link Of the Week? Sat May 18, 2013 00:02 | namawinelake

offsite link Noonan denies IBRC legal fees loan approval to Paddy McKillen was in breach of E... Fri May 17, 2013 14:23 | namawinelake

offsite link Gayle Killilea Dunne asks to be added as notice party in Sean Dunne?s bankruptcy Fri May 17, 2013 12:30 | namawinelake

NAMA Wine Lake >>

'killer' drugs, the failure of the Irish Medicines Board and the psychiatric profession

category sligo | rights and freedoms | opinion/analysis author Saturday January 29, 2005 15:49author by sean flemingauthor email shaunpleamonn at hotmail dot com Report this post to the editors

Over the course of the past few months I have written to the various divisions of companies that are based in Ireland and who manufacture what are known as ‘anti-psychotic’ drugs. What I have found in the course of this research and the responses I received is that there is a serious lack of information concerning the health risks provided in the patient information leaflet (PIL) or package leaflet that a patient receives with these drugs. The response of the Irish Medicines Board, as I will show, in all of this has been very disappointing given that they claim to exist in order to monitor and ensure that medicines are safe for patients.

cruelty.jpg

Over the course of the past few months I have written to the various divisions of companies that are based in Ireland and who manufacture what are known as ‘anti-psychotic’ drugs. What I have found in the course of this research and the responses I received is that there is a serious lack of information concerning the health risks provided in the patient information leaflet (PIL) or package leaflet that a patient receives with these drugs. The response of the Irish Medicines Board, as I will show, in all of this has been very disappointing given that they claim to exist in order to monitor and ensure that medicines are safe for patients.

The starting point for my enquiries was an extensive review (2003) of these drugs carried out by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the regulatory authority in the USA. Despite the many failings of this body this review was a considerably extensive and in-depth study of ‘anti-psychotics’. I am not aware of any other study that has matched it in any other country but it concluded that in relation to these drugs (atypical anti-psychotics) that the risk of hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) and diabetes has been played down or minimised by all the manufacturers to a greater or lesser degree. One particular company, Janssen Pharmaceutica received particular attention at that time because of the clear risks attached to their ‘anti-psychotic’. The FDA sent a warning letter on September 2003 to the American pharmaceutical company who manufacture Risperdal saying that Janssen’s ‘Dear Healthcare Provider’ letter was ‘false or misleading’ because:

‘it fails to disclose the addition of information relating to hyperglycemia and diabetes mellitus.. minimises the risk of hyperglycemia –related adverse events, which in extreme cases is associated with serious adverse events including ketoacidosis, hyperosolar coma, and death, fails to recommend regular glucose control monitoring to identify diabetes mellitus as soon as possible.. and misleading claims that risperdal is safer than other atypical antipsychotic’.

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:iVonRqgG4J8J:www.fda.gov/cder/warn/2004/12195Risperdal.pdf+the+FDA+and+anti-psychotics&hl=en




Lawsuits have been filed against Janssen by patients in the USA who subsequently developed diabetes as a result of this drug, the direct result of a deliberate failure to provide information concerning this health risk by the company.


Around this time also the FDA wrote to the following manufacturers about the need to update information concerning these health risks attached to their anti-psychotic drugs.

The companies were:

AstraZeneca- who make the anti-psychotic Seroquel (quietiapine)

Bristol Myers Squibb- who make the ‘anti-psychotic’ Abilify (aripiprazole)

Eli Lilly and Company- who make the ‘anti-psychotic’ Zyprexa (olanzapine)

Novartis- who make the ‘anti-psychotic’ Clozaril (clozapine)

Pfizer- who make the anti-psychotic’ Geodon (ziprasidone)

The drug Zyprexa has also proved disastrous for many patients who have developed massive weight gain on this drug. In the FDA’s report on this drug it seems that about 29% of the patients were gaining 7% or MORE of their baseline weight. Similarly Eli Lilly have had lawsuits filed against them by patients in the USA who have developed diabetes and heart disease as a result.

