Tom Cruise is the one who is misinformed
As many of you know, Tom Cruise has been in the news lately for some very controversial comments about the field of psychiatry.
He has been apt to call people who disagree with him misinformed, but as you see from today’s blog entry, Tom Cruise is the one who is misinformed.
Cruise recently told a reporter: "I think psychiatry should be outlawed. I can't believe electric shock therapy is still used. I think it definitely does more harm than good." He recently told the magazine Entertainment Weekly (June 17, 2005 issue) that “People are being electric shocked. Kids are being drugged. People are dying.”
Psychiatry should be outlawed? People are dying? I work with psychiatrists every week since I am often called to evaluate their patients, on both an inpatient and outpatient basis. The notion that the services they provide are so harmful that the entire field needs to be outlawed is entirely without merit. I am not a psychiatrist and I do not prescribe medication, but I have seen time and time and again how psychiatric medication does help many people. Sometimes, it’s a lifesaver. Tom, you are the one who is misinformed.
Of course some people are overmedicated, but this is not a problem unique to psychiatry. I just saw a patient on a rehabilitation unit last week who was on over 20 medications. So should we ban rehabilitation medicine too, Tom? And by the way, psychiatrists are NOT the physicians who are prescribing most psychiatric medications. Most people get anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medications, and stimulants for attention deficit disorder from general practice physicians or family practitioners. So should we ban those medical fields too?
People die from medication-related side effects every day. That’s not to say it is right or acceptable, but once again, it is not a problem unique to psychiatry. But for some reason, Tom Cruise has chosen to single out one particular field and attack it relentlessly. So we must ask ourselves why that would be. Well, Tom Cruise is a scientologist and his religion has been assailing psychiatry for decades. Some scientology books even refer to psychiatry as a “Nazi science.” This article is not written to attack scientology, but someone needs to put Tom’s comments into perspective.
I am the first to admit that psychiatry has a checkered past due to how inpatients were mistreated in asylums and given lobotomies and shock treatments when much more humane treatments would have sufficed. But that was the past. It’s not the present. Shock treatment is rarely used today and is reserved for patients whom all other treatments have failed, such as severe depression or severe obsessive compulsive disorder. Not only is shock treatment rarely used today, but when it is used, it is done under very controlled circumstances and is far safer than the past.
The idea Tom Cruise is creating is that psychiatrists these days run around strapping people into electric chairs and shocking them against their will. Does anyone really believe that? Incidentally, patients that receive shock treatment are advised in detail about the procedure and need to sign informed consent forms before the procedure is used. Tom Cruise frequently refers to psychiatric medication as anti-psychotics, when in reality, they are only one type of psychiatric medication reserved specifically for patients who are psychotic (those who have impaired reality testing, such as hearing voices). Most psychiatric medications prescribed in the U.S. are anti-depressants or anti-anxiety medications and are not classified as antipsychotics. These are facts. Tom, you are the one who is misinformed.
Tom Cruise has backed up his Nazi-psychiatry comments by stating that the famous Swiss psychiatrist, Carl Jung (1875-1961), was a Nazi sympathizer. While it is true that Carl Jung was interested in the Nazi movement in terms of studying his theories of human behavior (i.e., the collective unconscious), he clearly rejected the gruesome aspects of the Nazi movement when they came to light. In fact, Jung’s anti-Nazi and anti-Hitler views were so clearly stated that he was placed on the Nazi blacklist and his comments were suppressed in Germany. Tom Cruise stated numerous times to Matt Lauer on the Today Show that he knows the history of psychiatry and that others are misinformed about the matter. Tom, you are the one who is misinformed.
Tom Cruise tried to make another Nazi-psychiatry link by saying that the drug methadone (which is used to treat heroin addictions) was originally named Adolophine, after Adolf Hitler. Well, according to the Dictionary of Drugs and Medicine, the drug’s original name was actually dolophine (not adolophine), which comes from the Latin word “dolor” for pain and “fin” for end or finish. Tom, you are the one who is misinformed.
