What's wrong with this world... [Archive]

View Full Version : What's wrong with this world...

truefeel

01-26-2009, 02:48 PM

Hello everyone,

I normally don't make such topics, but recently something terrible happened in my country. On friday the 23th in the morning, a person called Kim De Gelder took his bike to a village called Dendermonde. He stopped at a toddler daycare center, walked through the open back door, went inside and... stabbed 3 innocent children. A woman tried to protect the children, but got stabbed too. All 4 persons died...

It seems he was preparing for this a long while. First of all, he cycled 18 kilometres. Second, he had a a backbag with I think 5 knifes and a fake gun. More over, he had body armor on.He also gove up on his job 2 weeks ago, and possible started planning bac kthen The worst part is that he was planning to do the same in other toddler daycare centers.He had a list of in total seventy-five children (!!!) on which he was planning to kill. LUCKILY he got caught before he could continue his rampage

Recently it also came to light he killed an old woman too (they found his DNA on her). That happened 2 weeks ago and police were until today clueless, but today they found it out...

Kim is a 20 year old man. He came from a well-faring family and he never had really any big problems. Nothing would had pointed in the direction of psychopatic manners.

When I heard this, I really had to cry. No really, this is so ****ing sad, unexplainable. I still am trying to understand: WHY. why did these children had to die. What was he thinking ? This so hard for me, it even makes me ashamed to be from belgium.:(

Thumper

01-26-2009, 03:01 PM

holy ****ing ****.

just clear that out of your mind man. its terrible but you cant control that kind of insanity.

Fenring

01-26-2009, 03:17 PM

When I heard this, I really had to cry. No really, this is so ****ing sad, unexplainable. I still am trying to understand: WHY. why did these children had to die. What was he thinking ? This so hard for me, it even makes me ashamed to be from belgium.:(
It happens everywhere. You shouldn't be ashamed of where you're from because of one lunatic. You didn't cause it, it's not your fault. Besides... worse has happened in the US... =|

truefeel

01-26-2009, 04:16 PM

I know, but killing innocent children who cannot even defend themselves is so ****ing low...

Fenring

01-26-2009, 05:34 PM

Yeah, well, welcome to Planet Earth. Sad as it is, there are those who do not care.

Toxic10x

01-26-2009, 06:20 PM

My amateur guess would be some form of extreme bipolar accompanied by schizophrenia. This might have been the result of a manic state where he was just completely off the deep end.

People often develop psychological conditions in their early twenties. It's said that the body changes (hormonally, etc) every 7 years, so he was about due.

If he's not ruled to have a mental condition, however, then I am truly stunned and baffled. It just sounds impossible that someone who is not insane could do such a thing.

Chuckie

01-26-2009, 07:05 PM

Do a search on Charles Whitman.....he was a very smart ex-marine who did some terrible things. The thing is nobody and I mean nobody saw it coming.
He shot 42 people killing 12 of those. No country has a monoply on crazys.

Slapper

01-26-2009, 09:19 PM

I think i speak for all parents when i say give me ****ing 5 minutes alone with that prick.

sick bastard. **** me.....

That is ****ed up, period. i mean, kids? babies? wtf? there is no words to describe this except wtf and just kill that worthless ameoba and be done with it.

kyle

01-26-2009, 09:59 PM

I know how you feel, True. Just thinking about those poor kids and their caretaker is almost enough to bring tears to my eyes. Why a man would ever do such a horrible thing is beyond me.

01-26-2009, 10:31 PM

If he's not ruled to have a mental condition, however, then I am truly stunned and baffled. It just sounds impossible that someone who is not insane could do such a thing.

Oh Truefeel, while it is painful and stunning, ppl are right about having this kind of irrational behaviour around the globe. Even in a quiet place like the village where i was raised, where nothing seems to happen, one of my former classmate just gutted a woman and her daughter to rob'em some nickels. Was arrested and he even threatened those who were involved in his arrest.

