Psychiatrists: glorified drug dealers?

Wow - Second Guest that was a nasty experience! Although I am firmly against automatic medication, I have managed to avoid it despite the psychiatrists trying to shove it down my throat as I know my (rather limited) rights.

I know that drugs can help some people, but you have to do a thorough assessment first - surely if someone’s condition (the chemical state of their brain) is a direct result of a bad social situation, then helping them to cope with this situation should be paramount.

Ahunter3 - a chilling description of practices we should be ashamed of, particularly the involuntary part. I’m deeply sorry that anyone should have to undergo such torture.

Zoe - thanks for the advice :slight_smile:

Ferret herder - are you aware of the current investigation into SSRIs in the UK? It seems that some members of the “independant assessment board” turned out to be shareholders in the companies selling the drugs. Surprised? I’m not.

My game plan is to seek out talk therapy and take it from there, hopefully my probs (pretty minor compared to others) can be sorted out that way :slight_smile:

Peace 2 all

Well played, my friend. Well played.

Note that most of those with strong opinions here are the least informed, or have a known axe to grind. Are there problems with psychiatric treatment? Yes, much as there are with any medical practice. However, the degree to which detractors paint psychiatry as going beyond completely useless into the degree of intentional maliciousness is just ridiculous. The vast majority of those who see psychiatrists have mental illnesses that cause them much difficulty in their day-to-day lives. We aren’t talking about people with psychological “issues”; we’re talking about well-known, well-described, but unfortunately not perfectly understood medical conditions. The reason that psychiatrists use medicine to treat these conditions is because they are, as stated, medical conditions – and our current best way of treating them is through medication. If there were a better way, it would replace the use of medication; this is how the science of medicine progresses.

On ECT (“electroshock” therapy): first, most of those talking about ECT have clearly gotten most of their information about the practice from watching One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. ECT is a “last resort” procedure, and is only done in times of acute, serious psychiatric breakdown. We’re talking about people who are going to kill themselves, or severely harm those around them, unless immediate action is taken. These are people who are completely unresponsive to medicine; obviously, other treatment is exhausted long before ECT is considered.

Also, the thing about ECT is that it is effective. The resultant neurological effects aren’t caused by “brain damage”, although the jury is still out on what ECT does from a physiological standpoint. For whatever reason, ECT acts to “reboot” the brain, and can cause improperly functioning portions of the brain to revert to more standard modes of function. Unfortunately, this will often not last, and ECT may need to be repeated. However, as said, we are talking about otherwise “lost cases”.

Talk therapy: can be useful in getting people to change their behavior, but generally not effective in altering people’s “feelings”. Talk therapy will not make an OCD sufferer stop obsessing and ritualizing. It will not make someone with severe anxiety stop having panic attacks. It will certainly not make someone with schizophrenia stop hearing voices. Medicine is used because it is effective, in many cases.

On bad doctors: I’ve met plenty of shitty doctors in my life. In fact, I’d say that the medical profession has more crappy practitioners than you would expect for a field with such a long and difficult training period. However, when you get a bad doctor, ditch them! The internet is a great tool; you can look up online to see if a particular doctor has had complaints filed against them. You can compare medical advice or prescriptions you’ve received to what other people are getting by participating in discussions online; if your doctor is doing something that seems very non-standard, you would do well to get a second opinion.

On “overprescription”: I have yet to see any numbers that cause me to believe this is a genuine phenomenon. Rather, this is something that everybody “knows” happens, and continues to repeat – giving the illusion of legitimacy. Check the many threads here on “Should kids be given Ritalin?” and see how many people preface comments by saying “Now, everybody knows that Ritalin is overprescribed”, or things to that effect.

On “wining and dining” by pharmaceutical reps: most of the extravagent perks that psychiatrists get from the pharm companies consist of trinkets like pens, pads, little refrigetor magnets, and so forth. Those of us who worked in the “dot-com” economy got bags of this crap as well. Obviously, there is marketing of pharmaceuticals, and obviously it must be effective up to a point or the companies wouldn’t bother with it. Honestly, though, do you really think a rational doctor is going to immediately start pushing a drug to those who don’t need it because someone gave him a little foam doodad and a few ballpoint pens? Or, for that matter, a “conference” and free meal? I know there are several MDs on the boards, and I’m sure they would tell you that the swag they receive from pharm reps isn’t going to make them quit their day jobs.