Confirmation that the risk of hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) continues to be minimised by Janssen was confirmed for me when I contacted a representative of Janssen in Ireland. He pointed out that the PIL for the drug in Ireland states that ‘in VERY RARE CASES HIGH BLOOD SUGAR HAS BEEN REPORTED ’. This is presently as I write the statement (January 2005) on the PIL.This totally contradicts the statement above by the FDA in relation to the drug and means that patients are being lied to about the dangers of this drug. It is important to note that the level of information provided in the PIL in various countries may differ. This is where the role of the drug regulatory body in each country comes in. They should ensure that the patients are getting the most up to date information concerning health risks or ‘side –effects’. Companies will avoid full disclosure of health risks concerning these drugs if they can get away with it.

Patients in Ireland could take legal action especially if they have developed diabetes. If they have not been monitored for signs of diabetes their case is further strengthened.

http://www.janssen-cilag.ie/product/pdf/pil00058.pdf

In relation to Eli Lilly they state on their PIL that: ‘SOME PATIENTS HAVE EXPERIENCED HIGH BLOOD SUGAR’.
http://www.emea.eu.int/humandocs/Humans/EPAR/Zyprexa/Zyprexa.htm

As I said according to the FDA report ‘29 % of the patients were gaining 7% or MORE of their baseline weight’-‘potentially clinically significant’ according to Eli Lilly itself. This clearly represents a case for legal action by patients in Ireland or anywhere else for that matter if such serious adverse effects have resulted. How many does Eli Lilly mean by ‘some patients’? It should be noted that this weight gain took less when most of the patients were on the drug less than six months! In fact the PIL states that if a patient suffers from heart disease they should tell their doctor when it fact it is clear that this drug carries a HIGH RISK OF HEART DISEASE. An American psychiatrist I have been in touch with and who spent some time on a legal case about 2 years ago, which involved a thorough review of the FDA’s Drug Approval Package on Zyprexa, can confirm the figure of 29%. I can I am sure provide any patient in Ireland who has developed diabetes or heart disease as a result of this drug and who wants to take legal action with the documented required information.

Let’s look at another of the drugs mentioned above, Abilify. If one checks the PIL one finds that the risk of hyperglycemia and diabetes if not even mentioned in the PIL in this country! The same is also true of the drug Geodon. I had a bit of trouble getting a straight answer from Pfizer in relation to that. Also in relation to Clozaril, the PIL states, "ON RARE OCCASIONS, CLOZARIL MAY CAUSE RAISED BLOOD SUGAR LEVELS AND SUGAR DIABETES ”. The active substance in Clozaril is manufactured in Novartis Ringaskiddy Limited, Ringaskiddy, Cork, Ireland. In relation to Seroquel (quietiapine) the PIL states that ‘ IN RARE CASES HIGH BLOOD SUGAR HAS BEEN REPORTED’.

It is very important to note that the FDA concludes in their report that ‘ olanzapine, clozapine, quietiapine and risperidone (risperdal) were all associated with ‘A STATISTCALLY SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN RISK FOR DIABETES’.

http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:iVonRqgG4J8J:www.fda.gov/cder/warn/2004/12195Risperdal.pdf+the+FDA+and+anti-psychotics&hl=en



This simply confirms the fact that in relation to all these drugs a clear and honest warning concerning health risks is not being outlined in the PIL for patients in this country.

WHAT IS THE RESPONSE OF THE IRISH MEDICINES BOARD (IMB)?

Well, I wrote to them expressing all my concerns in relation to the above. They wrote back (December 8, 2004) to tell me that ‘the IMB is very much aware of the need to monitor the safety aspects of the medicinal products’ and that it has taken a ‘very proactive stance’ in relation to this. They mentioned their participation in the WHO (World Health Organisation) drug monitoring programme and their membership of the EMEA (European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products).

In my reply to them I pointed out (December 21) that in that case they would or should have been aware of the research undertaken by the FDA in relation to these drugs. I asked them whether they would do more to convey the dangers of these drugs to the EMEA and others - in particular the need for a clear warning to be given on the PIL. They simply e-mailed me to say that my concerns had ‘been duly noted’ and gave me no further information as to what they would do or as to how they would heighten awareness of the dangers of these drugs. It is obvious that there is no determination to address the serious health risks that psychiatric patients are facing.

One reason why perhaps the IMB is unwilling to speak out may rest in the fact that according to the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association, which ‘represents the interests of the international research based pharmaceutical industry’ in Ireland, the pharmaceutical industry contributes approximately €3 billion a year to the Exchequer in tax payments.