But i do still merciful to those (i hate agony and i do antagonize those who enjoy it): a plain shot in the head.
Mental sickness, unfortunately, doesn't choose a country.:|

jo_2

01-27-2009, 12:19 AM

No doubt killing innocent defenceless people, particularly young children is an unspeakable atrocity. Picking on someone who has never harmed you and doesnt stand a chance against you is just ****ing cowardly and sickening.

And it takes place all the time too, all over the globe the same kind of stuff repeats and repeats. And yes, if it happens to be the perps are fully aware of what they are doing, I guess their lives should be forfeit, not to put too fine a point on it. However, the world and in particular the human brain is not as simple as it may look at first glance. We are told that some of the people who make this horrible crimes did not have psychatric history, or a history of violence, or other relevant conditions and circumstances. Yet how can we know for sure about how the lives of these individuals were in reality? What caused them to become what they became?

Having a psychatric history means little for itself. I could tell you of cases of people who have never done anything like this, or indeed nothing to qualify as mentally insane, and yet have ended up locked up in mental hospitals for the rest of their lives, marginalized from society by a freak combination of wrong circumstances and maliciousness.

Of course, there are those who have a psychatric history AND are dangerous people, but bear in mind that the psychatric treatments which are in use these days do not cure people in the least: on the very contrary, non-violent patients who seek help for minor problems are turned into killing machines by these treatments. And when these people go and kill somebody or chop someone into little pieces, the media goes "psychatric patient for xxx years, paranoid schizophrenic, etc etc". What these folks don't understand is that most treatments in use today and for the past years are the factors which make patients do these things, NOT the opposite. Ah well...

Going back to the issue. Take into account that there are people in high places and orginizations which need someone to do their dirty work for them. The individuals who commit these crimes could well not be even aware of the real motives behind their actions. While of course every case is different, this is far from being paranoid: it is an unfortunate reality.

I wouldn't let these things affect your mood so drastically truefeel. After all, if you had to weep for every case of this kind which happens and has ever happened, the world would have already flooded. And if you want my opinion, to say that this tragic incident makes you ashamed to be from belgium is nonsense at best. This crazy stuff happens everywhere, I think we all agree on that.

Well, take care everyone.

truefeel

01-27-2009, 02:10 AM

Yes, I know this happens all over the globe, but never was I so confronted like this with it. It suddenly lets you realise how deep people go...

SirSnake

01-27-2009, 03:56 AM

on the very contrary, non-violent patients who seek help for minor problems are turned into killing machines by these treatments.
[...]
What these folks don't understand is that most treatments in use today and for the past years are the factors which make patients do these things, NOT the opposite. Ah well...

Dude what? I dunno what kind of treatment your mental health patients get where you come from, but I can quite comfortably state that in the UK and Europe, and what I know of the US, its really really not like that.

Perhaps you are confused with what century we're in? See Id understand if we were in the 19th century, but actually in the vast majority of the Western world we have a very enlightened approach to people with mental health problems.
Not to mention stringent regulations on drugs and treatments.

Surely you must remember the anti-depressant drugs that on occasion caused suicide? It was blasted in the media for monthes and the company and researchers had it all blow up in their face.

Its not a perfect solution, and things like that do happen, but on the whole these patients are very looked after, and if you can cite even a single example (with reference) of a patient who came in for a "minor-problem" going out and being violent and this being directly due to the treatment Id be amazed.

This is somewhat off topic however, though whilst Im at it @trixxie, whilst your body constantly changes throughout your life, there is no major event every 7 years that even causes noticeable differences in people you know well, let alone warp a mind to those lengthes! What he might have had is anyones guess however; i prefer the medical terminology "****ed up" :p

But seriously this guy clearly does have issues, and I actually always feel a little sympathy for such people; they clearly have some major problems, both that they were born with, and typically there is environmental factors too. It can never excuse them, obviously, but theres always more going on in the head of someone who kills seemingly randomnly and for no tangible gain than say, someone who shoots a man during a mugging for his wallet.

