Archive for August, 2009

Psychiatrists want depression tests and treatment for 3 year olds

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

Lindsay Tanner
AP Medical Writer
August 3, 2009

CHICAGO — Depression in children as young as 3 is real and not just a passing grumpy mood, according to provocative new research.

The study is billed as the first to show major depression can be chronic even in very young children, contrary to the stereotype of the happy-go-lucky preschooler.

Until fairly recently, “people really haven’t paid much attention to depressive disorders in children under the age of 6,” said lead author Dr. Joan Luby, a psychiatrist at Washington University in St. Louis. “They didn’t think it could happen … because children under 6 were too emotionally immature to experience it.”

Previous research suggested that depression affects about 2 percent of U.S. preschoolers, or roughly 160,000 youngsters, at one time or another. But it was unclear whether depression in preschoolers could be chronic, as it can be in older children and adults

Luby’s research team followed more than 200 preschoolers, ages 3 to 6, for up to two years, including 75 diagnosed with major depression. The children had up to four mental health exams during the study.

Among initially depressed children, 64 percent were still depressed or had a recurrent episode of depression six months later, and 40 percent still had problems after two years. Overall, nearly 20 percent had persistent or recurrent depression at all four exams.

Read entire article: http://www.pantagraph.com/news/article_fbf13b80-8087-11de-b7d8-001cc4c03286.html

« Return to news items


Share

INFORMED CONSENT: How to make sure you’re getting quality medical care

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

Informed ConsentBy Moira Dolan, M.D.
August 3, 2009

Quality of health care is a big topic these days; with the majority of news stories covering how we are all going to get our hospital bills paid and our prescriptions filled. But there is a conspicuous absence of any discussion of over-treatment and the over-selling of false diagnoses and dangerous prescription drugs.

It is the responsibility of you, the consumer, to find out about the diagnosis, tests and treatments that are offered. Once you have full information, you can make decisions about accepting it, or not. This is called Informed Consent.

When you are given a diagnosis you need to know the actual physical evidence for it. You don’t want someone’s opinion if you have cancer, do you? You want to know what the biopsy showed under the microscope.

In the case of medications, the minimum your doctor should tell you is based on the information made generally available by the drug manufacturers. However, you should expect that your doctor is aware of any pertinent medical issues beyond what the pharmaceutical companies tend to provide.

This is the minimum your doctor should explain:

What is the evidence for the diagnosis?
How does the treatment affect the body?
How does the treatment affect the mind?
What unwanted effects may occur?
Is it approved by the FDA for your condition?
What is known and not known about how safe it is and how well it works?
What are the alternatives, including the option of no treatment?
Does your doctor or the clinic have a financial interest in pushing the diagnosis or treatment?

You can make your doctor work for you. Demand information and get key questions answered. Doctors are supposed to give every bit of this full information to each patient they diagnose, test, operate on or prescribe for. In fact, they are required to do so by federal guidelines, state statutes and medical society ethics codes.

Your role in the process is to get any questions answered. Then you can carefully consider the information you have been given. You may feel more comfortable taking the information home before making a decision about agreeing to the proposed treatment.

Be a part of the decision-making process when your doctor offers a drug:

Get a thorough understanding of what he or she is prescribing and why.

Ask exactly what the drug is and why it has been chosen for your condition. How does it work?

Find out if it is new on the market. If so, why was it chosen over older drugs?

Find out if the drug is safe to take:

How will this drug interact with your other medications or over-the-counter drugs or natural remedies you are taking?

What does your doctor personally know about the safety of the drug? How long was it tested? How long were patients followed after taking it to determine if they developed bad effects? Has the FDA published any reports of adverse effects?

Why is a new drug being prescribed instead of an older similar drug with a proven safety record?

Ask about how well it works:

Has the proposed drug been proven to be effective for your particular condition?

What is the drug effectiveness in comparison to no treatment; in comparison to older drugs; in comparison to alternate drugs; in comparison to non-drug treatments such as diet, rest, and vitamins; in comparison to herbal or natural remedies?

If your doctor provides any of the following answers, it should give you strong reservations about accepting the diagnosis or taking the drug:

There is only a checklist of symptoms or other peoples’ opinions to make the diagnosis. There is no abnormality of blood, tissue or biochemistry that can be shown to you.

Your doctor is unclear about the mechanism of action of a drug (what it is doing inside the body). Either the mechanism is not known and only guessed at, or your doctor doesn’t understand it.

The drug was approved within the last two years. Thus it lacks an extensive safety record in the general population.

