Showing posts with label psychiatric drugs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label psychiatric drugs. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Discussing Mental Illness

by Dick Mac

Many of us have received rudimentary first-aid training and can stop or staunch someone's bleeding, we know about the Heimlich Maneuver and CPR, and we might even know how to perform these, we have all learned lessons (effective or not) about making a sick person comfortable and we use phrases like "Feed a cold. Starve a fever." Or is it the other way around? No matter which it is, we all have some experience addressing sickness and injury, and it is the rare person who runs away from a physically ill or wounded person in need.

Most of us have no skills in addressing a mentally ill person, never mind assisting them in getting help. There is a stigma, there is fear about discussing the issue either with a person, or with others around them.

Mental illness is mysterious to us, and we often develop dismissive attitudes about it. We take positions about a person's decisions and choices, as if they have actually analyzed their situation and said: "Yeah! Paranoid schizophrenia: that's for me," or "I'm going to become a drug addict to deal with this confusion."

Mental illness is not choice; and although there are entire industries based on "depression" and "attention-deficit" it does not mean that every consumer in those fields is mentally well. Many depressed, paranoid, sociopathic, and psychotic people need real treatment.

Drugs are one treatment, and drugs are the treatment of choice in our society. Drugs are tangible, can be produced by a manufacturer, and bought and sold like commodities. As a society, we accept solutions that can be purchased and we debate not their efficacy, but their expense. In the big picture, though, drugs only address the symptoms of mental illness, not the underlying psychological problems.

Fundamentally, we are ill-prepared to have a conversation about mental illness, because it cannot be quantified like a broken bone or a virus. Mental illness cannot have a packaged solution that is sold in one form over-the-counter and in another form by prescription-only, its treatment is intangible to those looking in from the outside, and some who suffer mild forms of mental illnesses and still function tend to believe that people with more severe forms of the same condition should be able to "buck-up" and move on.

Many people suffer mental illness at low levels, and we sometimes refer to the manifestations as "ticks" and "quirks" and "habits" and, generally speaking, these are not debilitating problems. Left untreated, however, some mental illness that seems "irritating" at one point could develop into a serious mental health problem.

It is easy to dismiss mental illness because we don't understand it, and dismiss mental health because it is expensive and historically was not covered by medical insurance; and dismiss it we do, regularly.

Perhaps it's time we say that mental illness deserves the attention that every other illness is afforded, and look with suspicion upon those who would tell us the purchase of a pill will address the problem.

There were times in the not-too-distant past when people dared not discuss aloud the issues of cancer, sexual dysfunction, and AIDS; but today those issues are discussed open and freely. Perhaps we can move mental illness out of the shadows, and into the social dialog.

One side benefit might be a reduction in the number of manufacturers and their physician-clients who simply prescribe pills to address anything that might remotely appear to be a mental illness. And, perchance to dream, those who need treatment might get it.

I was sparked to write this after reading this article :
Getting Someone to Psychiatric Treatment Can Be Difficult and Inconclusive, at the New York Times site.




Monday, October 25, 2010

Drug Testing

by Dick Mac

Since the 1990s, when drug-testing in the workplace became legitimized by the Supreme Court, I have maintained that employers should have the right to drug-test employees. I believe a company should have a specific policy written, and a system in place for how to handle positive results. I am concerned that drug-testing is sometimes used to isolate someone for termination, even if an employer knows other staff would deliver the same test results.

So, a company needs to decide why they are testing, and they need to be transparent about that; be honest about it so everyone understands your goals.

Are we testing because we want a completely sober and level-headed workforce?

Are we testing because we want to prevent the use and distribution of illicit drugs on our premises?

Are we testing because we are committed to a healthy workforce?

Many of the discussions about drug-testing are related to liability: how will workplace safety, and therefore our insurance rates, be affected by people using drugs?

Some of the questions to ask are: What drugs are we concerned about? What part of the workforce are we concerned about? What do we do TO the people who test positive? What do we do FOR the people who test positive?

If a company is concerned about workplace safety, and by extension insurance rates, should they be testing for legal as well as illicit drugs? Should this company be testing for alcohol?

So, once the company has written its policy and business continues, what comes next?

I assume these conversations are driven by insurance companies deciding that use of X, or the presence of Y, makes for a dangerous workplace. What happens when insurance companies decide that prescription drugs are no longer acceptable? Are they testing for pain-killers, sedatives, anti-depressants, diet pills?

When a prescription drug is found in the urine of an employee, what steps should be taken? After all, a doctor has prescribed these drugs; and it's possible that the drugs are needed because of an incident in the workplace; perhaps the employee suffers from treatable mental illness and can be successful with certain drugs.