In addition I follow the sentiments of all here when I say that there are wierdos like that in country! The Dunblane shootings of many years ago comes first to my mind of a man who shot and killed children (and their teacher) in the UK. :\

nilloC

01-27-2009, 05:48 AM

Well, oftentimes schizophrenia does have a late onset in life. Usually it's onset is post-puberty to early 20's; I hate using the word "catalyst" but sometimes if there is a high stress-inducing event it can trigger schizophrenia. People have a genetic disposition to being schizophrenic though, so both the genetic dysfunction and the stressful event are both needed to trigger this in an individual.

Also it is important to realize the thin distinction between "bipolar disorder" and "manic-depressive disorder". To be classified as bipolar one must either suffer from mania or depressive episodes; manic depressive on the otherhand is a state where a person switches from excitement-inducing activities to flat-lining within a short period of time. I've read incredibly crazy stories about people that are manic-depressive, and this (although incredibly violent) would fit the bill perfectly.

Lastly, jo 2, what are you talking about psychiatric treatments causing more harm? Hell, in America it seems if the disease can't be contained the drug the ever-loving god out of you so you are a human vegetable. While I don't agree with that, it's far from having a "worsening" effect on a person's violent tendencies.

Thumper

01-27-2009, 06:17 AM

yes, i know after a stressful day at work, all i want to do is murder babies for no reason.

(sarcasm)

ninjadog6

01-27-2009, 06:30 AM

It's times like these where I like to think if hell existed, that there would be a special chair waiting for him down there...

This guy is obviously insane, but what pisses me off is when guys like this should get the death penalty, but instead plead insane and avoid getting time.

But seriously, i think it's awesome that you showed so much emotion let alone get vulnerable about it on a forum. It's uplifting really.

As cheesy and gay as that sounds.

truefeel

01-27-2009, 09:03 AM

Yeh thx:). I feel better now; it will not leave a trauma or something like that, but like I said earlier it hitted me really hard. You know, you hear and see violence all your life (on TV, in games,...) and never really take too much notice, but what happened in Dendermonde was so awefull it pierced me right through, let's call it, my "inconscient barrier against violence". Killing children has happened more in Belgium, alot more, but the height of the vilocity of the violence (yeh sorry if I put it in the wrong words; it's bit difficult for me to explain such things in english) is I believe not seen, concerning that this person did not had any police record or any sign of psychopatic manners. Also the fact he used a knife, making those babies and that woman als die in pain, for his rampage is an extra factor why I did reacted this way.

Oh btw, I made a huge mistake. He did not knifed 4 children. He knifed 10. Thank god the other 6 atleast survived:(.

cncmomma

01-27-2009, 10:19 AM

SirSnake

01-27-2009, 10:44 AM

Well as I phrased it; "mental health problems", which is a nice umbrella term covering both 'evil' and 'crazy' as I see it.

Clearly such people could not be let back out into society for societies sake. However I see no gain or point in either a)killing him, or b) putting him into a conventional prison.

Whilst killing him does have some pro's (a barbaric sense of social "revenge", its cheaper to kill a man than keep him alive - though prisons are far too comfortable in the western world IMO, we should take a leaf out of Russia's book and have siberian-style work camps instead, but thats rather off topic!) it misses out a valuable chance to study him.

These people keep cropping up, and they keep being a mystery. How else do we learn from the world, however, but from empiricism, looking at what is around you, studying it, seeing what makes it tick, so to speak.
Killing him will do no good, and locking him away in conventional prison will do none either. I would suggest the other option of studying him on a whole number of levels; might help us work out exactly what _is_ wrong with these people, instead of some hypothetical debate of "evil vs crazy" or whatever.

Even if you dont want to study him for studying him's sake, he could at least be put to good use in terms of general medical research; good human subjects are hard to come by!

truefeel

01-27-2009, 10:49 AM

I think i would fail as a psycho therapist...i would give people like that the "crazy" test and they would not pass at all. WHY? Here's my opinion.

