Posts Tagged ‘Informed Consent’

Off-Label Drug Use May Be Risky

Saturday, February 18th, 2017

The February 2017 issue of Consumer Reports article, “Should Drugs Do Double Duty” says, “Your doctor might give you a drug for a condition that it’s not approved to treat. That’s a risk you may not want to take.”

“Doctors routinely (and legally) prescribe drugs “off label” — that is, for conditions not approved by the FDA–for any use they see fit. Most don’t tell their patients. The results of this practice are alarming.”

Klonopin (clonazepam), an anti-anxiety drug, is routinely prescribed off-label for restless leg syndrome and insomnia, for which there is insufficient evidence for its effectiveness — let alone the fact that it poses an addiction risk and a risk of birth defects when prescribed to pregnant women.

Trazodone, an antidepressant, is routinely prescribed off-label for insomnia, but a black box warning says it increases suicidal thinking in children, teens, and young adults.

Seroquel (quertiapine) and Abilify (aripiprozole), antipsychotics, are routinely prescribed off-label for dementia, but the FDA has issued black box warnings about their use by people with dementia, which ups their risk of death. By the way, it doesn’t actually treat dementia, it is only used to suppress a person’s agitation.

“One reason drug companies may want more freedom to market or advertise drugs for unapproved uses is to eliminate financial penalties for off-label promotions.” Johnson & Johnson was fined $2.2 billion in 2013 for illegally promoting the off-label use of the antipsychotic Risperdal (risperidone). GlaxoSmithKline was fined $3 billion in 2012 for promoting the off-label use of the antidepressant Paxil (paroxetine).

All the more reason to learn how to protect yourself, your family and friends, with full informed consent. Courts have determined that informed consent for people who receive prescriptions for psychotropic (mood-altering) drugs must include the doctor providing “information about…possible side effects and benefits, ways to treat side effects, and risks of other conditions…,” as well as, “information about alternative treatments.”

More About Marijuana and PTSD

Sunday, April 3rd, 2016

More About Marijuana and PTSD

 Recent news is full of articles about making marijuana legally available for those diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

While marijuana’s popularity may be based on the perception that it is safer than other methods as a treatment for so-called PTSD, a new study just published March 23 in the journal Clinical Psychological Science finds that regular marijuana smokers experience more work, social and economic issues at midlife in comparison to the ones who use pot just occasionally or not at all.

Backing up for a moment, we should mention that PTSD is not a real medical illness. It has become blurred as a catch-all diagnosis for some 175 combinations of symptoms, becoming the label for identifying the impact of adverse events on ordinary people. This means that normal responses to catastrophic events have often been interpreted as mental disorders when they are not.

Indeed, people can experience mental trauma; unfortunately, the “treatments” being used — psychiatric drugs and marijuana — have their own issues.

People take drugs to get rid of unwanted situations or feelings. Marijuana masks the problem for a time; but when the high fades, the problem, unwanted condition or situation returns more intensely than before.

The University of California, Davis researchers in this newly published study tracked roughly 1,000 young people for decades and found that the ones who smoked cannabis four or more days in a week over many years suffer lower-paying, less-skilled jobs in comparison to those who didn’t smoke pot on a regular basis. Quoting from the study, “Persistent cannabis users experienced more financial difficulties, engaged in more antisocial  behavior in the workplace, and reported more relationship conflict.”

“Against the backdrop of increasing legalization of cannabis around the world, and decreasing social perception of risk associated with cannabis use … this study provides evidence that many persistent cannabis users experience downward socioeconomic mobility and a wide range of associated problems. Individuals with a longer history of cannabis dependence (or of regular cannabis use) were more likely to experience financial difficulties, including having troubles with debt and cash flow, … food insecurity, being on welfare, and having a lower consumer credit rating. Persistent cannabis dependence (and regular cannabis use) was also associated with antisocial behavior in the workplace and higher rates of intimate relationship conflict, including physical violence and controlling abuse.”

The study concludes with, “Our data indicate that persistent cannabis users constitute a burden on families, communities, and national social-welfare systems. Moreover, heavy cannabis use and dependence was not associated with fewer harmful economic and social problems than was alcohol dependence. Our study underscores the need for prevention and early treatment of individuals dependent on cannabis. In light of the decreasing public perceptions of risk associated with cannabis use, and the movement to legalize cannabis use, we hope that our findings can inform discussions about the potential implications of greater availability and use of cannabis.”

