I have an acquaintence who was given Ambien. There was no warning about amnesia, sleep-walking or other sleep-active activities. Yes, there was a warning about operating a motor vehicle.
But you miss the sequence here… the “decision” to use a motor vehicle was itself the result of the confusion brought on by the drug.
Exactly. If you have taken precautionary measures and gone to bed as directed, but then, because of an unknown effect of the medication, you get up and drive your car without being conscious of doing so - you are not making a conscious decision to drive your car while taking the medication. You don’t even know you’re doing it.
I don’t claim to know that that is what happened - only that the possibility exists and it doesn’t seem very far-fetched.
As far as being told of the potential side effects, who knows? If you look at the manufacturer’s website, they do not list anything like this as a precaution or potential side effect. Would the doctor have different knowledge and share it? One would hope so. But then again, one would hope that a doctor would not prescribe a potentially addictive medication to someone who has a history of addiction to prescription drugs…(and, as I said before, someone serious about maintaining their control over an addiction wouldn’t take the drug even if it was prescribed.)
Sure, but if the medicine itself causes you such confusion that you operate a motor vehicle without even realizing it, then you can hardly be said to have wilfully ignored the warning.
As Bricker says, “the ‘decision’ to use a motor vehicle was itself the result of the confusion brought on by the drug.”
All of this asumes, of course, that the Ambien really was the cause of the Kennedy’s disorientation, which is something we can probably never know now. If the Capitol Police had done their jobs, there wouldn’t need to be such speculation on the issue. I tend to agree with Mama Tiger’s position that “[the Capitol Police] can’t have it both ways, be treated as a serious police force while simultaneously failing to act like one.”
I don’t recall anyone in this thread denying that the incident happened, nor have I noted anyone claiming that Ted Kennedy doesn’t have a heavy moral burden to live with for the rest of his life. Now, since your self-confessed ‘cheap shot’ took place in the very first reply to the OP, in other words before anyone said anything at all on this subject, what was your point in making it?
Why do you think I care what you think? You’ve demonstrated repeatedly that you have no interest in the truth of the matter, you just want to categorize and dismiss anyone who doesn’t agree with you into a convienent pigeonhole so you don’t have the burdon of being required to think about their positions. You can glibber and rave all you want about “stealth conservatives” looking to “sabatoge” the Democratic party (snicker), it makes no difference to me. I know what I believe and where I fit in. You’ve asked so I’ve told you, if you chose not to believe me…shrug OK.
Interesting. I assume the legal difference between this and deciding to drive after a few drinks is that there’s laws specifically to address alcohol? And unless there’s a law specifically against driving while under the influence of a particular drug, the defence that the decision was made under the influence of said drug can be made?
This question is mostly directed to Bricker.
Am I correct in thinking that there are differences or extenuating circumstances that apply?
If someone drinks to excess (or whatever the legal limit is) and drives, he is guilty because he was aware of the DUI laws, chose to drink and chose to drive, knowing the effects of alcohol. If someone fires up a bong and goes driving, he is DUI because again, he knows what the effects and the law are.
If someone is taking a prescribed medication and nobody made him aware of the side effects, he may reasonably be considered to be not at fault. If this same medication is later shown to cause such things as sleepwalking (or sleep driving), would it be reasonable to say it is not the person’s fault?
Am I correct, or out in left field somewhere?
I, too, would like to add my ??? to the comments made by Revtim and SteveG1, partly from mere interest and partly because i’m trying to sort out my own feelings on this subject.
Morally, i’ve never supported any leeway being given to people because of actions taken when drunk. I’ve always believed that, because people know what the effects of alcohol are and choose to drink anyway, and because drunkenness generally takes a few drinks or more, people should be held responsible for what they do when drunk, even if they are so drunk they didn’t really know what they were doing.