Interestingly in relation to Risperdal the IMB (December 8) said it had:

‘ recently agreed with the manufacturers and received the variation for risperdal for the patient information leaflet in relation to hyperglycemia- and this will be implemented as swiftly as procedures allow’.

I found this interesting since just a few weeks prior to this I had been in touch with Janssen about the inadequacy of the information provided in the PIL which they believed wasn’t inadequate. I subsequently contacted Janssen again who refused to tell me what new information would be provided in the new updated information. No new information to date has been added though and it is possible that the new PIL will state that the risk is not ‘VERY RARE’ after all. This though is too late for the patients who have developed diabetes and heart disease. It should not be too late though for them to sue.

Psychiatrists if they were aware as they should be concerning these serious health risks and if they failed to monitor the patient for diabetes can be sued for negligence or this can be done through the local Health board for that matter. The fact of the matter is that it is up to the drug regulatory authority in each country, and in this case the Irish Medicines Board, to speak out. It is simply failing psychiatric patients, as is the vast bulk of the psychiatric profession. There is no disputing the fact that drug companies often lie about the efficacy of their drugs.
In relation to the health risks concerning diabetes I have not even mentioned the risks of neurological diseases associated with these drugs. It is now common knowledge in the medical profession and among the manufacturers of these so-called anti-psychotics that they can and do cause neurological diseases such as tardive dyskinesia, akathisia, and the potentially fatal neuroleptic malignant syndrome. In relation to all the drugs mentioned above there is not one mention of any of these diseases in the PIL provided. Instead, a reference is made to ‘involuntary movements’ or ‘shaking’ which a person may experience as ‘side effects’. It is important to understand that these are not side effects. THESE ARE DISEASES CAUSED BY THE DRUGS! Patients are not informed that these movement disorders caused by the poisoning of their nervous systems are largely irreversible. Psychiatry has clearly brought about a global epidemic of neurological diseases as a result of these drugs.

I believe that the following warning should be given on the PIL. This warning should be seen on the same level as the warning given on a packet of cigarettes.

PATIENTS SHOULD BE TOLD THE FOLLOWING IN RELATION TO HIGH BLOOD SUGAR AND DIABETES

They should be told that hyperglycemia (high blood sugar) is in some cases associated with ketoacidosis, a complex medical condition, or hyperosmolar coma and death.
Hyperglycemia or high blood sugar happens when the body has too little, or not enough, insulin or when the body can't use insulin properly. Symptoms of hyperglycemia include polydipsia (excessive thirst), polyuria (excessive urine), polyphagia (excessive hunger) blurred vision and weakness.
Ketoacidosis develops when your body doesn't have enough insulin. Without insulin, your body can't use glucose for fuel. So, your body breaks down fats to use for energy.
When your body breaks down fats, waste products called ketones are produced. Your body cannot tolerate large amounts of ketones and will try to get rid of them through the urine. Unfortunately, the body cannot release all the ketones and they build up in your blood. This can lead to ketoacidosis.
Ketoacidosis is life threatening and needs immediate treatment. Symptoms include: shortness of breath, breath that smells fruity, nausea and vomiting, a very dry mouth.

Hyperglycemia is usually the first sign of diabetes mellitus. It should be made clear that patients need to undergo regular glucose control monitoring to identify diabetes mellitus in them as soon as possible.

DIABETES MELLITUS, commonly referred to as diabetes, means ‘sweet urine’. Elevated levels of blood sugar or glucose leads to spillage into the urine, hence the term.
There needs to be a clear warning given to patients that diabetes mellitus is a CHRONIC MEDICAL CONDITION which can last a lifetime and can be brought about by ‘anti-psychotic’ drugs.
There must be a warning that diabetes mellitus can lead to blindness, kidney failure, that it can accelerate the hardening and narrowing of the arteries (ARTERIOSCLEROSIS), leading to strokes, heart disease and blood vessel diseases.
Blood / urine testing for diabetes must be done on patients taking these drugs any longer than a few months.

