3 ms·
It's somewhat controversial, but schizophrenia treatments can be (arguably) completely ineffective and worse than the disease itself. Robert Whitaker has writte
by qrendel 11y ago
It's somewhat controversial, but schizophrenia treatments can be (arguably) completely ineffective and worse than the disease itself. Robert Whitaker has written multiple books[1][2] about it. (See wikipedia[3][4] for reception by the medical community.)
The argument is essentially that schizophrenia medications were originally developed as a chemical replacement for lobotomy, the newer versions ("atypical neuroleptics") only had to prove themselves no less safe than those original treatments, the drug companies skewed the research by giving patients one large dose of the old treatments versus several smaller doses spread out over time of the newer ones (meaning the new neuroleptics may have actually been less safe than the drugs developed for chemical lobotomy), and recovery rates are actually much, much higher for patients never treated with anti-psychotic medications. The argument claims the US actually has among the lowest schizophrenia recovery rates (~5% in the US vs ~45% for untreated patients who receive non-medicative care) due to the reliance on medication. (Some charts on that: [5][6][7]. Better sources available through [1] and [2].)
IANA doctor or psychiatrist, simply summarizing the anti-medication position. Drug companies and many psychiatrists clearly argue they're necessary medications, and for the absolute worse cases they probably are, and you can certainly find a lot of people who claim they or their family members were "fixed" by medication (though it should be noted that, historically, the same arguments were made for lobotomy and electroshock therapy as well). Schizophrenia also affects people differently, being completely disabling for some and less so for others, which obviously complicates deciding when benefits from medication outweigh the risks.
[1] http://robertwhitaker.org/robertwhitaker.org/Mad%20in%20America.html http://robertwhitaker.org/robertwhitaker.org/Mad%20in%20Amer...
[2] http://robertwhitaker.org/robertwhitaker.org/Anatomy%20of%20an%20Epidemic.html http://robertwhitaker.org/robertwhitaker.org/Anatomy%20of%20...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_in_America#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_in_America#Reception
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomy_of_an_Epidemic#Reception_and_media_coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatomy_of_an_Epidemic#Recepti...
[5] http://images.slideplayer.com/24/7027169/slides/slide_5.jpg http://images.slideplayer.com/24/7027169/slides/slide_5.jpg
[6] http://www.madinamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Harrow.jpg http://www.madinamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Harro...
[7] http://www.yoism.org/images/LongTermFollowUpSchizophreniaOutcome.JPG http://www.yoism.org/images/LongTermFollowUpSchizophreniaOut...
- derefr 11y agoRe: electroshock therapy, the "modern" version of ECT (i.e. the only version allowed for the last 50 years) is effectively just about inducing small seizures in the brains of anesthetized people, rather than frying anything. Less "burning out the bad parts", more "recalibration of synaptic weights" ala how ketamine is theorized to act in the treatment of depression. Actually scares me quite a bit less than the idea of being given chronic doses of antipsychotics.