Tom Cruise has also said psychiatry is a pseudoscience and that it is not based on research. There are numerous scientific journals strictly dedicated to rigorous psychiatric research. So once again Tom, you are the one who is misinformed. I can go on and on, but I think I have proven my point and helped you understand the motivation of the messenger.
Let me end by saying that Tom Cruise is not misinformed when he says shock treatments and medications do not get to the root of the problem as to why someone is depressed, anxious, etc. They treat the symptoms. Psychotherapy (i.e., talk therapy) helps get at the root of the probelms. Time and time and again, research has shown that the combination of medication and psychotherapy is more effective than either treatment alone. I am all for getting people off of medications if they do not need it and advocate trying non-medication treatments first, if possible. But there is a proper way to discuss these things, Tom, and making outlandish accusations against decent people and acting like a know-it-all is not the way to go about it.
He has been apt to call people who disagree with him misinformed, but as you see from today’s blog entry, Tom Cruise is the one who is misinformed.
Cruise recently told a reporter: "I think psychiatry should be outlawed. I can't believe electric shock therapy is still used. I think it definitely does more harm than good." He recently told the magazine Entertainment Weekly (June 17, 2005 issue) that “People are being electric shocked. Kids are being drugged. People are dying.”
Psychiatry should be outlawed? People are dying? I work with psychiatrists every week since I am often called to evaluate their patients, on both an inpatient and outpatient basis. The notion that the services they provide are so harmful that the entire field needs to be outlawed is entirely without merit. I am not a psychiatrist and I do not prescribe medication, but I have seen time and time and again how psychiatric medication does help many people. Sometimes, it’s a lifesaver. Tom, you are the one who is misinformed.
Of course some people are overmedicated, but this is not a problem unique to psychiatry. I just saw a patient on a rehabilitation unit last week who was on over 20 medications. So should we ban rehabilitation medicine too, Tom? And by the way, psychiatrists are NOT the physicians who are prescribing most psychiatric medications. Most people get anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medications, and stimulants for attention deficit disorder from general practice physicians or family practitioners. So should we ban those medical fields too?
People die from medication-related side effects every day. That’s not to say it is right or acceptable, but once again, it is not a problem unique to psychiatry. But for some reason, Tom Cruise has chosen to single out one particular field and attack it relentlessly. So we must ask ourselves why that would be. Well, Tom Cruise is a scientologist and his religion has been assailing psychiatry for decades. Some scientology books even refer to psychiatry as a “Nazi science.” This article is not written to attack scientology, but someone needs to put Tom’s comments into perspective.
I am the first to admit that psychiatry has a checkered past due to how inpatients were mistreated in asylums and given lobotomies and shock treatments when much more humane treatments would have sufficed. But that was the past. It’s not the present. Shock treatment is rarely used today and is reserved for patients whom all other treatments have failed, such as severe depression or severe obsessive compulsive disorder. Not only is shock treatment rarely used today, but when it is used, it is done under very controlled circumstances and is far safer than the past.
The idea Tom Cruise is creating is that psychiatrists these days run around strapping people into electric chairs and shocking them against their will. Does anyone really believe that? Incidentally, patients that receive shock treatment are advised in detail about the procedure and need to sign informed consent forms before the procedure is used. Tom Cruise frequently refers to psychiatric medication as anti-psychotics, when in reality, they are only one type of psychiatric medication reserved specifically for patients who are psychotic (those who have impaired reality testing, such as hearing voices). Most psychiatric medications prescribed in the U.S. are anti-depressants or anti-anxiety medications and are not classified as antipsychotics. These are facts. Tom, you are the one who is misinformed.