IN RELATION TO THE NEUROLOGICAL DISESASES CAUSED BY THESE DRUGS the (PIL) MUST EXPLICITLY WARN ABOUT THE FOLLOWING:

TARDIVE DYSKINESIA: Patients are at risk of developing a largely irreversible, untreatable neurological disorder called tardive dyskinesia. The disease is often disfiguring with involuntary movements of the face, mouth or tongue. It can though affect any part of the body including that of the neck, shoulders, back, arms and legs, and hands and feet.

TARDIVE AKATHISIA: This involves painful feelings of inner tension and anxiety and a compulsive desire to move the body. In the extreme the patient undergoes internal torture and is unable to sit still.

NEUROLEPTIC MALIGANT SYNDROME: This is indistinguishable from an acute inflammation of the brain comparable to lethargic encephalitis and is potentially fatal. Clinical manifestations of NMS are HYPERPYREXIA (fever, high temperature), muscle rigidity, altered mental states, evidence of autonomic instability (irregular pulse or blood pressure) TACHYCARDIA (sudden, rapid racing of the heart), DIAPHORESIS (heavy perspiration), cardiac dysrhythmia (disturbance in the regular rhythm of the heartbeat). Patients should undergo regular electrocardiogram (ECG) testing. Additional signs may be increased elevated Creatine Phosphokinase. Creatine Phosphokinase (CPK) is an enzyme found predominantly in the heart, brain and skeletal muscle. When the total CPK level is substantially elevated it usually indicates injury or stress to one or more of these areas (when a muscle is damaged CPK leaks into the bloodstream). Psychiatric drugs can bring this about. By determining which isoenzyme –specific form of CPK-is elevated it can help to then determine which tissue has been damaged. Tests must be done if the patient experiences chest pain or other muscular pains.
RHABDOMYOLYSIS: rhabdomyolysis is the breakdown of muscle fibers or skeletal muscle resulting in the release of muscle fiber contents into the blood circulation. Some of these are toxic to the kidneys and frequenty result in kidney damage and even kidney failure.Various tests can be done to detect this including the CPK test. Symptoms may include abnormal urine colour ( dark , red , or cola coloured ), muscle tenderness, generalized weakness, muscle stiffness or aching, seizures and joint pain. Dead tissue skeletal muscle may cause massive fluid shifts from the bloodstream into the muscle reducing the relative fluid volume of the body and leading to shock and reduced blood flow to the kidneys.

REGULAR BLOOD AND URINE TESTS MUST BE CONDUCTED IN RELATION TO ALL THE ABOVE IF A PATIENT IS ON THESE DRUGS ANY LONGER THAN A FEW MONTHS.

Communicating this information in the PIL is essential. It will give a clear warning to the patient regarding the serious health risks. On this basis no one could argue that these drugs should be prescribed except in cases of extreme mental distress and for as short a period of time as possible( no longer than a period of a few months) .One of the real effects of these drugs is that they have a mental and emotional disabling effect on the patient and therefore in extreme situations could only be justified. We must also consider though the physical fitness of the patient given that all these drugs carry a risk of heart arttack or stroke.The fact that drug companies don’t give all this information to the patient and the fact that many psychiatrists believe patients should remain on these drugs for many years if not a lifetime is criminal in my view. The drug companies and by extension many though not all in the psychiatric profession -not to mention the so-called drug regulatory authorities- have the blood of psychiatric patients on their hands. According to the psychiatric industry 15-20% of patients long term on anti-psychotics will develp tardive dyskinesia. The figure is probably higher but if this were the case in relation to any other ‘medicine’ being prescribed there would be an absoloute outcry and the drugs withdrawn from the market. But because the drugs concern psychiatric patients few people care.

Each of the drugs mentioned above is worth around 2-4 billion a year globally to the companies mentioned.For these companies profits come before patients and especially psychiatric patients. This therefore clearly comes at the expense of the truth. These companies show nothing but contempt for the psychiatric patient and the psychiatric profession by and large has sold out its soul to them. Thankfully, to date there have been successes in the USA against these companies. We need to see the same happening in Ireland, Britain and many other countries and this pseudo and deeply harmful practice ended once and for all.




.

author by Ray McInerneypublication date Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:12Report this post to the editors

Drug regulation faces enormous change, writes medical correspondent Dr Muiris Houston

It has been a difficult year for the pharmaceutical industry. The safety of the new generation of antidepressants called SSRIs is still being questioned.

