Posted on 09/06/2002 9:48:37 PM PDT by Chewy
Not SSRI's, but shouldn't the responsiblity be with the medical profession to identify the available treatments
for what is in THEIR patient's best interest, and go from there?
Prescribing [the effective] anti-depressants is more art, luck, and experience, than science, anyway.
My point is that I would hate to see beneficial drugs go up in price or pulled from the market because of medical
incompetence or patient abuse.
Be that as it may, I remain bemused by the exortations of "Just say no" in an era when it became fashionable to pump children full of mood-altering maintenance medication, including Ritalin and MAO inhibitors, as well as other classes of antidepressants.
One look at looming adulthood and responsibility through the puberty clouded eyes of adolescence is enough to depress anyone, and most of us went through that transition in a simpler age, when the boundaries were much clearer, much better defined. But how in the Dickens can children overcome the hurdles of personality and physical development if they are drugged with mood altering substances? The basic support of friends and/or family got most of us through. Just part of growing up.
At least with tobacco the individual gets some control over the dosage.
Even so, this makes more sense than running the NRA convention out of Denver (not quite, but close) and suing the manufacturers of the illegally obtained firearms.
The same could have been said of Thalidomide in the '50s (Thanks, Mom for flushing it down the toilet. I may not be a perfect typist, but it could have been harder to reach the keys!)
Reality Check!!! Just because a drug has been deemed safe for the masses does not mean it will not have unforseen effects. Besides, if all the school shooters had had adverse reactions leading to psychotic breaks, murder, and mayhem, the percentage of users of the drug would be statistically insignificant. Fourty shooters out of 4 million users (of a single drug) would only be .001%--not even a blip on the FDA radar....
Amazing, these folks were just out walking in the park, and some imp just appeared in the air in front of them, and forced them to swallow these pills. No doctor involved, no visit to the doctor, no nothing! It's a miracle.
I don't know if the author of this article is a Scientologist, but I did a search and learned she's written several articles slamming psychiatry and has quoted a number of alleged Scientologists as experts.
She's quoted Ann Blake Tracy from International Coalition for Drug Awareness (allegedly a Scientology front group), Bruce Wiseman and Fred Baughman (in her article "Doping Kids") from Citizens Commission on Human Rights (allegedly a Scientology front group), and Peter Breggin (denies being a Scientologist, but his anti-"all psychiatric medicine" stance makes him revered and often quoted by Church of Scientology members).
I thought I should mention it, because something about this just doesn't pass the smell test for me.
I never do. You are giving the chicken or the egg argument. Which came first.
Did it ever occur to you that people can become evil without the influence of drugs?
This is about attorneys looking for deep pockets again.
We can blame whatever, drugs, rap music, even (in some really stupid instances) the NRA. The sad reality is that the shallow pursuit of the trappings of mediocre material wealth and pure, simple laziness/selfishness have led to a generation (or more) of children left to raise themselves. A sort of urban/suburban Lord of the Flies scenario.
The drugs are a symptom as much as a contributing factor--a symptom of the devaluation of children in our culture.
All that silly-a$$ed liberal "we are the children", high school graduation pap aside, the next generation is the one who will be repairing our roofs, replacing our heart valves, and preparing our food at some point. I can see no more important investment of my time than in people, especially when a few minutes might change a life.
That said, these children are NOT getting that investment. Not from their parents, not from their schools, where a live body count has more importance (for funding purposes) than what happens there. The support which might have been rendered by the extended family has been largely negated by the "mobile family" in a meaningless quest for "respectable" suburbaninity.
What suffers? The children who are not raised at their mother's knee, whose dad is too busy, whose grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins are five states away. Who are dumped in the laps of people who are 'caretakers' every day, for most of their young lives.
If my dad had heard glass break in the garage, you can bet your a$$ he'd have been out there seeing what the heck was going on.
Are the drugs the problem? Yes and no. In a way they are not, if they are really needed. But just how often are they prescribed out of convenience, (take two and call me in the morning), rather than spend the time it takes to prevent and/or deal with the problems which are a normal of growing up. Maybe in these severe instances, the drugs are a contributing factor, the nudge that pushed these kids over the brink, but, I agree, it took a lot of other factors to get them to the edge.
As for Thalidomide, the year was 1956, and it was used in America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.