Tom Cruise has backed up his Nazi-psychiatry comments by stating that the famous Swiss psychiatrist, Carl Jung (1875-1961), was a Nazi sympathizer. While it is true that Carl Jung was interested in the Nazi movement in terms of studying his theories of human behavior (i.e., the collective unconscious), he clearly rejected the gruesome aspects of the Nazi movement when they came to light. In fact, Jung’s anti-Nazi and anti-Hitler views were so clearly stated that he was placed on the Nazi blacklist and his comments were suppressed in Germany. Tom Cruise stated numerous times to Matt Lauer on the Today Show that he knows the history of psychiatry and that others are misinformed about the matter. Tom, you are the one who is misinformed.
Tom Cruise tried to make another Nazi-psychiatry link by saying that the drug methadone (which is used to treat heroin addictions) was originally named Adolophine, after Adolf Hitler. Well, according to the Dictionary of Drugs and Medicine, the drug’s original name was actually dolophine (not adolophine), which comes from the Latin word “dolor” for pain and “fin” for end or finish. Tom, you are the one who is misinformed.
Tom Cruise has also said psychiatry is a pseudoscience and that it is not based on research. There are numerous scientific journals strictly dedicated to rigorous psychiatric research. So once again Tom, you are the one who is misinformed. I can go on and on, but I think I have proven my point and helped you understand the motivation of the messenger.
Let me end by saying that Tom Cruise is not misinformed when he says shock treatments and medications do not get to the root of the problem as to why someone is depressed, anxious, etc. They treat the symptoms. Psychotherapy (i.e., talk therapy) helps get at the root of the probelms. Time and time and again, research has shown that the combination of medication and psychotherapy is more effective than either treatment alone. I am all for getting people off of medications if they do not need it and advocate trying non-medication treatments first, if possible. But there is a proper way to discuss these things, Tom, and making outlandish accusations against decent people and acting like a know-it-all is not the way to go about it.
posted by MedFriendly | 1:11 PM
13 Comments:
Mr. Carone, you make a logical argument. However, you yourself are either misinformed or have some of your facts wrong.
People ARE, still today, being shocked, given drugs and committed against their will. Maybe it's not an everyday thing or something that happens all the time, but it does happen. This shouldn't be accepted AT ALL.
And if people are overmedicated, why do you think that is? Who is the person pulling the puppet strings? The pharmaceutical companies, that's who. They are telling doctors that they should prescribe as many drugs as they can to increase their profit and in turn reward the doctor. On the upside, the doctor can see way more patients if he just writes off a prescription than he can if he actually took the time and effort to find out what's wrong with each patient. The very people who make these drugs which you say are safe are the ones behind this.
And while we're on medication, it's understandable that they can have a calming effect on a person and mask their symptoms, allowing for other kinds of treatments. However, many times over these people don't receive this "other" treatment. And when they do, many times it does not work. And as far as the drugs go, these effects are more often than not only temporary. They last only for a period of time before another medication is needed or the dosage of the medicine they're already on uppsed.
Furthermore, it's true that people die of side effects of drugs that aren't of psychotropic nature. However, these are very few in comparison to the psychiatric drugs that do this. Also, these dangerous side effects, though they may occur only in a relatively few patients taking them, are played down by the doctors and pharameutical companies. If I were given a drug I would at least like to be told of the major possible side effects, such as suicidal ideation. Look how long it took for the Black Label to be put on antidepressants, and this will not be the only type of medication to get this label in the future.
You may be able to say all these positive things in counter to Tom Cruise's statements, but he was not the first to say these, nor necessarily was the Church of Scientology. There are other people out there with these same concerns and objections, both in religious and secular groups.
There is also conflicting reserach on the effectiveness and workability of these drugs on test patients available on the web.
But above all, despite whatever is good and whatever is bad in psychiatry/psychology and their drugs, you cannot deny the fact that there are more mentally ill people out there in the world or even just in this country than there were in the past, EVEN THOUGH there has been more research and funding done in these fields as well as the availability of pychiatrists, psychologists, their various treatment programs and drugs made more readily available to the public, whether or not they can afford it even. How would you answer that? Either someone is not doing their job or their job is based on false concepts.
Anonymous: I disagree with some of your comments. As a neuropsychologist who works in settings where the things you are referring to take place, I can assure you they are rare and when they do occur, there is usually a very good reason for it. I am not saying that abuses never occur, but wrongdoings occur in every profession. It is wrong to say that patients should never be given drugs against their will. This is because there are some patients who are so cognitively impaired that they lack the competency or capacity to make reliable and well-reasoned decisions about their medical care. The lack of capacity can be due to dementia, a psychotic condition, or both. A formal competency evaluation must be performed to determine if a patient lacks such capacity and such actions must be approved by a court of law.
I know of no case today where patients are given shock treatment against their will. But I have been involved in cases where a patient has chronic and severe major depressive disorder, has tried every modality of treatment (without success) and wants to try shock treatment as a last resort. In these cases, the psychiatrists refer the patient to me to make sure the patient is cognitively intact enough to make a reliabe and well-informed decision about this. This is not something psychiatrists would do if they wanted to shock people againt their will.
It is also wrong to say that people should not be committed to a psychiatric hopsital against their will. Do you mean to tell me that a schizophrenic patient who is standing naked on a highway threatening to kill people because God told him to, should not receive psychiatric treatment even if he doesn't want it? The rule is that a person can be committed against his/her will if they are an immminent danger to themself of others. This is a standard well-accepted by society.
Moving on to the drug companies, I agree that they are manipulating the way medications are prescribed. But my point is that it is not fair to single out psychiatry for this because it is happening in all medical professions.
You say that more people die of psychotropic drugs than other kinds of drugs. Please point me to a peer-reveiwed journal article in the scientific literature that supports your statement. It wasn't Zoloft or Prozac that was taken off the market recently but pain medications were, such as Vioxx.
As to your last point, sure, we have more people labelled as mentally ill these days. Some of this is because of better detection of certian psychiatric conditions and some of it is due to misdiagnosis. I am not saying that psychiatry is a perfect field, but for Tom Cruise to call it evil and make psychiatrists out to be bad people is wrong. You said that I was misinformed or have some facts wrong, but I fail to see what you are referring to. Anyway, thanks for writing into the blog with your opinions.
Dominic Carone, Ph.D.
Me again. Thank you for responding.
I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "the things" I was referring to take place, but it sounds like you were talking about what I was talking about in general. (I hope you followed that.)
On electric shock, I know that the person doesn't necessarily get "jolted" with large amounts. However, the effectiveness of this has yet to be shown, while the side effects such as brain damage have been. Perhaps it's been improved over the years. Nevertheless, it is an absolutely barbaric and crazy "treatment", very comparable to boiling a person in hot water as they did in Europe pre-Renascience (I probably spelled that wrong). This is regardless of whether or not they consent.
Regarding the committment of people, I understand that people can be unable to be cognitive and judge their circumstances. However, when this happens and there is some sort of psychosis involved, rather than exhausting every possibility, including a bad reaction to a psychiatric medicine, before keeping this person strapped to a bed sedated, as well as in a state program where they are forced to take risky medication and undergo therapy or whatever treatment. However, this is not done even with non-psychotics.
I understand there is a difference between a bad science and abuse of a science. I understand that it is administered by human beings and they can make mistakes or just do things wrong, even with bad intentions. However, even amongst the good (the well-applied science) there is not much success. How long is a person expected to be depressed? How long should a person suffer from ADD/ADHD? How long should someone be bipolar? How long? More often than not these things go on for years, sometimes even forever.
Maybe you cannot answer this concisely. Maybe it is all just a "it depends on..." answer. But, one can use some judgement and form some reasonable opinions. I think someone who suffers from depression for years and years and hasn't gotten any better and are receiving treatment are not being treated effectively. Maybe you can't compare it to say, curing someone of pneumonia. However, there is a certain level of reason and this level has been exceeded by the countless number of people who suffer from these "everyday" mental ailments.