Two products in particular have been the focus of much media publicity. Although vigorously defended by their respective manufacturers, questions about the appropriate prescribing of Seroxat and Prozac continue.

These have focused on areas such as the prescribing of SSRIs for teenagers and children and the possibility that some drugs might, as part of their therapeutic effect, lead to suicidal behaviour.

But it was the withdrawal of the widely prescribed anti-inflammatory drug Vioxx in September that began a period of intense focus on the regulation of the global drug industry.

Vioxx (rofexcoxib) is one of a number of drugs used to treat arthritis. Called Cox 2 inhibitors, they were licensed here in the late 1990s and heavily marketed as offering a significant advantage on the standard non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS).

Ironically, in view of subsequent events it was the Cox 2's reduced potential to cause bleeding from the gastrointestinal tract that was their main selling point. Their commercial success was revealed in a paper published last week in the medical journal, Archives of Internal Medicine, which found that within two years of the introduction of Cox 2 inhibitors in the US, they achieved a 61 per cent share of the anti-inflammatory market.

On September 30th the manufacturer of Vioxx, Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD), withdrew the drug. The reason given was an increased risk of cardiovascular side effects, namely heart attack and stroke, in people taking it for 18 months or more.

However, concerns about Vioxx and the whole group of Cox 2 inhibitors had been circulating in medical circles as far back as 2000. An article in the Journal of the American Medical Association in December 2001 from the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine of the Cleveland Clinic found that patients taking Vioxx were almost two and a half times more likely to have a heart attack or stroke than those taking an older NSAID.

The authors based their conclusion on analysis of a large trial of 8,000 patients published in the New England Journal of Medicine in November 2000. An article in the British Medical Journal in March 2003 suggested "harms outweigh benefits of Cox 2s for many patients".

But this was just the beginning. In the months since the withdrawal of Vioxx, medical journals have been full of trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of other Cox 2s. Pfizer, the manufacturer of Celebrex and Bextra, said Celebrex was associated with a doubling of the risk of cardiovascular side effects when taken in higher dosage. It issued new contra-indications for Bextra.

The influential and independent review of medical treatment, the Drugs and Therapeutics Bulletin, said in January: "We can see few, if any, situations in which Cox 2 [ inhibitors] are unequivocally indicated... We see potential hazard in prescribing a Cox 2 to a patient who is at risk from cardiovascular disease."

The drugs are currently being reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and by the European medicines regulatory agency and it is expected the anti-inflammatory agents will have their licences severely restricted.

Responding to recent developments, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) said drug companies may withdraw vital medicines and cut investment in R&D of new drugs if the threat of litigation and public hostility continues.

Dr Richard Barker, director general of the ABPI, says some companies may decide it is not worth the legal or financial risk of launching new drugs if they are liable for the side effects patients' experience.

"The aggressive programme of class-action suits which have emerged must be factored into a company's decision-making."

One thing is certain. The drug regulatory environment has changed. The days of drug regulators doing business with the pharmaceutical industry behind closed doors are numbered.

author by seanpublication date Sat Feb 05, 2005 13:20Report this post to the editors

There are two further points I would like to make in relation to my article above. When I contacted the Irish Medicines Board (IMB) in relation to the risk of diabetes mellitus associated with ‘anti-psychotic drugs’ I was told by them that my concerns were being referred to their medical unit or medical department.

You can imagine my surprise therefore when the response to my concerns came from Weber Shandwick|FCC , one of Ireland's leading PR consultancies.

The IMB answer was that it was not unusual to have such issues addressed by PR companies. When I asked the PR company whether they were aware that diabetes mellitus can lead to blindness, kidney failure, that it can accelerate the hardening and narrowing of the arteries, leading to strokes, heart disease and blood vessel diseases and that such serious risks, which psychiatric drugs present, need to be outlined in the patient information leaflet they failed to reply. In fact I contacted them on two occasions about this and they refused me the courtesy of a reply.

This in my view shows how psychiatric patients in Ireland are being failed by the IMB. They first of all lie by saying matters are being referred to their medical department and then hand these queries concerning very serious health matters to a business company which clearly doesn’t give tuppence for the health of psychiatric patients. The IMB then pretended in further queries that there was no serious risk to the health of psychiatric patients. For the IMB it’s more important to keep the drug companies on board and the money flowing in and to hell with the psychiatric patient.