His actions were clearly premeditated. Secondly, his victims were not random...he chose to kill small children and elderly women. WHY? because they are weaker than him and easier kills. This mental methodology tells me this guy knew exactly what he was doing. I think there is a big misconception in society as to what construes "crazy". Some may classify hiim as "evil". Evil does not have to mean crazy and vice versa. And "evil" is a term losely thrown about as well, lumping many into a category in an attempt to fit them into some sort of explainable scenario. Some of historys most notorious serial killers were incredibly intelligent. I DO, however, believe that there are those who lose or lack EMPATHY. Meaning, they no longer or never have had any regard for human life or emotions. This doesnt necessarily make them crazy, just unfeeling...that is how I would describe the man you speak of in this thread. He will never truly show regret for his behavior since he lacks the empathy to do so. Can empathy be learned? That is the question and I dont have that answer. That brings up another question though, is it worth the risk to find out? :hmm:

Yes, indeed they were not random. He traveled 18 kilometres to that toddler daycare center, while there were alot of those centers closer.

An update on this: after being completely silent for 2 days and not eating at all, they hang him on an infuse. Then seemly he talked to his lawyer; he said that his client does not remember anything of it (both the woman and the chlidren), that he has a black out... . It makes me sick that even until now he tries to find excuses.

Also it appeared this his parents asked to get him in psychiatry 2 years ago, but it got refused. I hope that the psychiatrist now really thinks about what that ment, although I cannot blame him fully: psychiatry houses are completely full for the next 10 years in Belgium. There is simply no room for more.

SirSnake

01-27-2009, 11:01 AM

Im telling you give them to me, ill put them to good use in a lab! :p

kwark

01-27-2009, 11:18 AM

I know how you feel truefeel and I have followed the news about this somewhat (I live just across the border near Antwerpen, so I to am shocked by the news) It just has a bigger inpact on you when it is close to you.

I also don't beleive he hasn't planned this (how sick it may seem someone can plan a thing like this) because of the reasons truefeel gave.

Slapper

01-27-2009, 01:28 PM

Im telling you give them to me, ill put them to good use in a lab!

I got some use for him as well. We could use him for clearing IED's and Mines. With no body armor or protection of course.

SirSnake

01-27-2009, 01:40 PM

I wonder what would be harder to clear through human rights! :lol:

Toxic10x

01-27-2009, 03:19 PM

This is somewhat off topic however, though whilst Im at it @trixxie, whilst your body constantly changes throughout your life, there is no major event every 7 years that even causes noticeable differences in people you know well, let alone warp a mind to those lengthes! What he might have had is anyones guess however; i prefer the medical terminology "****ed up"

Well, I've had a health science person tell me this, and maybe I didn't get a full understanding of it, but I believe it was mostly hormonal. Growth spurt around seven, puberty around 14, a slowing of the metabolism and such in the early 20s.... Now, I've also heard it extrapolated from this that balances of brain chemicals may also change, which can trigger/intensify psychological conditions. I know one fellow in particular who was always described as bipolar, but in his early 20s he went full on manic-depressive and possibly schizophrenic as well. He had highly developed delusions and hardcore boughts of mania and everything.

Also it is important to realize the thin distinction between "bipolar disorder" and "manic-depressive disorder". To be classified as bipolar one must either suffer from mania or depressive episodes; manic depressive on the otherhand is a state where a person switches from excitement-inducing activities to flat-lining within a short period of time. I've read incredibly crazy stories about people that are manic-depressive, and this (although incredibly violent) would fit the bill perfectly.

Ah- I didn't appreciate the distinction until you explained it, but it seems you agree this episode could be some sort fo mania?

This mental methodology tells me this guy knew exactly what he was doing.