While I'm on medication, even on anti-depressants a person can suffer from very bad side effects and withdrawal. In fact, regarding the latter, many times when the person doesn't take their meds their resulting psychosis or what have you (I know it is not always so extreme; they may just suffer from headaches, etc.) is played off a result of not taking their meds, as opposed to the withdrawal effects. That is unacceptable. Yes, perhaps they may suffer from no withdrawal but when they do it is not acknowledged enough if at all and it certainly is down played on a public level.
Overmedication is a problem and many doctors, general practitioners and psychiatrists alike, have agreed with and acknowledged this. But if that's true what is being done about this? This has been a well-known problem for years now yet there is not a shred of improvement. Maybe that's just more of the human aspect of medicine but it does not make anyone or anything look good.
These medications DO carry serious risks. Even if they occur in about 1% of the people who take them, when you consider a thousand people who take this that is 10 people who either commit suicide, become psychotic or homocidal as a result of these medications, that is a lot. Furthermore, when these cases deteriorate while on the medication often they are kept on the same medication and either given more or the same medication dosage is increased. If you hired a plumber to fix your house and your house kept getting worse and worse, eventually you'd fire the plumber, wouldn't you?
There were a couple of things you did not acknowledge from my last post. Perhaps you just forgot to. It's really irrelevant. But, the first thing was the conflicting research information available out there. This comes from pharmaceutical companies' research, other doctors such as general practitioners and even from other psychiatrists and psychologists. And this isn't just a report or two; we're talking about amounts much more significant and much more contradictory to what is passed off by doctors such as yourself.
The other thing that was not answered to was the results of your practice. I understand that this form of medicine is only a couple hundred years old. However, we live in pretty advanced civilization now and there numerous research has been done into it over time. There has also been enormous fund increases, increases in public awareness and increases in the availability of these treatments, such as putting medication prescriptions on someone's medical insurance. With all these factors, shouldn't we notice an improvement in society? Maybe not a huge one, but some improvement? I see none. I see more and more people getting some sort of mental illness labeled to them, more drugs dispensed, less responsibility being taken and more chaos, violence and general strife, even amongst the people who are ACTUALLY ACTIVELY BEING TREATED. For example, with all these medications and doctors available to treat school children I think it's reasonable to expect the academic in the school as a whole to rise. However, we all knwo the public schools are failing, getting worse and worse and having to dumb their cirriculum down more and more. I'm aware that there may be some improvements here and there in some schools, but I am speaking from the bigger picture here. Even you cannot deny these results, and that is where I feel something is out. If this is so effective and helps so many people then why, AS A WHOLE, aren't there more results? It just simply doesn't add up, which means something is wrong here.
Oh, and before I forget, in regards to the increasing mental illness labels, sure, that could explain the reason more and more people are being labeled mentally ill. However, a lot of these mental illnesses are based off of symptoms and not a physical diagnosis. Furthermore, a lot of these symptoms look just like regular behavior or behavior which is a result of other factors (I mentioned this in part earlier). Yeah, some kids don't pay attention in school and can't stop moving around. They're kids! And also, maybe they're bored with what they're learning. Maybe they don't understand it. Maybe they eat Lucky Charms and Pop-Tarts everyday for breakfast and a near fast-food lunch. Or maybe, as something less expected, they have a hormone imbalance. These things do happen, yet these mental illnesses are mental illnesses because the person does these things, not because there can be shown a physical anamoly/phenomenon.
In addition to that, I've looked in the DSM IV, which is quite complex (as can be expected), but there are some very stupid ones in there, such as (I may get the names wrong--sorry) Math Learning disorder or Defiance disorder. That's pretty silly honestly. There are others like that but those were the only ones I could think of.
Look forward to a response. Please consider all my points. Thank you.