In relation to the various blood/urine tests which I mention above concerning serious health effects of neuroleptic drugs I would encourage psychiatric patients once any of these symptoms mentioned above present themselves that they insist on medical tests being done. (Patients are hardly ever monitored by their psychiatrists in relation to these diseases).

The reason for this is simple:

Within the medical profession there are many dedicated professionals who are deeply skeptical about psychiatry and there so-called treatments. When patients present themselves expressing concerns about diabetes or signs of diabetes or neurological diseases the effect of this will be to put pressure on medical staff to face up to and challenge the way in which psychiatry actually causes disease.

It may lead to protesting within the medical profession as to why they should treat drug-induced disease brought on by the pseudo medical practice of psychiatry.

It could also lead to increased pressure on psychiatrists to get their patients off drugs as soon as possible. Of course this will be a blow to their power as their job consists solely in dispensing drugs. It is also fair to say that there still remains a considerable number of medical professionals who are not fully aware of the disastrous effects of psychiatric drugs. Patients presenting themselves for tests in relation to psychiatric drug induced disease may help to heighten their awareness as well.

People need to understand that patients are told they must stay on their drugs for many years if not a lifetime. This is criminal. They must be helped to withdraw if that is what they wish and any kind of action that highlights their suffering especially the allied support of true medical health professionals will be a powerful weapon in their armory.




.

author by George J montgomery (sociology major) - nonepublication date Tue Mar 01, 2005 18:30author email george992986 at hotmail dot co dot ukauthor address Parkhead mental hospital, Duke street,Parkhead, Glasgow, Scotlandauthor phone 07936891637Report this post to the editors

I was diagnosed (incorrectly I believe) with a form of anti-psychotic disorder several months previously (around July 2004); After a legal hearing which took around a month, the doctor who argued that I should be sectioned under section 18 of the mental health act won his case in court aided by a social worker and a lawyer acting as a curator. The basis of the dctors argument was that because I had refused a form of anti-psychotic medicine (Olanzapine) I was therefor incapable of making a rational decision. I was sectioned in order to enforce 'some form' of treatment. Now that I am sectioned after three consultations with the resident psychiatrist I have been informed that anti-psychotic treatment specifically 'abilify' may be forced upon me: having witnessed the shocking 'effects' upon other people what are my choices?

author by sean flemingpublication date Tue Mar 01, 2005 20:32Report this post to the editors

Hi George,

I am sorry to hear about what has happened. It is an abuse of human rights that people psychiatrically labelled are forced to accept such ‘treatment’ which they know only too well is debilitating and disabling.

I think under UK law you can be sectioned for up to three months. My advice if you don’t mind me offering it is this. Olanzapine is a nasty drug –notorious for enormous weight gain and disfigurement (article above). I know people who have been on this drug and have seen the effects. In relation to Abilify-It is the latest ‘anti-psychotic’ and does not appear so far to have the problems of weigh gain –so it may be best for you to accept this ‘medication’ at present and go along with your shrinks and the so-called mental health professionals. That way you can get yourself out of hospital and gradually withdraw from the Abilify. all 'anti-psychotics' though carry serious health risks when used long term.In UK law you cannot be forced to take these drugs while living in the community though there are plans to change that.

I think your first aim is getting out of hospital – there is very little you can do to resist detention; the best policy therefore for now is to feign compliance. I think you should also ask for the lowest dosage of Abilify which I believe is 15mg-20 mg a day.

Insist that you do not want a depot injection – that way they can follow up on you after you leave hospital with a nurse calling to your home to ensure that you do take your ‘medication’

Also have you heard of the Critical Psychiatry Network in the UK? You can post a message on their e-group outlining your experience. People could if you wish write or e-mail the hospital on your behalf to complain about your treatment –best if you can get the e-mail address of the hospital managers for this .The website address is:

www.criticalpsychiatry.co.uk

The site is linked to a number of survivor websites.

Good luck, play the game with them for now in getting out of the bin. Let me know if there is anything I can do.

 
© 2001-2014 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy