Posts Tagged ‘Informed Consent’

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.

Psychiatric Drug Users Experience Zombie-like State

Friday, May 22nd, 2015

Psychiatric Drug Users Experience Zombie-like State

A recent research study published in the International Journal of Mental Health Nursing [“Living with antipsychotic medication side-effects: The experience of Australian mental health consumers” DOI: 10.1111/inm.12110] reported that “Each participant reported between six and seven side-effects on average, which were often pronounced and had a major disruptive impact on their lives. Of these effects, the most commonly mentioned was sedation, which the participants described as leaving them in a ‘zombie’-like state.”

No surprise there. To date there have been 72 warnings against antipsychotics issued by regulators in eight countries.

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.” Yet very often, psychiatrists ignore these requirements. If you are taking these drugs, do not stop taking them based on what you read here. You could suffer serious withdrawal symptoms. You should seek the advice and help of a competent medical doctor or practitioner before trying to come off any psychiatric drug. This is very important.

There is no question that people do experience problems and upsets in life that may result in mental troubles, sometimes very serious. But to say that these are “medical diseases” or caused by a “chemical imbalance” that can only be treated with dangerous drugs is dishonest, harmful and often deadly.

What psychiatric drugs do instead is mask the real cause of problems, often denying you the opportunity to search for workable, effective solutions.

Imagine how it would be to believe that you could never overcome your personal obstacles, and come to lead a happy and rewarding life. Unfortunately, psychiatrists will most often tell you that your emotional problems or mental distress is incurable, and that you must take their drugs to “manage” it, often for the rest of your life.

But there is one thing they typically leave out—a concept called informed consent. This means that every patient has the right to be told the risks and benefits of the treatment the practitioner recommends; the risks and benefits of alternative treatments; and the risks and benefits of not treating the problem at all.

Psychiatrists routinely do not inform patients of nondrug treatments, nor do they conduct thorough medical examinations to ensure that a person’s problem does not stem from an untreated medical condition that is causing the mental disturbance.

Therefore, it is recommended that all patients first see a medical doctor (especially one who is familiar with nutritional needs), who should obtain and review a thorough medical history of the patient and conduct a complete physical exam, ruling out all the possible problems that might cause the person’s symptoms. According to top experts, the majority of people having mental problems are actually suffering from nonpsychiatric disease that is causing emotional stress.

There are far too many workable alternatives to psychiatric drugging to list them all here, though psychiatry insists there are no such options and fights to keep it that way. In the end, patients and physicians must urge their government representatives to endorse and support the funding of non-drug workable alternatives to dangerous drugs.

Disturbing New Research on Psych Drugs

Wednesday, April 29th, 2015

Disturbing New Research on Psych Drugs

An increasing number of researchers are finding fault with psychiatric drugs in one form or another. Keep up the pressure by contacting your local, state and federal officials about the dangers of psychiatric fraud and abuse. Here are some examples.

Bias in Antidepressant Studies

Investigators at the University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands, found that trials which the FDA deemed positive were five times more likely to be published compared with trials deemed not positive. In other words, there is less evidence to support the effectiveness of antidepressants than what appears from the published studies. [March 25, 2015 JAMA Psychiatry]

This means that the published studies reporting on the effectiveness of antidepressants are overestimating the benefits and underestimating the harm of antidepressants.

Other researchers commenting on these results note that antidepressants are not very useful at all.

High-Dose Antidepressants Increase Risk of Self-Harm

In this study [April 28, 2015 JAMA Internal Medicine] children and young adults who are started on higher doses of antidepressants than are typically prescribed are at least twice as likely to engage in acts of deliberate self-harm. Of course, they don’t have a clue why this occurs.

Antidepressants Linked to First-Time Seizures

Antidepressants have now been linked to an increased risk for first-time seizures. Of course, they already knew that an overdose of antidepressants is associated with an increased risk of seizures. Now they are admitting that, among patients who have never had seizures previously, the use of therapeutic doses (i.e. not overdoses) of antidepressants can trigger the onset of seizures. [23rd Congress, European Psychiatric Association]

Patient Expectations Dictate Antidepressant Response

People’s expectations about how effective their antidepressant is going to be almost entirely predicts their response to it. This means that there is almost no difference between the effect of an antidepressant and a placebo. [September 11, 2014, British Journal of Psychiatry]

There is also a much higher relapse rate in those using psychiatric drugs than those who do not.

Good, compassionate, non-psychiatric care is more significant for well-being than any psychiatric drug. So there is really no reason at all for using them; and because of the potential for greatly harmful side effects, there is no reason to continue their use.

Fully informed consent is your defense against the scourge of psychiatric drugs.

Take Action – Missouri Legislature

Friday, April 3rd, 2015

Take Action – Missouri Legislature

Periodically we let you know the progress of various proposed legislation making its way through the Missouri General Assembly and suggest ways for you to contribute your viewpoint to your state Representative and state Senator.

You can find your Representative and Senator, and their contact information, by entering your 9-digit zip code here.

This time, we’d like to discuss House Bill HB118 and Senate Bill SB239. Often, the same (or similar) bills are introduced simultaneously in the House and in the Senate. These two bills address the same issue. The apparent problem these bills are attempting to resolve relates to the fact that English common law, rather than Missouri Statute, rules claims for damages arising out of the rendering of or failure to render health care services by a health care provider, which can lead to claims for very large sums of money. The proposed legislation places limits on such claims.

Basically, someone can claim that a “health care provider failed to use that degree of skill and learning ordinarily used under the same or similar circumstances by members of the defendant’s profession and that such failure directly caused or contributed to cause the plaintiff’s injury or death.”

This is often called a “standard of care”. All too often, however, when it comes to psychiatric treatment, the standard of care is “she’s depressed and she has Medicare.” This so-called standard of care is often being dictated by the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry, rather than competent and knowledgeable (non-psychiatric) physicians and health care providers.

We do understand the problem this legislation is trying to fix. Claims for damages can be out of line with reality, leading to a greedy and litigious justice system. Placing a Statute on the matter, with limits on damages, is an attempt to resolve this.

Here’s the HOWEVER. Psychiatric “treatments” are inherently damaging. Psychiatric drugs are inherently damaging. The psychiatric “standard of care” is psychiatric drugs. Therefore, suing a doctor for damages who failed to follow the psychiatric profession’s standard of care by not prescribing psychiatric drugs, thus claiming that damage to the patient was caused by not prescribing psychiatric drugs — well, we trust you get the point. This legislation places an undeserved degree of legal legitimacy on the prescription of psychiatric drugs and other psychiatric treatments, just because all the psychiatrists do it.

The psychiatric “standard of care” in this case is itself damaging. We’ll be suing doctors for doing the right thing!

It’s not that the proposed legislation is bad — it’s that it doesn’t really address the correct issue. A better focus point would be, did the patient provide fully informed consent to the treatment? Did the doctor provide full disclosure of both benefit and harm of the treatment to the patient?

Contact your Missouri state Representative and Senator, and let them know what you think about this. An amendment to the proposed legislation might help — such as, this law does not apply to electroshock, psycho-surgery, and psychiatric drugs, since they are all inherently damaging to patients and should not be held as standards of care.