It's amazing how coherent a dellusional person can appear. They can make arrangements and take action based on totally imaginary premises. For example, this one particular fellow I know became convinced he was going to be offered a job as a professor at Yale (he's a high school drop out). He bought lots of books he would need, train tickets to New Haven, new clothes... but of course, there was no job offer. He had completely manufactured phone conversations and things, totally in his mind. Premeditation does not equal sanity.

cncmomma

01-27-2009, 06:57 PM

It's amazing how coherent a dellusional person can appear. They can make arrangements and take action based on totally imaginary premises. For example, this one particular fellow I know became convinced he was going to be offered a job as a professor at Yale (he's a high school drop out). He bought lots of books he would need, train tickets to New Haven, new clothes... but of course, there was no job offer. He had completely manufactured phone conversations and things, totally in his mind. Premeditation does not equal sanity.

true, nor does it equal insanity. The aftermath finds the fellow saying he doesnt remember anything of what happened, suffering a sort of "mental blackout". Far too coincidental imo (he's sane enough to realize he committed a crime and is now trying to cover it up) and convenient for someone lacking in empathy= no desire to apologize. Moreover, I have not read of any motive for his actions. Usually even the delusional have reasons for their behaviors...i.e. he/she was possessed, the victim was evil, god made me do it, etc....any number of reasons could serve as motivating factors no matter how "far out" they may seem. Yet, in this instance there was no mention of the motive or answers to the "why" of it.

ok after reading some newsreadings on this topic here are some other tidbits of info:

*he painted his face white with the eyes blackened-some newspapers and witnesses referred to the likeness of the Joker in Batman

*he wore a bullet proof vest

*he escaped the scene on his bicycle

*he suffered depression around the age of 16 and was recommended for psychiatric evaluation by his parents but he did no receive it. Prior to the event there was NO mention of history with mental illness. AFTER the event, he did not talk for three days...then he told his lawyer he realizes he did something "inhuman" and has heard voices in his head before. (keep in mind he is still claiming he has no memory of committing the crimes he is accused of)

*there is evidence of two other nursery centers he was planning to attack

Now, by today's standards if they test this guy I'm sure they will classify and tag him as mentally ill. For all accounts he could be due to the lack of empathy. My point being, this guy had no motive that we are aware of, premeditated the attack from the beginning even wearing a bullet proof vest and was planning two other attacks on other daycare centers to follow, refused to speak for 3 days which if he had nothing to hide and truly didnt recall the events he would have had no reason NOT to talk, apparently is now also claiming to NOT remember killing an elderly woman prior to the nursery attack, suddenly admits to lawyer he did something "inhuman" and yet has a mental blackout and used to hear voices as a teenager

i dunno lol...I'm just not buying into the insanity plea copout on this one at all

jo_2

01-28-2009, 01:14 AM

Dude what? I dunno what kind of treatment your mental health patients get where you come from, but I can quite comfortably state that in the UK and Europe, and what I know of the US, its really really not like that.

Perhaps you are confused with what century we're in? See Id understand if we were in the 19th century, but actually in the vast majority of the Western world we have a very enlightened approach to people with mental health problems.
Not to mention stringent regulations on drugs and treatments.

Surely you must remember the anti-depressant drugs that on occasion caused suicide? It was blasted in the media for monthes and the company and researchers had it all blow up in their face.

Its not a perfect solution, and things like that do happen, but on the whole these patients are very looked after, and if you can cite even a single example (with reference) of a patient who came in for a "minor-problem" going out and being violent and this being directly due to the treatment Id be amazed.

This is somewhat off topic however, though whilst Im at it @trixxie, whilst your body constantly changes throughout your life, there is no major event every 7 years that even causes noticeable differences in people you know well, let alone warp a mind to those lengthes! What he might have had is anyones guess however; i prefer the medical terminology "****ed up"

But seriously this guy clearly does have issues, and I actually always feel a little sympathy for such people; they clearly have some major problems, both that they were born with, and typically there is environmental factors too. It can never excuse them, obviously, but theres always more going on in the head of someone who kills seemingly randomnly and for no tangible gain than say, someone who shoots a man during a mugging for his wallet.