Anyway, this is running a little long, but I do think someone has to balance out a few of the negative comments (and misinformation) I’m seeing here. Hopefully, this is a start.

Signed,

occ
Not a psychiatrist. Not working for a pharmaceutical company. Been in therapy. Used a number of psychiatric medications.
Have relatives who’ve been through ECT.

I would be one of those folks with the axe to grind. That axe would be the “involuntary treatment” axe, although it’s a bit of a two-headed axe with the backside being about “informed consent”, in contrast to which exists psychiatric treatment as it is generally described by the profession to those on the receiving end of it, which is generally far short of fully informed even when it is otherwise truly consenting.

That isn’t true. There are very few barricades to its use. There is absolutely no requirement that the recipient be a person who is suicidal or actively dangerous to others, even for its involuntary imposition. Do you wish to read the policies for the various New York State public bins that do ECT? We obtained them via FOIA and you can read them all here including the circumstances under which the institution is to seek judicial OK to impose electroshock against patients’ will. There are a few circumstances under which they regard it to be contraindicated but a “treatment of last resort” is is, unfortunately, not. It should be.

Yeah. “We don’t know how it works, but we’re sure that the results we observe are not caused by the brain damage that we insist does not happen” is a line we’ ve heard often. We’ve been pushing for long-term studies but the legislation we’ve sought has not been passed. Meanwhile, I find it difficult to defend concluding that running electricity through the brain doesn’t do much damage without some evidence that it doesn’t. There is certainly some evidence indicating that it does.

Oh please.

But not vice versa, eh? :dubious:

No we are not. This last link takes you to first person accounts, some by people who say they benefitted. Some by people who say it ruined their life. I dare you to dismiss them all as “otherwise lost causes”!

TBH, I have the exact opposite experience to most people here. My psychiatrist spends far too much time wanting to talk about my family, and is yet to prescribe me any drugs. I feel like I’m spending a lot of money and not getting much from it.

I think it’s just like any field. There are some good people and quite a few useless morons.

That second link merely takes us to a registration form (since I assume you can’t run a search without being a registered user). Similarly, ECT.ORG appears to be an advocacy website, although I may be wrong. I’m digging through it now to try to figure out what its about. Has ECT been used improperly? I’m sure that it has. However, how does it follow that the procedure thus has no merit?

Brain damage is generally defined as tissue death. To my knowledge, observable tissue death is not present after ECT. Are there negative effects of ECT? Certainly, much as there are risks when engaging in many “hardcore” medical procedures.

Also, I see that you are noting few barricades to the use of ECT on a legal level, and that you advocate for legal changes regarding the use of these procedures. While there may be few legal barriers to its use, that does not mean that there are few professional barriers to its use. A doctor who improperly administers ECT would be just as guilty of malpractice as one who performed unnecessary surgery.

Sorry, my fault with the link. I thought it would go directly to the “Show All” results.

You can do a search without being a registered user. If someone (e.g., Kambuckta) wishes to enter their own personal experience with being electroshocked, that person would have to register first. But there is a “list all” link on that page that the rest of you can use without registering, which will let you browse the stories of the ECT recipients, positive and negative.

Read the stories. ECT is most commonly administered to mental patients who have not responded favorably thus far to neuroleptic or antidepressant medication. Sometimes it is administered to mental patients for no apparent reason. On occasion it is even administered purely as punishment. The site with the stories is not an advocacy/activist web site, as attested to by the presence of stories from people who say ECT “saved their life”.

I have no objection to the use of ECT on consenting patients who are fully informed. “Fully informed” includes being told that the procedure may cause permanent brain damage *. “Fully informed” includes being told that although it does not afflict everyone who undergoes the procedure, permanent memory loss, both short-term (time frame before and after procedure) and long-term (entire life’s history of events plus acquired skills and knowledge etc) would appear to be a risk. “Fully informed” means being told that to the extent that it works (and results are mixed), it works through an as-of-yet unexplained mechanism and that it may be that the remission in depression symptoms cannot be separated from the memory loss, i.e., that (as one pro-ECT testimonial put it) “electroshock let me get past my depression by causing me to forget what I was depressed about”.

These are things that have not been proven to be true by the research, but some of the research tends to support those conclusions and personal experiences as described by those who had had the treatment tends to bear that out.

Voluntary consent means just that: no quid pro quo arrangements such as “You don’t have to consent to ECT but we won’t release you if you don’t”.