Hello again. I think it would be easier to tackle one subject at a time here and then move on to the next. Let’s start with shock treatment. I disagree with your statement that shock treatment has not been shown to be effective. Let’s look at the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Just recently, scientists reviewed the evidence of the effectiveness of treatments for depression. Here is the abstract:
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the evidence for the effectiveness of a range of possible treatments for depression in older people. DATA SOURCES: Literature search using the PubMed, PsycInfo and Cochrane Library databases. DATA SYNTHESIS: Treatments that have been suggested to be effective for depression were grouped under three categories: medical treatments, psychological treatments, and lifestyle changes/alternative treatments. We describe each treatment, review the studies of its effectiveness in people aged > or = 60 years, and give a rating of the level of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The treatments with the best evidence of effectiveness are antidepressants, electroconvulsive therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, psychodynamic psychotherapy, reminiscence therapy, problem-solving therapy, bibliotherapy (for mild to moderate depression) and exercise. There is limited evidence to support the effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation, dialectical behaviour therapy, interpersonal therapy, light therapy (for people in nursing homes or hospitals), St John's wort and folate in reducing depressive symptoms.
The reference is: Effectiveness of treatments for depression in older people.
Frazer CJ, Christensen H, Griffiths KM. Med J Aust. 2005 Jun 20;182(12):627-32.
Where is the scientific literature that says otherwise ort that backs up your claim that psychotropics are more deadly than other types of drugs?
Electroconvulsive shock treatment used to be barbaric, but if you have ever seen it done today, you would know that it is not like that at all anymore. It is done in very low amounts under very controlled conditions. In no way is it barbaric and crazy. Actually, to call it equivalent to boiling someone in hot water shows me that you do not have a good understanding of these issues and makes me wonder if I should continue discussing this topic at all. Perhaps it would help if you would explain your background that has helped you form these opinions. I can speak with first hand knowledge of these issues as a licensed mental health professional.
Back again. If you wish to discuss ECT singly then that is fine. It might be a better idea to talk about one issue at a time.
As far as your research goes, this source of this information, what are their work in? What I mean is, are they just doctors with their private practice, do they work in hospitals, mental institutions, are they researchers, do they work for a pharmaceutical company, etc.? The reason I bring this up is because people amongst these "peer-reviewed" studies seem to come up with vastly different conclusions. There is another point to be made here but I will finish this one first. As I was saying, if these people are working for the same people trying to develop and sell shock treatment methods or machines then how can we know that they aren't being influenced by having a vested interest in this? This is very important as these factors "influence" these individuals findings despite the fact that they are supposed to be objective.
I said I had another point to make of this earlier, and that is there is conflicting opinions, studies, research, etc. amongst the psychiatric as well as psychological communities. If you want me to bring up experts' findings, etc. regarding ECT that supports my claims I could do that, but it would take some time. However, I have read them, though maybe haven't spent as much time on it as you, and they are out there available on the web. This is something to be greatly considered as when people have different findings on the same topic it brings questions as to why.
To add something else, the research you quoted does not concentrate specifically on ECT, which is the subject at hand, but rather a range of treatments for depression. It barely mentions ECT in fact.
As far as my background in it, hypoethically, would you take me as more credible if I were a doctor or had a PhD in medicine? The reason I bring this up is because despite whatever my training or educational background is, I believe people can be knowledgeable in a subject they had no formal training in. This has been proven many times in individuals, such as musicians, political "experts", computer wizzes, businessmen, film makers, etc.
I mentioned earlier that I know people aren't necessarily "jolted" with thousands of volts of electricity. I said that already. I also know that it can be adminstered in low doses and I know that there are doctors and nurses around when this is administered. Nonetheless, this is barbaric if not outright nonsensical.
First off, we all know that ECT doesn't cure depression. It is as many other treatments are a method of bringing the person "up" enough to receive treatment that gets at the root of the problem.
Second off, we know that electricity except for VERY small amounts are not good for the body no matter what. I understand we're not talking about amounts equivalent of a lightning bolt being delivered here, but even something that you can "feel" is not good for the body, despite whatever mental effects you can say they have.