We urge everyone embarking on some course of treatment to do their due diligence and undertake full informed consent.

Risky Business of Sleep Drugs

Saturday, March 5th, 2016

Risky Business of Sleep Drugs

After reading about the dangers of sleeping pills in the February 2016 edition of Consumer Reports magazine, we thought you might like to know something about that.

Some psychotropic drugs are prescribed as sleeping pills. Trazodone, an antidepressant, is often prescribed off label as a sleeping pill. Benzodiazepines such as Valium are also prescribed as sleeping pills. Other examples are Ambien (an anti-psychotic), Lunesta (an anti-anxiety drug), and Sonata (another anti-anxiety drug).

These have all the potential side effects we have come to associate with psychiatric drugs — including violence, suicide, addiction, and so on.

The latest sleeping pill fad, touted as “the new insomnia drug”, is Belsomra (generic “suvorexant”). It is classified as a “sedative-hypnotic” which means it is a central nervous system depressant; it alters brain chemistry by targeting a neurotransmitter called orexin.

Belsomra is manufactured by Merck, Sharpe & Dohme Corporation, and was approved by the FDA for insomnia in August of 2014.

Guess what? This drug carries the same warnings as other psychotropic drugs; it may cause memory loss, anxiety, confusion, agitation, hallucinations, depression, addiction, and thoughts of suicide — all this along with its own special side effects: inability to move or talk, sleep-walking, sleep-driving, and drowsiness lasting through the next day.

Here is what Consumer Reports has to say about Belsomra: “…people who took a 15- or 20-milligram dose of Belsomra every night for three months fell asleep just 6 minutes faster on average than those who took a placebo. And those on Belsomra slept on average only 16 minutes longer than people given a placebo. Such small improvements didn’t translate to people feeling more awake the next day, either. Instead, more people who took Belsomra reported that they felt drowsy the next day than those who took a placebo.”

“Because of the limited benefits and substantial risks of sleeping pills, Consumer Reports’ medical experts advise that sleep drugs should be used with great caution.”

“Merck spent $36 million on TV ads for its new drug Belsomra from Aug. 1 to Nov. 24, 2015, making it the second most advertised Rx drug in that time frame, according to iSpot.tv. The ads note that Belsomra is the first drug to target orexin, a chemical that plays a role in keeping people awake. But Belsomra doesn’t work much, or any, better than other sleep drugs. And because it’s new, little is known about its long-term safety.”

One take-away here is that even if a prescription drug is not advertised or prescribed for psychiatric reasons, if it messes with the brain’s neurotransmitters and has all the same side-effects as a psychiatric drug — well, you must get the picture by now.

The Consumer Reports article goes on to discuss non-drug sleep alternatives at some length; it is a good and helpful read.

When your doctor prescribes a drug, it is good practice to ask questions so you can give your full informed consent. These are some example questions you can ask:

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

Another Day Another Anti-depressant (Again)

Thursday, February 25th, 2016

Another Day Another Anti-depressant (Again)

On July 10, 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Rexulti (brexpiprazole, an atypical antipsychotic) tablets to treat adults with so-called schizophrenia and as an add-on treatment to an antidepressant medication to treat adults with so-called major depressive disorder. We are now starting to see the TV ads for this.

Rexulti is manufactured by Tokyo-based Otsuka Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. and its partner Lundbeck. It might be marketed as a replacement for Abilify (aripiprazole), although clinical trials for its usage to treat ADHD were discontinued, likely due to lack of efficacy. It is still a new drug that has not been tested over a long-term in a real-world population.

Rexulti and other such drugs have a Boxed Warning alerting health care professionals about an increased risk of death associated with the off-label use of these drugs to treat behavioral problems in older people with dementia-related psychosis.

The Boxed Warning also alerts health care professionals and patients to an increased risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children, adolescents, and young adults taking antidepressants.

It has the same pattern of debilitating side effects as any other antidepressant or antipsychotic, including addiction and suicidal thoughts and actions. The most common side effects reported by participants taking Rexulti in clinical trials included weight gain and an inner sense of restlessness (akathisia), such as feeling the need to move.