In addition I follow the sentiments of all here when I say that there are wierdos like that in country! The Dunblane shootings of many years ago comes first to my mind of a man who shot and killed children (and their teacher) in the UK.

Hmm. Interesting. First off, do me a favour and tell me: how many psychatric cases have you been involved in directly? Have you been under psychatric treatment yourself? Have you studied psychatry at a deep level? Once that we know the answer to these we can ascertain your knowledge level in this issue.

Perhaps you are confused with what century we're in? See Id understand if we were in the 19th century, but actually in the vast majority of the Western world we have a very enlightened approach to people with mental health problems.
Not to mention stringent regulations on drugs and treatments.

Hmm. You've formed this sensational conclusion from where? From newspapers and magazines paid for and funded by the big pharmauceutical companies? Do you have ANY idea-even the slimmest- of the rates of electroconvulsive therapy used in the countries you yourself have mentioned, in the UK and the US precisely? Do you know what ECT does?
ECT burns the brain. In the words of some medical authorities themselves "we are not totally sure how it works: we think it causes minor damage to the brain which in the end has a therapeutic effect".
That comes from the professionals if you know what to look for and how to find it. The professionals you, me, and every other citizen of the developed countries are trusting our patients with.

Listen, I am not complaining of all medication. Sedatives for example are very useful on the short term. But do you have even basic knowledge of what psychotropics do to the mind? Some of this medication actually causes the equivalent of a chemical lobotomy. Did you know that?
They leave the patient with tardive dykinesia. Ok, for someone who didnt go through it like you or me, you see someone twitching, you can say, what's the big deal? The people who go through it lose fine control of their motor coordination. In simple words for you to understand, they lose control of their movements. The cognitive process gets screwed up. That means that they can't learn- im talking all kinds of learning, not just formal education- and we are constantly learning to adapt to the constantly changing enviroment around us. I'll leave it up to you to figure the signficance of that.

And about the violence- psychotropic medication is perfectly capable of causing that before it turns patients into vegetables- both during routine treatment and worse even if it is cut suddenly- that can spell death for more than one person.

Surely you must remember the anti-depressant drugs that on occasion caused suicide? It was blasted in the media for monthes and the company and researchers had it all blow up in their face.

Man, that kind of thing is in the minority. Scandals against the pharm industry happen once in a while-you can't expect them to bribe every single journalist- but most of the time, like, right NOW, things you cannot apparently coniceive of are happening and are not published. It is much more subtle than a century ago, that's true, but my bet is that in a century from now what we do today in psychiatry will be denounced as barbaric.
------------------
It's OK if you wish to carry on living in a dream world when it comes to this sad realities. People can't be experts in everything, and not everyone is strong enough to cope with knowing this stuff- but please don't tell me I don't know in what century I am living- I think its the opposite actually.

Cheers

jo_2

01-28-2009, 01:26 AM

OH, riiight, so now they say he did have mental problems in the past after all.
Psychatric history means little for itself as I have pointed out before. My point is, look how reliable is the media and investigators.

SirSnake

01-28-2009, 07:38 AM

Well Ive spent the last several years studying neurophsyiology, did a thesis on it, and am studying medicine at the moment and have always had an interest in physciatry.

Whats your experience?

From newspapers and magazines paid for and funded by the big pharmauceutical companies?

How about papers, you ever read one of them? Like from journals and stuff? Seriously dude dont think you know stuff about me; I get the feeling from the crap you spouted you are very poorly informed indeed, but Im not making that assumption; its possible you are the one whos living in the opposite of my "dream world", you are living in a conspiracy one :rolleyes:

In the words of some medical authorities themselves "we are not totally sure how it works: we think it causes minor damage to the brain which in the end has a therapeutic effect".

You got a reference for that? Give me a link, and not from a newspaper/magazine (or any other evil conspiratal) source, give it to me in form of a journal. No? Didnt think so.
On the other hand I could get sources for the papers to show what is going on but sadly its from archive that cant be accessed by the general public.