Third off, there are numerous reports on the damage that ECT has caused in patients, such as brain damage. I understand that these were perhaps the result of ECT delivered in the higher voltages, but this high voltage ECT is still in effect today, even though it might be rarer than in the past. The point is, it still happens under doctors' orders and sadly patients' consent.
And lastly, there is the numerous conflicting research as to the effectiveness of this form of therapy. I mentioned this earlier.
In regards to the drugs, how many horror stories do you hear of people going on maniacal, homocidal rampages or committing suicide on, say, a pain killer or allergy medicine? Yes, there are a lot of drugs out there, and, yes, there are a lot of ill side effects people have experienced as a result of this, but you can just take a look at the papers or, if you wish, clinical research papers and see the major damage these psychotropic drugs have occassionally caused, and these far outweigh those than most other drugs.
I'm not saying psychotropic drugs are the only bad drugs out there, but right now next to illegal narcotics they are the most dangerous. If you must, you can find much information on the internet that backs up this claim.
You might be thinking that I am exagerrating some things here, but I did not read one thing on something and call myself knowledgeable in it. All this research, etc. I am telling you about is from many people and groups, including "peer reviewers".
The researchers who wrote the article I cited are from the Centre for Mental Health Research. Hardly a biased institution. Yes, the abstract barely mentions ECT (electroconvulsive therapy) but that is only because it is an article examining the research behind a myriad of treatments for depression. And ECT was found to be one of the effective treatments. The actual article discusses the topic in more depth.
The gold standard for determining what is scientifically reliable and valid is peer-reviewed, empirically validated research. The entire purpose of peer-review and why it is so important is because it allows one’s conclusions to be critiqued by reviewers. As someone who has published many research articles, I can assure you the process is rigorous and that authors must sign sworn statements disclosing any possible biases. I see none in the article I cited.
Although you can chose to doubt the findings I cited by suggesting possible bias, I can say the same thing to you. That is, I can say, “How do you know that the people who write articles supporting your position are not biased against ECT for some reason.” The difference though is that I have provided research that supports what I am saying but you have not.
Here are two other recent articles supporting ECT:
1. Clinical and cost-effectiveness of electroconvulsive therapy for depressive illness, schizophrenia, catatonia and mania: systematic reviews and economic modelling studies. Health Technol Assess. 2005 Mar;9(9):1-156, iii-iv. Greenhalgh J, Knight C, Hind D, Beverley C, Walters S.
2. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2003 Oct;18(10):894-904. The efficacy and safety of ECT in depressed older adults: a literature review. van der Wurff FB, Stek ML, Hoogendijk WJ, Beekman AT.
Let me take a sentence from the last article, which concludes “ECT is effective in the acute treatment of late life depression and is generally safe.”
What I don’t understand is how you conclude that ECT is “barbaric.” Is it because electricity is involved? If that’s the case, do you also agree that deep brain stimulation treatment for Parkinson’s disease is barbaric. If you didn’t know, this involves the implantation of electrodes that stimulate parts of the brain to reduce Parkinson’s symptoms or tremors. I have evaluated a plethora of patients before and after this surgery and their lives are changed for the better.
Is it because you think it is done against their will? I have never seen that happen and the patient’ are provided with plenty of information about risks and benefits about ECT before electing to try the procdure.
In sum, unless you are going to cite some peer-reviewed scientific studies to back up your claims, as I have, I honestly do not want to expend the effort to continue this discussion. Anyone can make claims, but the claims need to backed up. If you went into a court of law and a jury had to decide what scientific statements were true, they will use peer-reviewed scientific literature. They won’t rely on some scientology book, an internet site, or Tom Cruise’s press comments. You can certainly be knowledgeable about a topic by being self-taught, but I am questioning where you are getting your information from because it is at such variance with what is accepted in the scientific community. I have revealed where mine comes from, which not only includes review of research, but many years working in psychiatric settings.