Voluntary consent means by the patient, meaning no ECT for children who are “consented for” by administrative fiat. IMPO, children should not be electroshocked period, end of story.

  • Yes, actual observable tissue death. Read what Dr. Peter Breggin has documented on it. Breggin is quite transparently an activist of course, but he does cite his research data. He quotes one researcher (Karl Pribriam) who (circa 1974), after seeing a series of brains in autopsy and comparing those of ECT recipients to nonrecipients, said the overall shrinkage and apparent tissue damage readily observable in the ECT victims was such that if he had to choose between receiving a small lobotomy and an ECT series he would go with the small lobotomy. Yes, 1974 was over a quarter century ago, but why should the burden of proof be on our side in this case? If someone stated that they had a new variation on a procedure that in its original form was known to be dangerous, and claimed that the variation is probably safer for this and that reason, wouldn’t you normally respond with “OK, do you have clinical data analogous to the data on the original procedure showing that the variation does not cause the damage”?

Most of the changes implemented in ECT since circa 1950 can be summed up as follows: the shock is administered preferentially to one side of the brain instead of bilaterally, although they still do the bilateral type if they have trouble inducing seizures the other way – the claim is that this is less dangerous and this may be true, although probably not so “true” as to make it ‘safe’; and, second, the patient is paralyzed with a muscle-paralyzing agent (a derivative of curare) which turns the otherwise-violent muscle spasms from the terrifying sort that can break bones to much milder twitches and jerks. The paralysis is so strong that respiration ceases and patients must be artificially respirated during the procedure. Many people believe that far less current is now used than was used in the olden days. This is not necessarily true. They use a different “wave” called “brief pulse”, for the most part these days, but the amperage has been increased and the actual amount of electricity passed through the brain, measured in joules, is actually more than was prevalent in the early years of ECT.

Finally, consider the presence of euphoria as it is noted to occur across the board in various brain-damaging events:
oxygen deprivation
vascular insufficiency / dementia (aka “hardening of the arteries”)
general paresis (tertiary syphilis)
inhalation of volatile chemicals, “huffing”

So, here in the form of ECT, we have a procedure used predominantly to lighten up the moods of intractible depressives. It is known to correlate with permanent memory loss. It works by applying electricity to the brain, and research exists showing that the process does do brain damage. And the people who administer it say they don’t know how it works, but it works (at least fairly often, at least in the short term). Doesn’t that make you very very very suspicious that the way it works is by inducing a little brain damage and subsequent euphoria of that common sort?

I offer you folks the use of Occam’s Razor on that one.

For DoctorJ:

A 1997 meta-analysis concluded that interpersonal psychotherapy or CBT is as effective as anti-depressants for the treatment of mild depression. This was not the case for severe, recurrent depressions, in which a combination of psychotherapy and antidepressants was more effective than psychotherapy alone (Thase ME, Arch Gen Psych 54:1009-14, 1997). A 1999 mega-analysis found CBT as effective as anti-depressants for severely depressed outpatients. (DeRubeis RJ, Am J Psych 156:1007-13, 1999). I’ve often heard psychiatrists tell me that drugs and psychotherapy offer the biggest bang for the buck and am inclined to agree since not everyone responds to psychotherapy (especially if they don’t identify with the doc, which is very hit or miss) or medicine.

Some psychiatrists are glorified drug pushers (the less they enjoy their job, the more they “push”). I think antidepressants have been a real boon. The independent research showing benefit could be better, but it isn’t bad, and the benefits can clearly be seen in clinical practice on an awful lot of people. Some doctors would indeed give you a script of X for a free meal or game of golf. I see this all the time. Drug companies are a blessing and a curse to work with.

I have seen many people benefit from ECT. It is indeed linked with amnesia, and I agree with AHunter3 about the difficulties in informed consent. I have never seen anyone intubated following ECT, but the danger is there and an anesthetist is often on hand. That said, I think there are difficulties in defining “brain damage”… first of all, the brain is very plastic, and second ECT is generally used on psychotic depressives who are often a fair risk to themselves; some (I wouldn’t) may say they already have “damaged brains”. I have seen ECT work wonders on these people and am only slightly ambivalent about the procedure. I worry about the lack of understanding of psychiatric treatments in general, including the medicines, and wish there was some more neurology in the discipline. Which is why medicine is an art and not a science, I guess.

Amen to that!!