The Huffington Post
By Peter Breggin
April 19, 2010

A few years ago I was hired by the FAA to defend the agency against a suit brought by a pilot who wanted to fly while taking a prescription antidepressant. I helped the FAA formulate its defense of the agency’s ban on pilots using antidepressants and, as a result, the ban remained in effect. Pilots remained unable to fly while taking antidepressants, including the newer ones such as Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Lexapro and Effexor.

How times have changed. Ignoring the scientific data on adverse drug effects that the agency and I generated and evaluated for the earlier case, the FAA is lifting its 70-year-old ban on allowing pilots to take antidepressants. Has the science changed–improving the adverse reaction profile of these drugs? To the contrary, since that time my most dire observations have been confirmed in the FDA-approved label for all antidepressants. Now there is not only a Black Box Warning for suicidality in children, youth and young adults, but also a lengthy Warnings section about a variety of extremely dangerous abnormal behavioral reactions in all ages including aggression, hostility, disinhibition, impulsivity and mania. Even when not severe, these reactions impair judgment and increase the likelihood of accidents and violence.

According to the FDA-approved guidelines, prescribers are supposed to give a special Medication Guide to patients and their families that warns about dangerous drug-induced reactions including suicide, violence and a variety of unexpected negative behaviors. Originally intended for children and youth, the Medication Guide is now expanded to cover all age groups, including adults. The Medication Guide for all ages can be found at the conclusion of each FDA-approved label for antidepressant drugs in the 2010 Physicians’ Desk Reference.

Why did the FAA lift the ban on pilots using antidepressants? According to FAA statements to the media, depressed pilots sometimes kept on flying while secretly taking antidepressants. “Our concern is that they haven’t necessarily been candid,” FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt reportedly told the press on a conference call. They were flying below the radar of drug testing, so to speak. The new policy not only allows pilots to use antidepressants, it grants a degree of amnesty to those who have been using them illegally in the past.

The FAA feels it’s safer to allow the use of antidepressants because it will make it easier for pilots to obtain needed treatment for depression. It supposedly will also make it easier to monitor their use of these dangerous drugs. If we accept this argument, why not legalize stimulants such as amphetamine as well? They would help keep the overworked pilots awake. And while the FAA is at it, why not let them use marijuana, since they may be doing it illegally on their own without anyone monitoring them.

Unfortunately, monitoring pilots on antidepressants won’t work nearly as well as might be hoped. Many severe emotional and behavioral reactions occur in the first one to three days of antidepressant dosing, or shortly after dose changes, either up or down–long before the next scheduled appointment. Although close monitoring and informing the family to be on the alert can be helpful, and should be done, it won’t prevent many of the drug reactions that occur abruptly and without warning. In addition, doctors too often fail to warn the patient and the family about the risks. As a medical expert, I’ve learned how cavalier some prescribers are in regard to warning patients about the adverse effects of any psychiatric drugs.

Read entire article:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/antidepressants-pilots-ta_b_542240.html

« Return to news items

News Feed

Related Posts

• Panel to Examine Murder and Suicide Associated With Antidepressants (0)
• SSRIs Render Unfriendly Skies—FOIA documents reveal what FAA failed to consider in allowing pilots on antidepressants to fly (0)
• Billion Dollar Drug Company Law Firm Restructures Connecticut Welfare System (0)
• The FAA will Allow Antidepressant Popping Pilots and their Lethal Side Effects in an Unfriendly Sky (2)
• Prozac is now a defense for murder, writes Australian Member of Parliament Martin Whitely (0)

By 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

Blog Feed

Related Posts

• SSRIs Render Unfriendly Skies—FOIA documents reveal what FAA failed to consider in allowing pilots on antidepressants to fly (0)
• Prescription Pill-Popping By Far a Leading Killer as Florida’s Drug Deaths Spike 20% (1)
• FDA Advisory Panel Recommends Electroshock Machine Too Risky For Reclassification to Less Dangerous Device (0)
• Parents Warn of Possible Psychiatric Drug Dangers (0)
• NY Times—Payments to Doctors by Pharma Raise Issues of Conflicts, CCHR warns of tainted mental health policies (0)