Blog des AK Psychiatriekritik der NFJ Berlin

Kategorie: Grusel

Enough is Enough Series: 2-Year-olds on Anti-psychotics and Biological Markers for Psychosis

What is so disturbing about this destructive belief system leads right to the second article, “Still in a crib, Yet being Given Antipsychotics,” by Alan Schwarz in the New York Times, December 10, 2015. In fairness to the writer, he seems rather appalled himself. 20,000 prescriptions for Risperidone and Seroquel were written in 2014 for children under 2 years old; 83,000 prescriptions for Prozac have been given to children under 2; 10,000 children age 2 or 3 have been given Adderall; the numbers for benzodiazepines are not given, but they are large.



Medication Mechanization: Microchip Sensors in Abilify to Increase Medication Compliance

I felt a chill go through my body when I read that the FDA has agreed to review for possible approval in early 2016 a new form of the drug Abilify that contains a microchip sensor capable of sending a message that indicates the exact time a tablet dissolves in the stomach. The message is recorded by a skin patch – along with data such as the person’s body angle and activity patterns – and, according to a press release from Proteus Digital Health, the developer of the device, “this information is recorded and relayed to patients on a mobile phone or other Bluetooth-enabled device, and only with their consent, to their physician and/or their caregivers.”

The Japanese drug giant Otsuka teamed up with Proteus Digital Health in 2012 to create this potentially profitable new „chip in a pill” just as its patent on Abilify – at $6.9 billion the #1 most profitable drug in the U.S. in 2013 – was set to expire in 2014, leaving one of Otsuka’s most valuable markets vulnerable to generics. It is especially ominous to me that our government is teetering toward passing the Murphy Bill, which would make forced in-home treatment the law of the land, at the same time it is lurching toward putting such an Orwellian device in the hands of a pharmaceutical company, courts, and families.


To Honor or to Investigate?

A number of years ago, I had occasion to meet a local psychiatrist named Dr. Faruk Abuzzahab, a former faculty member in the Department of Psychiatry here at the University of Minnesota.  The occasion was a class in medical ethics I was teaching, and which Abuzzahab had been ordered to take. As I later wrote in The New Yorker, the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice had judged Abuzzahab a danger to the public and had suspended his license in response to the deaths or injuries of forty-six patients under his supervision, seventeen of whom had been research subjects.  Abuzzahab had recruited severely ill patients into profitable, industry-funded drug trials, often in violation of eligibility criteria, and kept them in the studies even after their conditions worsened dramatically.  When the board suspended his license, it cited his “reckless, if not willful, disregard of the patients’ welfare.”


Invention Would Track Meds in Mentally Ill Patients, But Is It Ethical?

Imagine if doctors could add something to their mentally ill patients’ pills so that they could tell on their smartphones whether the patients were taking the pills as prescribed.


‚People who feed pigeons are mentally ill‘

by todayonline


In a report from Liverpool City Council, the statement said: „Pigeon Feeding – Often undertaken by individuals with mental health needs.“

The statement was part of the council’s Street Activity Management Plan, and has enraged members of the mental health charity MIND.

The council based the report on a survey taken several years ago, but was unable to provide a copy to back up the claim.

It was estimated that in 2007, street cleaners in Liverpool spent a total of 88 hours a day cleaning up pigeon droppings, which forced the council to invest in the „Robop“ – a robotic bird of prey perched on buildings to deter pigeons.

A spokeswoman at MIND blasted the claim as „outlandish“ and adding to discrimination towards those suffering from mental illness, reported the Daily Telegraph.

Kate Stringer, Head of Communications at Time to Change, England’s biggest mental health anti-stigma programme run by Mind and Rethink Mental Illness, said: „This is another example of the unhelpful misconceptions that surround people with mental health problems.

„One in four of us will experience a mental illness at some point in our lives and so to make such outlandish assumptions is only adding to the discrimination that so many of us are having to face everyday.“

Liverpool Liberal party leader Steve Radford called the claim „ludicrous“ and „stereotypical“ and slammed the council as „naive“.

He said: „The claim is incredibly insulting. There are people who like feeding pigeons without thinking of the consequences, but to call them mentally ill is just ludicrous.

„Their statement is condescending and naive. We have seen problems with pigeon feeding but to suggest they have mental health problems is not only stereotyping but incredibly offensive.“

A Liverpool council spokesperson said: „The reference in the report relates to a survey carried out by the council about five years ago when it was considering whether to prosecute persistent pigeon feeders.

„It was found it would be inappropriate to prosecute many of the people involved because they had mental health issues. This of course is not to say that everybody who feeds pigeons falls into that category.

„What we try and do is educate people about the harmful effects feeding pigeons can have.“