The reason i feel differently about prescription drugs is that, despite the warnings and advertised side-effects, these drugs affect people in markedly different ways. Also, unlike drinking, there is often no gradual progression; a single pill can often have bad side-effects. Finally, achieving a level of drunkenness that causes complete loss of control generally requires not just use of alcohol, but abuse, whereas some pharmaceuticals can have such effects even when taken in doctor-recommmended doses.
i realise that there might be some inconsistencies in my position on these issues, particularly where issues of alcoholism and drug addiction are involved.
Having witnessed the effect some drugs have on the body, I prefer to err on the side of caution and read before ingesting. That said, it is my belief that all responsible adults should do the same. Ask your prescribing physician, ask your dispensing pharmacist, or go online and educate yourself about what you’re about to put in your body and what it is intended to do, along with possible untoward actions and reactions.
Persons who fail to obtain that level of information, or who willfully ignore contraindications are on a level with Alice, who opens the bottle marked “Drink Me”, and downs the contents. Negligence, IMHO.
So you’re telling us that you don’t ingest anything that might, no matter how infrequently or unpredictably, give a human being some kind of negative reaction? You don’t take Aspirin, Tylenol, cough medicine, milk, meat, gluten, sugar, even water? (After all, it might have some of those pesky bacteria in it!)
Wow. More power to ya. Most of us sometimes take risks because the likelihood of benefit is greater than that of detrimental result.
You can read all you want. In the end, you’ll still have to balance risks and rewards. How rare does a side effect have to be before you’ll allow that people are taking a drug responsibly?
My question exactly.
Maybe we should have the FDA refuse to license any drug until it is proved to be free of any and all possible side effects.
You know, sometimes you do talk to your doctor about side effects and yet you still don’t get full information. It wasn’t till a month after I’d taken an anti-itch medication for the shingles along with small doses of pain medication that I learned by reading another thread here on the Dope that the anti-itch medication is an opiate potentiator, which explained why even though I only took prescribed doses of everything, there’s a whole weekend I can barely remember; the combination of the two knocked me flat on my ass. I felt like I’d taken 12 of the pain pills a dayinstead of the 1.5 a day I’d actually taken. Nobody warned me – not the doctor, not the pharmacist. It took a random comment on the Dope for me to learn of the unexpected side effect of an otherwise innocuous medication. So doctors don’t always know or connect up with everything, and neither do pharmacists. And we had a great pharmacist, who knew me well and knew everything I was taking, and who I could talk to about any medication. Even had I spent four hours researching it online, I might not have caught it.
Again, I cannot fault Kennedy for not being aware of his actions if it’s a side effect that the manufacturer isn’t willing to 'fess up to on its website. I do have to question his doctor prescribing it for him. But most of all I still assert that the major blame in this situation lies with the Capitol police. If they hadn’t acted like a chaperone by hustling him home and instead at least followed basic procedure, it would have lessened the consequences for everyone. And it would have lessened the negative publicity for everyone, too.
Because I could. For the same reason that other people make inane comments, because they want to. Big deal. It was obvious, timely, and apropos to the OP who said that this behavior must be genetic (which, of course, it’s not).
Big deal.
For the record, Shodan’s cite provides absolutely no support for the statement I called him on:
Stupid is as stupid does.
Nothing in the cited article supports any claim of bailouts or buy-offs.
Apparently the side effects of Ambien aren’t a secret, nor are they rare, as QtM, other lay dopers and Bricker are knowledgeable thereof. Mr. Kennedy isn’t disadvantaged with respect to his ability to obtain information about drugs he’s taking, so we’re back to my original posit that he’s stupid and his judgement sucks.
Did YOU know, or are you also stupid like Mr. Kennedy and the teeming millions who rely on the FDA to prescreen your drugs?
From your cite,[
](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/05/07/a_legacy_of_politics_and_pain/?page=2)Shoved = punched out and settling a lawsuit = “family bought his way out”?
While were at it,
If they “hush things up” how do you know that it happened?
So, neither of you will object if I say this,
“GW Bush hushed up his drunk driving incident and his family bought his way out of it.”
After all,
[
](Documents | The Smoking Gun)
CMC fnord!
