Parents: Please Educate Yourselves About Psychiatric Drugs

What is the Scientific Basis of Psychiatric Treatment?

PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF ABOUT PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS

According to the Wall Street Journal 6.5 million children and youth 19 and under given neuroleptic drugs, called 'antipsychotics' in 2009. I wonder how many of these children experienced a life threatening emergency, became disabled, or died as a result? The lack of honesty is seemingly endemic to psychiatric research and 'peer-reviewed' professional journals, psychiatric textbooks and Continuing Medical Education programs. Since this corrupted "Evidence Base" is what 'mental health treatment' is based upon, checking facts about the risks associated with taking psychiatric drugs is not only advisable' it's a necessity. The Physicians Desk Reference,  The Alliance for Human Research Protection, and RxISK.org are some of the sources available online.

The reality is used as directed, neuroleptics, called 'antipsychotic,' drugs, can cause illness, disability, brain damage and early and/or sudden death. The fact that these very real adverse effects are NOT being shared with people prior to the drugs being prescribed to them, is obviously unethical; it is also criminal. When these teratogenic drugs are prescribed to children, (usually "off-label") parents are often not even informed of the very real life-altering conditions that are drug-induced, commonly occur, even though these adverse effects can be disabling, and even fatal. neuropleptic drugs are commonly prescribed "off label" an innocuous term that belies the fact that using the drugs in this manner is in fact, "experimental use" of very dangerous drugs. It is human experimentation; the fact that it is being done in standard clinical practice,is evidence that psychiatry is not in fact "evidence-based." There isn't sufficient empirical evidence to support using neuroleptic drugs "off label" for any condition or behavior any child has; in reality, the empirical evidence is not robust enough to consider neuroleptic drugs as a first-line treatment for childhood-onset schizophrenia.

Parents are not being told that there is often little, to no evidence to support many prescriptions for psychotropic drugs; nor are they given accurate information about the direct adverse effects of the psychiatric drugs prescribed to their children. Not being given the facts, undermines a parent's ability to make informed decisions in their child's best interest. In reality, it often means that parents are not being given the information necessary to determine whether or not their child should take the drugs being prescribed. This ethical failure is not necessarily accidental or even an intentional oversight; it is more often due to the corrupted data that is contained in the evidence base. The average mental health professional who relies on the articles in peer reviewed journals cannot help but be misinformed and consequently provides patients and parents with biased, or otherwise inaccurate information about the drugs they recommend.

Marcia Angell, MD, former Editor in Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, reviewed three important books that examine corporate-academic liaisons that have corrupted the integrity of American medicine. In her review titled, Drug Companies and Doctors: A Story of Corruption, she said of Jeffrey Biederman: "Thanks largely to him, children as young as two years old are now being diagnosed with bipolar disorder and treated with a cocktail of powerful drugs, many of which were not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for that purpose."

"Between 2000 and 2007, Dr. Biederman was paid at least $1.6 million in consulting and speakers fees to promote the use of toxic drugs--in particular, antipsychotics--for children, for whom they had not been approved. The short-term harm produced by these drugs in children is documented--including obesity, new onset diabetes, and heart damage. The effect of long-term use of these drugs by children is still mostly unknown. However, the capacity for harm in particular for children's immature, still developing brains is immense...

"In spite of corruption, fraud, and invalidated research and unethical conduct; the work of Biederman, Nemeroff, and Schatzberg, (among others) remains intact in "peer-reviewed" journals and textbooks; and is used in clinical practice across the country. According to Dr. Angell, "Legally, physicians may use drugs that have already been approved for a particular purpose for any other purpose they choose, but such use should be based on good published scientific evidence." (emphasis mine)

I have questions for all psychiatric and mental health professionals, and so should any parent who seeks mental health care for their child. Here are a few of mine:

What is the scientific basis for using dangerous neuroleptic drugs, or "antipsychotics" for any diagnosis?

What is the scientific basis for using neuroleptics 'off-label,' i.e. experimentally, on children?

What is the scientific basis for coerced, i.e. forced or "assisted" treatment of any one?

Is dishonesty and abuse of power, i.e. the use of coercion, misleading patients/parents about the nature of a psychiatric diagnosis by stating it is a disease, 'chemical imbalance' or 'neurobiological' condition acceptable, or even ethical?

What is Informed Consent?

Is Informed Consent possible when professionals rely upon corrupted data and the biased articles in "peer-reviewed" professional journals that exaggerate the benefits and minimize the risks?

Informed Consent

Informed consent discussions should include disclosing the fact that all psychiatric diagnoses are based on subjective observation and opinion. The consent discussion should also include informing people of the life-altering risks to one's liberty interests once a psychiatric diagnosis is attached. The risks of the proposed treatment; and the potential benefit of the recommended treatment need to be understood. An ethical Informed Consent process cannot include manipulating the patient or family member in an effort to convince them to consent to treatment. Telling people that a psychiatric diagnosis is caused by an unidentified "disease" when no disease has been diagnosed or identified in the diagnostic process; it is dishonest and no professional should make a fraudulent claim to coerce the patient or a parent into believing a diagnosis requires "medical treatment." To use these tactics is to commit fraud, not provide ethical medical care. Making fraudulent claims is unethical, no medical professional should mislead and/or outright lie to a patient or their family members in an attempt to alter behavior to gain cooperation or treatment compliance. It is entirely unethical to coerce and manipulate a person while simultaneously limiting or inhibiting the person's ability to exercise their own free will, or in an attempt to alter their decision. Informed Consent can only be ethically obtained when valid accurate information about the diagnosis, and the recommended treatment, is understood by the person giving consent.  Consent is guided by a patient's self-determined morals and values and serves the self-identified best interests of the patient; informed consent must be freely-given.

Informed Consent requires honest forthright communication. It is an ongoing conversation about the risks vs. the benefits. Informed Consent is a decision made by the patient, or the guardian of the patient. All relevant information is (theoretically) provided by the prescribing professional. The discussion should include whether the drug prescribed is being prescribed for an FDA approved use, or is being prescribed experimentally. It is inaccurate and misleading to refer to these prescriptions as simply being "off-label."  I say this because "off-label" use is common in medicine, but it is still needs to be supported with evidence that using a drug "off-label" is safe and effective for the person and the condition for which it is being prescribed.  Rarely do "off-label" prescriptions have such evidence to support them. since these types of prescriptions are not supported with empirical evidence of either the safety or effectiveness and the potential risks include dependence, iatrogenic disability and death.

Alternative treatments, whether available or not, and no treatment, should be part of the consent dialogue. A professional should be supportive of the patient and/or parent who needs time to digest the information shared, and supportive if they wish to consult anyone they choose before making a decision.  These are requirements in the American Medical Association's Ethical Guidelines for Informed Consent.

The choice to take or not take psychiatric drug/s as prescribed must be made freely, voluntarily, and without coercion; and without fear it will be disrespected or under the threat of filing a CPS report alleging medical neglect. Removal of children into foster care Under Color of Law by mental health professionals and child welfare workers has become an ever-present threat for parents in the United States who do not give consent for using dangerous teratogenic drugs to "treat" the emotional and behavioral symptoms their children have...

portions of this post were originally used in 'What is the Scientific Basis of Psychiatric Treatment?' 12-30-10