Your doctor doesn’t know of any adverse effects aside from what he reads along with you in the package insert. Since your doctor has not looked at the FDA website of adverse drug events he or she knows of no warnings to give you. This is something you will have to question carefully to see if your doctor is saying, “I know there are no special warnings to give you” or if your doctor is actually expressing, “I don’t know of any special precautions (because I haven’t bothered to look, all my data comes from the manufacturer’s glossy brochures).”

Your doctor is writing with a drug-maker emblazoned pen, jotting on a note pad sporting the logo of the drug manufacturer or carrying a coffee mug advertising the latest. These are indications of a heavily drug salesman-infiltrated office, and may well reflect an inordinate reliance on sales talk in the absence of careful review of the scientific pharmacologic information.

The drug is a look-alike version of an older drug. This is offered to you at much greater expense without obvious medical advantage.

On occasion your doctor may have to honestly say, “I don’t know, I’ll go find out some answers for myself and for you.” However, be alert if your doctor is offended or becomes patronizing. In that case you can expect that you have tread into some areas in which he or she feels challenged or uncomfortable, and may not be ready to be thoroughly frank with you. Then again, sometimes the answer to these questions remains some version of, “I don’t know about the details of safety and effectiveness,” but he or she still feels you should take the drug. In this case you will have to carefully consider the unknowns and make your decision.

You can only really be in charge of the quality of your health care when you have the opportunity for full informed consent.

©Moira Dolan, M.D.

Reproduced by permission of the author.

Moira Dolan, M.D. is an internal medicine physician and executive director of Medical Accountability Network, LLC, dedicated to establishing integrity in medicine.

RETURN TO BLOGS PAGE


Share

Antidepressant use in U.S. has almost doubled with 10% of people over 6 taking antidepressants

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter
August 3, 2009

Antidepressant use among U.S. residents almost doubled between 1996 and 2005, along with a concurrent rise in the use of other psychotropic medications, a new report shows.

The increase seemed to span virtually all demographic groups.

“Over 10 percent of people over the age of 6 were receiving anti-depression medication. That strikes me as significant,” said study author Dr. Mark Olfson, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia University/New York State Psychiatric Institute in New York City.

According to background information in the study, antidepressants are now the most widely prescribed class of drugs in the United States. The expansion in use dates back to the 1980s, with the introduction of the antidepressant Prozac (fluoxetine).

The study found that 5.84 percent of U.S. residents aged 6 and over were using antidepressants in 1996, compared with 10.12 percent in 2005. That’s 13.3 million people, up to 27 million people.

“This is a 20-year trend and it’s very powerful,” remarked Dr. Eric Caine, chair of the department of psychiatry and co-director of the Center for the Study of Prevention of Suicide at the University of Rochester Medical Center.

This happened despite a “black box” warning mandated for many antidepressant medications by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2004, the study authors noted.

Read entire article:  http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/08/03/antidepressant-use-in-us-has-almost-doubled.html

Posted August 3, 2009

By Amanda Gardner
HealthDay Reporter

« Return to news items


Share

The DSM isn’t about science – its about politics and marketing: An Expanding Universe of Mental Illness

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

Theron Bowers
Spero News
August 2, 2009

James von Brunn, the shooter (do I really need to say “alleged”?) at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum was odd, even by the standards of his kooky peers. White supremacist Stan Hess met von Brunn in 2004. Hess recalled that the creepy von Brunn was “very angry about society and the Jewish influence on the Federal Reserve”. At that time, von Brunn “alluded to violence”; he was a frustrated artist, who spent a lot of time peddling racist conspiracy theories on the Internet.

Is James von Brunn mad, or bad? Some say mad. Since Hitler’s infernos, psychoanalysts have argued that anti-Semitism or racism was a mental illness. Analysts have proposed several psychosexual theories explaining Hitler’s “lunacy.” Some speculate that he had an illicit affair with his niece. Others propose that Hitler had one testicle which led to feelings of inferiority. His self hatred was projected on to the Jews.

Today, the analysts are gone but the case for defining bigotry as a mental illness remains in a less bizarre form. Led by Harvard psychiatrist, Alvin Poussaint, many doctors have argued that haters have a mental disorder, pathological bias. Some psychologists are even conducting research on bigotry. James von Brunn is Exhibit A for the new mental disorder.

Extreme racism is only one example of the increasing faith in technology to cure our souls and fix our society. In 2012, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) will publish the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V). In May 2008, the APA released the names of the work group members. Last April, the 13 work groups reported on their progress, revealing that organized psychiatry is on the verge of including several ancient vices and new time wasters in this Pandora’s Box. Advocates have lobbied to expand the universe of the mentally disturbed with philanderers (sex addicts), spend thrifts (compulsive shoppers), the gluttonous (binge eaters) and internet gamers.

Read entire article: http://www.speroforum.com/a/20002/An-Expanding-Universe-of-Mental-Illness

« Return to news items


Share