Rexulti is being touted as producing less akathisia, restlessness, and insomnia than other drugs, but it is important to be skeptical of this marketing due to the fact that clinical trials reported all of these side effects. Like all antipsychotics, Rexulti will likely have severe withdrawal symptoms.

While the way Rexulti works is completely unknown, it affects serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine neurotransmitters in the brain; and this effect is called a “serotonin-dopamine activity modulator”. Messing with neurotransmitters in the brain without really understanding how they work is serious business; we don’t recommend it. In any case, we can guarantee that this chemical-in-the-brain-based hypothesis is bogus. Full Informed Consent should be your watchword.

Rexulti was studied in two 6-week clinical trials of 1,054 patients aged 18-65. The patients selected for the studies took another antidepressant for at least 8 weeks. Twenty patients discontinued participation due to adverse reactions.  The incidences of akathisia and restlessness, and some other side effects, increased with increases in dose.

We must recognize that the real problem is that psychiatrists and other medical practitioners fraudulently diagnose life’s problems as an “illness” and stigmatize unwanted behavior as  “diseases.” Psychiatry’s stigmatizing labels, programs and treatments are harmful junk science; their diagnoses of “mental disorders” are a hoax – unscientific, fraudulent and harmful. Taking such damaging drugs as Rexulti prevents people from finding out what is really wrong and fixing that.

CCHR believes that everyone has the right to full informed consent. FIND OUT! FIGHT BACK!

Another Day Another Anti-depressant

Thursday, January 28th, 2016

Another Day Another Anti-depressant

The New Year brings us another harmful psychoactive antidepressant – Brintellix (vortioxetine hydrobromide).

The mechanism of the antidepressant effect of vortioxetine is not understood, although it is theorized to be related to serotonin in the brain.

It has the same pattern of debilitating side effects as any other antidepressant, including addiction and suicidal thoughts and actions.

Developed by the Danish company H. Lundbeck A/S and marketed by Takeda Pharmaceuticals, it is an SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) drug. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in September, 2013. Its sales to date have not been inspiring, possibly related to its initial review by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the U.K. which said, “there was no convincing evidence to show that vortioxetine was any more or less effective than other antidepressants.”

Lundbeck and Takeda are making a new push to increase sales by submitting additional clinical trial data to the FDA and to NICE. You may now start seeing TV commercials for it. Don’t be fooled; there has been no change in the drug itself or its devastating withdrawal and side effects.

We must recognize that the real problem is that psychiatrists and other medical practitioners fraudulently diagnose life’s problems as an “illness” and stigmatize unwanted behavior as  “diseases.” Psychiatry’s stigmatizing labels, programs and treatments are harmful junk science; their diagnoses of “mental disorders” are a hoax – unscientific, fraudulent and harmful.

CCHR believes that everyone has the right to full informed consent.

FIND OUT! FIGHT BACK!

H.R.271 Creating Options for Veterans Expedited Recovery Act

Friday, December 25th, 2015

Elf On A ShelfThis bill, H.R.271, introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Gus Bilirakis [R-Florida] on 1/12/2015 and forwarded to the full Veterans’ Affairs Committee on 5/15/2015, would “establish a commission to examine the evidence-based therapy treatment model used by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for treating mental illnesses of veterans and the potential benefits of incorporating complementary alternative treatments available in non-Department of Veterans Affairs medical facilities within the community.”

Effectively, this bill calls for an official government investigation into the drugging of veterans and into the treatment of veterans diagnosed with mental illness.

When we checked, it had 30 co-sponsors, although none yet from Missouri. Please contact your U.S. Congressional Representative and ask them to help pursue the passage of this bill.

The drugging of the military is off the charts, especially in the United States. From 2005 to 2011 the U.S. Department of Defense increased its prescriptions of psychiatric drugs by nearly seven times. These powerful mind-altering psychiatric drugs carry warnings of increased suicidal thoughts, anxiety, insomnia, and psychosis, especially with high dosages or when abruptly stopped.

In early 2013, the official website of the United States Department of Defense announced the startling statistic that the number of military suicides in 2012 had far exceeded the total of those killed in battle – an average of nearly one a day. A month later came an even more sobering statistic from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: veteran suicide was running at 22 a day — about 8000 a year.

The situation became so dire that the U.S. Secretary of Defense called suicide in the military an “epidemic.”