Some companies have started terminating employees who tested positive for prescription drugs.

Hydrocodone is a powerful drug that is abused by some, and used as a pain-reliever by others. An employee was terminated because she tested for it, and although her doctor had prescribed the drug, her employer decided to terminate her.

Perhaps this employer could have met with the employee, learned about her condition, and see if there was some way to reach their goal of a safe workplace without terminating a long-time employee.

This company has knows that hydrocodone is a drug that could impair a person's judgment or motor skills, and they have decided that use of hydrocodone, even as a prescription medication, is grounds for termination.

If the list of drugs is no longer a list of "illicit drugs" but a list of "drugs that impair judgment" then what other drugs belong on the list? Certainly, alcohol belongs on the list: anyone who has had a few drinks is impaired, and a person who got hammered last night is still dangerous this morning. Prozac and other psychopharmaceuticals are, generally, mind-altering substances. If a person is generally depressed and prone to bouts of extreme mood swings, their judgment is impaired. Should they be allowed to use drugs that change their well-being? Where is the line drawn?

Can an employee be an active alcoholic in the workplace, but a person taking prescribed hydrocodone cannot? This makes no sense to me.

Any company that wants to use drug-test results as part of the criteria for employment, they should be clear about their methods, rationale, and desired outcome.

Firing people for using prescription drugs, without a thorough investigation, discussion with the physician, and an effort to find alternatives, is immoral -- it's just wrong.

Drug Testing Poses Quandary for Employers






Friday, September 19, 2008

National Health - National Debt

Almost every conservative I know lives on psychiatric drugs, and since the majority of Americans consider themselves "conservative," I know more than you would think (you know the type: social liberal, fiscal conservative, Reagan Democrats). Not all of them are on drugs. Some of them are hard-working, sober people. But, most of them are filled with hatred of, or impatience with, liberalism, intelectualism, the sick, the weak, those in need, and people of color.

Most of the liberals I know (and I know a few) do not need to take psychiatric drugs to cope. Some do, but the majority don't. The psychiatric druig industry seems to have been good for the right-wing.

Why the difference?

What are these conservatives hiding from? I mean, besides reality . . .

Remember Alice? "Eat Me."

The following song was on The Kinks' "Low Budget" record from the late-1970s. "Valium helps you for a while, but somehow valium seems to bring me down. . . ." Indeed!

National Health
Ray Davies

Nervous tension, man's invention,
Is the biggest killer that's around today
Let the tension out or it will build and build inside
And strike you down some day
Nervous tension, man's invention
Is the biggest waste of human energy
Let the tension out, or it will surely kill
And that will be a tragedy

Valium helps you for a while
But somehow valium seems to bring me down
There's no pill I can recommend where side effects
Aren't guaranteed to send you round the bend

You gotta let out the tension
With a little bit of exercise
Loosen up your muscles
And feel the knots in your body untie

We oh we oh
Oh oh oh oh ah ah ah ah
Oh oh oh oh ah ah ah ah

It sure beats quaaludes
It sure beats cocaine
Even Freud recommends it
Cos it relieves the strain

Altogether now
Oh oh oh oh ah ah ah ah
Oh oh oh oh ah ah ah ah

Some people say it sends you deaf
Some people say it sends you blind
Some people say it makes you old
Some people say it blows your mind

But I say

If it's good for your health
It's good for your mind
If it keeps you together
It's really all right
We oh we oh

Oh c'mon, kick the cat

Oh oh oh oh it's the state of the national health
Oh oh oh oh Blame it on the national health

Nervous tension, nervous tension, nervous tension
Nervous tension. nervous tension, nervous tension
Nervous tension, man's invention
Is the biggest killer that's around

Oh oh oh oh ah ah ah ah
Oh oh oh oh ah ah ah an

Valium helps you for a while
But somehow valium seems to bring me down
There's no pill I can recommend where side effects
Aren't guaranteed to drive you round the bend

I say I say

Oh oh oh oh it's good for your health
Keeps you together, it's the state of the national health
Oh oh oh oh Blame it on the national health
Oh oh oh oh it's the state of the national health
Oh oh oh oh ah ah ah ah


Low Budget
The Kinks


And now, for a look at the National Debt . . .

In the time since that song was released, we have had twenty years of Republican presidents and ten years of Democratic presidents, and this is what the national debt has done:


Source: Los Angeles Free Net

Ahhh, yes! The health of the nation! Rememeber that conversation? It ended sometime during the Reagan Administration. Nobody cares about the National Health anymore. Take some Prozac and get back to work you friggin' whiner!