The credibility of the people of the studies you quoted aside, there is still conflicting data from equally qualified professionals. You asked for this data earlier and I told you that I would not post them and you would yourself have to look them up. I have read some of these myself and they are in stark contrast to what your studies (the ones you quoted) said. That alone is enough to question the validity of these drugs and treatments. And, yes, these studies are also peer-reviewed; it wasn't done by a layman obviously.
As far as trusting the people involved in the studies I am talking about which support my stance, I don't see what a fellow doctor, scientist or even psychiatrist/psychologist would have to gain by criticizing these, especially when they might be able to profit from them.
Well, whenever electricity is applied to the body in even somewhate significant quantities, especially repeatedly, you must make sure that the treatment is safe. For example, chemotherapy is actually unhealthy for the body, but even its limited effectiveness and unwanted side effects are publicy acknowledged. ECT is not such a case. It's effectiveness is actually low and it is based on the idea that depression is caused by something in the brain, which there IS in fact some dispute over, even amongst the psychiatric/psychological community. Parkinson's is a whole different breed however, as it, as well as Alzheimer's, is no doubt caused by something going wrong in the brain.
Can you really say ECT is not nor has ever been given against a patient's will? Maybe that's all changed now but patients are lead to believe that this will cure them of their depression despite the fact that it has caused brain damage, mild or extreme.
The point is is that there is conflicting evidence on the workability on ECT. There are plenty of reasons to think that it isn't effective too.
In regards to your own patients, I cannot comment on them as a whole. However, I would question whether or not the ECT numbed them a bit to their feelings (such as brain damage can do--not that they actually suffered brain damage necessarily). Anti-depressants can do the same.
But as far as your unwillingness to continue the arguement lest I cite some "peer-reviewed" studies, I have told you that they are easily available on the web and you can find these for yourself. If you just do not want to put the effort into finding these then just say so. If you are saying that if I can't/don't produce them then I am lying or am mistaken then say that. However, don't make it out like I am dodging the issue of there being actual evidence to back my claims in the form of peer-reviewed studies/research because that is so not the case.
Sorry, but the burden is on you, not me, to find peer-reviewed articles that show ECT is not effective since it is you, not me, that is making that claim. Anyone following these blog entries can see that I have backed up my statements based on peer-reviewed scientific research, but you have not. You say such research is out there out there, but can't cite one single study after days of discussing this topic. I am not saying you are lying, but I think you are very misinformed about mental health issues. At this point, it is probably best to agree to disagree because I don't see this going anywhere.
No, I'm just lazy. Don't say I can't cite this evidence because I very well could; I just don't feel like it. However, if I feel like it I will post some of evidence that I am talking about. I wouldn't disbelieve me when I say this evidence exists though.
Misinformed? That is the whole argument, isn't it?
When I read single blog entries by you that are literally pages long, I don't buy the argument that you are lazy. We can let the readers determine who is misinformed: the person who cites numerous peer-reviewed journal articles and many years of experience in the mental health field to back up his statements or the person who can't (or refuses) to cite a single study to back up his/her claims, has no professional experience in the mental health field, and who claims he/she is self-taught, but then refuses to name on single specific source of that self-taught knowledge.
Very well. Give me some time and I will cite some sources as you wish. Once again however, I am lazy and it will take some self-motivation to get me to hunt for these. I have read them but not really memorized them or anything like that.
If you still wish to continue the argument or whatever you want to call it though, feel free.
By the way, I understand your experience in the psychiatric field gives you credibility in itself, but the whole argument is against the commonly accepted data that people such as yourself profess. Bear in mind that no one is infallible, including so-called scientists.
Sounds to me like Mr Cruise could use a little Seroquel!
You're a licensed professional on mental competency. How did this 'dialog' with Anonymous continue for so long? That was painful.
That aside, I'm enjoying the blog. Thanks for taking the time to write and to post.
Cheers,
Post a Comment
<< Home