According to the CCHR documentary The Hidden Enemy: Inside Psychiatry’s Covert Agenda, all evidence points in one direction: the soaring rates of psychiatric drug prescribing since 2003. Known medication side effects of these drugs such as increased aggression and suicidal thinking are reflected in similar uptrends in the rates of military domestic violence, child abuse and sex crimes, as well as self-harm.

The Hidden Enemy reveals the entire situation in stark relief, while urging that soldiers and vets become educated on the true dangers of psychiatry and psychiatric drugs. The answer lies in their right to full and honest informed consent—as well as exercising their right to refuse treatment. Our service members need to know there are safe and effective non-psychiatric solutions to the horrors of combat stress, and that these solutions will not subject them to dangerous and toxic treatments that will only send their health spiraling downward.

For more information:

Download and read the CCHR reportA Review of How Prescribed Psychiatric Medications Could Be Driving Members of the Armed Forces and Vets to Acts of Violence and Suicide.

Watch the CCHR documentary onlineThe Hidden Enemy: Inside Psychiatry’s Covert Agenda.

If you are in the military, a veteran, a member of a military or veteran support group, or family or associate of a member of the military or a veteran, you quality for a free Hidden Enemy DVD. Fill out this form to receive a free DVD.

Not An Antidepressant

Thursday, October 22nd, 2015

Not An Antidepressant

I’m reminded of a song by 10CC — “I’m not in love; So don’t forget it; It’s just a silly phase I’m going through…”

I saw an ad on TV recently for Lyrica (generic pregabalin), a drug commonly prescribed for seizures and nerve pain. What struck me as most interesting was the small print that said, “Lyrica is not an antidepressant.”

Why would they need to explicitly call out that Lyrica is not an antidepressant? Could it be because antidepressants and other psychotropic drugs are finally being widely recognized for their addictive nature and disastrous side effects? (For which CCHR has no small part in making public.)

They did not, however, go on to say that Lyrica is in fact a psychotropic drug, albeit not an antidepressant. It is also prescribed off label in the U.S. as an anti-anxiety drug; it was promoted for other uses which had not been approved by medical regulators up until 2009. For this practice, with three other drugs, Pfizer was fined a record amount of $2.3 billion by the Department of Justice.

It has many of the same adverse reactions as other psychotropic drugs, such as dizziness, drowsiness, weight gain, euphoria, confusion, irritability, depression, agitation, hallucinations, withdrawal symptoms, and (drum roll) suicidal thoughts or behavior.

It messes with the release of neurotransmitters in the brain. They don’t really know how it works; when pressed, they may say that, “the mechanism of action of pregabalin has not been fully elucidated.”

CCHR believes that everyone has the right to full informed consent. FIND OUT! FIGHT BACK!

The New “Female Viagra” is an Antidepressant

Saturday, August 29th, 2015

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has just approved (18 August, 2015) the drug Addyi (generic flibanserin) which is misleadingly being touted as the “Female Viagra.”

But unlike Viagra, which affects blood flow to the male genitals, Addyi, the “pink Viagra” for women, is all about messing with their minds: it’s an antidepressant drug and there are some very serious, even life-threatening adverse reactions.

While most would agree that it is insulting and demeaning to suggest women suffer from a mental illness because of a lack of desire to participate in a sexual act, the use of dangerous mind-altering drugs to allegedly increase a woman’s sexual desire is simply a continuation of the FDA and APA’s (American Psychiatric Association) history of pathologizing normal female behavior and it is a disservice to women, not a mental disorder. This fraudulent diagnosis, Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD), appears in the DSM-4 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), and as Female Sexual Interest/Arousal Disorder in DSM-5.

Because of the severity of the potential side effects, and to get around the complaint that many patients are being given psychotropic drugs without full informed consent, this drug can only be dispensed by certified prescribers using a Patient-Provider Agreement Form about the risk of serious side effects.

Two hundred sales representatives from Sprout Pharmaceuticals are targeting obstetricians and gynecologists, as well as psychiatrists and primary care physicians.

Clinical trials had a very large placebo effect; 38% of placebo patients indicated improvement. One suspects that there are many natural alternatives without the risks of psychotropic drugs.

Flibanserin was originally developed as an antidepressant before being re-purposed for the treatment of so-called HSDD. It messes with the levels of dopamine, norepinephrine and serotonin in the brain. No one really understands how it works.

Read more about this drug by clicking here.

