4 ms·

Haloperidol is absolutely a powerful sedative (amongst its other effects). This isn’t a misplaced claim or hyperbole, it is used (and I have used it) to sedate

Haloperidol is absolutely a powerful sedative (amongst its other effects). This isn’t a misplaced claim or hyperbole, it is used (and I have used it) to sedate agitated patients in hospitals. I mean, it actually sounds like you don’t really know what you’re talking about. It’s not quite in our ‘take down’ class of drugs (think meth patient in the emergency room) but it sure as hell knocks patients out in IV/IM administration. Which should definitely not be the administration in aged care, but even in oral form it is used unfortunately in a long term role as a sedative (which is not what it is indicated for), which is basically what the article is about

msrenee 5y ago
Having sedating properties is not the same as being a powerful sedative. If they had said it was used because it can be sedating, I wouldn't have said a word.
- robbiep 5y ago
  At this point, and reading your other replies, it really seems as though you’re just trying to justify a position you took which is not borne about by the factual evidence. The other day I read an article in the paper about a woman’s journey with uterine fibroids and how it had affected her life. It contained a large amount of misinformation that my partner (obs and gynae doctor) objected to strongly but at the end of the day it’s been published and that’s that. But in this case what you’re objecting to isn’t even incorrect information. I mean, the first typical antipsychotic, Thorazine was literally called ‘a lobotomy in a pill’. The trade name, Largactil, is because it was ‘large acting’ in basically turning the patient into a walking vegetable. This is at a point in the history of psychology when asylums were being shut down and over the next few decades the large numbers of people who had previously been held in often awful conditions were released into society, and despite the literal sledgehammer effect of these ‘typical antipsychotics’, any side-effects we’re considered mild in comparison to not having them. Until the extrapyramidal effects started showing up. Haloperidol acts on the same system as Thorazine.
msrenee 5y ago
Maybe it's an issue of dosage. At the levels you would prescribe outside of the hospital to a patient presenting with symptoms of schizophrenia, it can definitely cause sedation. At higher doses, you could probably say that it is a powerful seditive. It just seems disingenuous in the context of this article - to explain to the layman what the medication is - to call it a powerful sedative. It is an antipsychotic which has sedating effects. Warfarin is a blood thinner. Warfarin was originally used as rat poison. If a nurse gave it to someone they didn't like to increase their risk of internal bleeding, would it be more accurate for a journalist to say that the nurse administered a blood thinner that was not appropriate or rat poison?
- pessimizer 5y ago
  Your claim that describing Haldol as a sedative is disingenuous is entirely about intention and justification, not about anything material. Yes, you can use it with the intention of improving a schizophrenic's condition. That doesn't make it any less of a sedative. If you give Warfarin to somebody at the dosages used to poison rats, it'll probably kill that person, too. I think I get what you were going for with the comparison, but all medicines are very light poisons at the dosages in which they are administered (all substances in general are poisons at the right dosages, really) but Haldol is a strong sedative at the dosages at the dosages in which it is administered. And can we really say categorically that we aren't actually using the sedation itself (to some degree) to calm the schizophrenic?

msrenee 5y ago

Having sedating properties is not the same as being a powerful sedative. If they had said it was used because it can be sedating, I wouldn't have said a word.

robbiep 5y ago
At this point, and reading your other replies, it really seems as though you’re just trying to justify a position you took which is not borne about by the factual evidence. The other day I read an article in the paper about a woman’s journey with uterine fibroids and how it had affected her life. It contained a large amount of misinformation that my partner (obs and gynae doctor) objected to strongly but at the end of the day it’s been published and that’s that. But in this case what you’re objecting to isn’t even incorrect information. I mean, the first typical antipsychotic, Thorazine was literally called ‘a lobotomy in a pill’. The trade name, Largactil, is because it was ‘large acting’ in basically turning the patient into a walking vegetable. This is at a point in the history of psychology when asylums were being shut down and over the next few decades the large numbers of people who had previously been held in often awful conditions were released into society, and despite the literal sledgehammer effect of these ‘typical antipsychotics’, any side-effects we’re considered mild in comparison to not having them. Until the extrapyramidal effects started showing up. Haloperidol acts on the same system as Thorazine.

msrenee 5y ago

Maybe it's an issue of dosage. At the levels you would prescribe outside of the hospital to a patient presenting with symptoms of schizophrenia, it can definitely cause sedation. At higher doses, you could probably say that it is a powerful seditive. It just seems disingenuous in the context of this article - to explain to the layman what the medication is - to call it a powerful sedative. It is an antipsychotic which has sedating effects. Warfarin is a blood thinner. Warfarin was originally used as rat poison. If a nurse gave it to someone they didn't like to increase their risk of internal bleeding, would it be more accurate for a journalist to say that the nurse administered a blood thinner that was not appropriate or rat poison?

pessimizer 5y ago
Your claim that describing Haldol as a sedative is disingenuous is entirely about intention and justification, not about anything material. Yes, you can use it with the intention of improving a schizophrenic's condition. That doesn't make it any less of a sedative. If you give Warfarin to somebody at the dosages used to poison rats, it'll probably kill that person, too. I think I get what you were going for with the comparison, but all medicines are very light poisons at the dosages in which they are administered (all substances in general are poisons at the right dosages, really) but Haldol is a strong sedative at the dosages at the dosages in which it is administered. And can we really say categorically that we aren't actually using the sedation itself (to some degree) to calm the schizophrenic?