Read more about full informed consent here.

21st Century Cures Act

Sunday, July 12th, 2015

21st Century Cures Act

H.R.6, the 21st Century Cures Act, is rushing through Congress now. This bill amends the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget, and to make some major changes in the NIH, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Medicare, the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, and the Department of Health and Human Services.

We are pretty sure that not all of these changes are going to be benign. We invite you to read the Act and read the rebuttal, decide for yourself, and contact your Congressmen now with your personal opinions.

Warning: the text of the Act is difficult to read in the context of the laws it is proposing to change, since it does not print the revisions in line of the original law, as in proposed Missouri legislation for example, but instead just prints the text being removed and the text being inserted.

Here are some salient quotes from the rebuttal:

“The Act is a give-away to the pharmaceutical industry, removing many of the safety mechanisms in place that are supposed to keep the public protected from unsafe drugs and medical devices.”

“The 21st Century Cures Act will diminish another bedrock of modern medicine – informed consent.”

“But if pharmaceuticals are no longer required to have evidence that they improve health outcomes, how are they any better than snake oils? One only needs to look as far as the recent history of psychiatry to see that the line between snake oils and ‘evidence based medicine’ is already woefully thin.”

“The 21st Century Cures Act diminishes the rocks on which modern medicine are based – informed consent, individual body autonomy, the Hippocratic Oath, and basing medicine on scientific evidence.”

Obviously we are not diagnosing or recommending treatments here. We want to alert you to this Congressional action, and make sure you are informed so that you can exercise your own judgment. While sections of this proposed legislation are likely useful, there are other sections that may be damaging in the long term and may be passed into law in haste.

Here is an example of a section called out in the rebuttal (“With the passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, drugs will be rushed to market with little testing required.”):

“SEC. 2022. Accelerated approval development plan. In the case of a drug that the Secretary determines may be eligible for accelerated approval in accordance with subsection (c), the sponsor of such drug may request, at any time after the submission of an application for the investigation of the drug under section 505(i) of this Act or section 351(a)(3) of the Public Health Service Act, that the Secretary agree to an accelerated approval development plan described in paragraph (2).”

This refers to paragraph (2) which describes the use of a “surrogate endpoint” in an accelerated approval development plan. The term “surrogate endpoint” means a marker, such as a laboratory measurement, radiographic image, physical sign, or other measure, that is not itself a direct measurement of clinical benefit. So a result of this could be that clinical trials no longer measure the clinical benefit of a new drug on the fast track to approval, just unspecified changes in various measurements that may, or may not, be beneficial to the patient. This is the kind of change that causes us to question the haste and wisdom of this proposed Act.

Let us know when you contact your Congressmen about this, and any response you may receive.

And read what we have to say about Informed Consent.

Legislative Elimination of Harmful Psychiatric Practices

Thursday, May 28th, 2015

Legislative Elimination of Harmful Psychiatric Practices

FLORIDA

There is a law on the books in Florida that if enforced would end harmful psychiatric practices there. It makes illegal all unscientific, fraudulent and unproven healthcare treatments. [Florida Statutes 456.072 (1)(a)]

“456.072?Grounds for discipline; penalties; enforcement.—
(1)?The following acts shall constitute grounds for which the disciplinary actions specified in subsection (2) may be taken:
(a)?Making misleading, deceptive, or fraudulent representations in or related to the practice of the licensee’s profession.”

However, there is a second law on the Florida books which states that if the practitioner uses treatments “generally accepted” by his peers then it is OK. This opens the door to the practitioner having to use the treatments his peers “generally accept” or be subject to administrative discipline and malpractice laws. [Florida Statutes 766.102 (1)]

“766.102?Medical negligence; standards of recovery; expert witness.—
(1)?In any action for recovery of damages based on the death or personal injury of any person in which it is alleged that such death or injury resulted from the negligence of a health care provider as defined in s. 766.202(4), the claimant shall have the burden of proving by the greater weight of evidence that the alleged actions of the health care provider represented a breach of the prevailing professional standard of care for that health care provider. The prevailing professional standard of care for a given health care provider shall be that level of care, skill, and treatment which, in light of all relevant surrounding circumstances, is recognized as acceptable and appropriate by reasonably prudent similar health care providers.”

To confuse matters even more, there is a third law on the Florida books that makes it illegal for a doctor to prescribe controlled substances like narcotics and psychiatric drugs for pain without a full and complete physical exam, full history obtained and imaging like MRI, CAT Scans, drug tests, etc. And then only after other less or non harmful therapies have been attempted can powerful narcotics and powerful tranquilizers be prescribed on an ongoing basis for physical pain. [Florida Statutes 458.331(1)(t)1]

“458.331?Grounds for disciplinary action; action by the board and department.—
(1)?The following acts constitute grounds for denial of a license or disciplinary action … (t)?Notwithstanding s. 456.072(2) but as specified in s. 456.50(2):
1.?Committing medical malpractice as defined in s. 456.50. The board shall give great weight to the provisions of s. 766.102 when enforcing this paragraph.”

This third law was used to bust countless pill-mill doctors. They had their licenses suspended, revoked, and were charged and convicted in criminal courts.

But the psychs are “exempt” from this law. Why? Because psychiatric “treatments” such as psychiatric drugs are the prevailing standard of care.

MISSOURI

In Missouri, these are some Statutes regarding standard of care and related topics:

[197.080.1 2.(3)(b) Department of Health and Senior Services] “A departmental investigation of a complaint shall be focused on the specific regulatory standard and departmental written interpretive guidance and publicly available professionally recognized standard of care related to the complaint.”

[538.225. 1 Tort Actions Based on Improper Health Care] “In any action against a health care provider for damages for personal injury or death on account of the rendering of or failure to render health care services, the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s attorney shall file an affidavit with the court stating that he or she has obtained the written opinion of a legally qualified health care provider which states that the defendant health care provider failed to use such care as a reasonably prudent and careful health care provider would have under similar circumstances and that such failure to use such reasonable care directly caused or directly contributed to cause the damages claimed in the petition.

[334.100.2  Physicians and Surgeons–Therapists–Athletic Trainers–Health Care Providers] “The board may cause a complaint to be filed with the administrative hearing commission … against any holder of any certificate of registration or authority, permit or license required by this chapter … for any one or any combination of the following causes: … (4) Misconduct, fraud, misrepresentation, dishonesty, unethical conduct or unprofessional conduct in the performance of the functions or duties of any profession licensed or regulated by this chapter, including, but not limited to, the following: … (5) Any conduct or practice which is or might be harmful or dangerous to the mental or physical health of a patient … .”

CONCLUSIONS

Overall it seems that the pattern of these laws, while intending to protect citizens from physician malpractice, are not really effective in the case of harmful psychiatric practices, for these reasons:

1. The laws are subject to interpretation by lawyers and courts as to what is harmful;

2. The psychiatric industry itself controls its standard of care(using its own Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM] as its reference);

3. There is a built-in legal contradiction between the standard of care and medical malpractice — while one law defines malpractice, another law negates it with standard of care.

We see the solution as having to directly legislate against abusive, fraudulent and harmful psychiatric practices.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Concerned citizens and groups should relentlessly advocate legal and policy protections that force psychiatry to honor every individual’s right to be treated with humanity and respect and to recognize the inherent dignity of the person. These include protections from economic, sexual and other forms of exploitation.

2. Legal protections should be put in place to ensure that psychiatrists and psychologists are prohibited from violating the right of any person to exercise all civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in other relevant instruments, such as the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.

3. No person should ever be forced to undergo electric shock treatment, psychosurgery, coercive psychiatric treatment, or the enforced administration of mind-altering drugs. Parents cannot be forced or manipulated into permitting the drugging of their children by psychiatrists, other practitioners or school personnel. Governments should outlaw such abuses.

4. The responsible officials of regulatory agencies or their advisers must be held accountable and criminally charged for harm caused by psychiatric drugs and other psychiatric “treatment” if it is established that they knew, or should have known, of such harm either through clinical trial results, adverse reaction reports or broadly available public information.

5. Every individual who has been subject to such abuse should be helped to file a complaint to police and professional licensing bodies and have this abuse investigated and prosecuted. The individual should be helped also to obtain competent legal advice about filing a civil suit for damages against any offending psychiatrist and his or her hospital, associations and teaching institutions.

6. The United Nations, NGOs, human rights groups and concerned citizens should work together to create a new international human rights covenant that states sign and ratify to protect the right of all individuals from mind control and psychiatric abuse.

SIGN UP HERE.