But do you have even basic knowledge of what psychotropics do to the mind? Some of this medication actually causes the equivalent of a chemical lobotomy.

I suspect again, more than you. Again give me a link, a source that says that. Or your basing it on.... what your conspiracy theories again? Seriously you want to have a serious discussion do it properly. I am not bothering because I dont think your capable. Prove me wrong and then we can actually do this.

In simple words for you to understand,

And dont pull punches, by all means get technical I will keep up. But your gonna need a bit more than "-you can't expect them to bribe every single journalist- but most of the time, like, right NOW, things you cannot apparently coniceive of are happening and are not published", I mean really, next you'll tell me aliens are involved :rolleyes:

01-28-2009, 09:37 PM

Im telling you give them to me, ill put them to good use in a lab! :p
This one in particular, only if you promise to keep him in a jar in alcohol.:irked:

BTW, intense discussion is going here hem?!...:chin:

nilloC

01-28-2009, 10:03 PM

OH **** THE SIRSNAKE HAS BEEN UNLEASHED!

gg Jo 2. I was going to serve you, but seems SS did that. Given SirSnake's experiences, and the fact I was a Psych major and have worked in the god-forsaken industry, you better be a damned Doctor of Abnormal Psychology to offer a valid argument.

pipinowns

01-29-2009, 09:51 AM

That is ****ed up...

Seriously...A list of over 75 children? God, that's just disturbing...

truefeel

01-29-2009, 10:38 AM

Yes it is. Why he would wanted that is something we'll never know. It simply does not make sence...

A small update: He is now attempting to convince people that he did not killed that old woman, but simply "stole a souvenir from her home". That he killed 5 people is already unjustifyable, but that he even wants to deny it on this matter is just unthinkable...

jo_2

01-29-2009, 11:22 AM

]Well Ive spent the last several years studying neurophsyiology, did a thesis on it, and am studying medicine at the moment and have always had an interest in physciatry.

Ok. So now we know a little more about your knowledge level, for what its worth. May I ask how can it be that of all medical disciplines, an accomplished neurophysiologist, a neuropshysiologist needed reminding about electroconvulsive therapy and what it does to patients? You said in your last post something about mental health treatments being, like, enlightened in the majority of the western world, right? Then, since you apparently did a thesis on neurophysiology, please go ahead and list the secondary effects of ECT for the benefit of all those reading or participating in this thread. Talk to us about the memory impairment and retrogade amnesia. Talk to us about the ocassional-not so ocassional cases of permanent severe memory impairment and permanent cognitive impairment caused by some kinds of ECT.
Better yet, tell us about the cases-once in a good while- when people have been killed by ECT. And while you are at it, also refresh my memory on the numbers of patients who have been and are being forcibly administered ECT in the UK and US, the enlightened countries you mentioned. While it may not be a majority, I think its well in excess for what is called for, considering that the doctors who admininster it do not yet have a clear idea on HOW ECT WORKS.

You say you have always had an interest in psychiatry. I'd say that's pretty broad, don't you think? One can express an interest in psychatry or anything else, by, say, subscribing to magazines written by the companies who make a living out of over-prescribing medications which should be used in minimal doses and for minimal time.
Man, life is more than only listening to biased viewpoints of individuals who rely on those biased views to make a living.

To be honest, sirsnake. I am not sure you have the level of knowledge in this as you try to show. As I said, people can't be experts in everything. But then again, maybe you do know at least part of what you are saying. I don't know.

If the paragragraph about your background is meant to be a joke, then please forgive me. My sense of humour is somewhat dried up of late.

How about papers, you ever read one of them? Like from journals and stuff? Seriously dude dont think you know stuff about me.

I am assuming nothing of the sort. I don't know much about you. Likewise, you know nothing about me, I think.

I get the feeling from the crap you spouted you are very poorly informed indeed, but Im not making that assumption;

And its just as well that you don't, because you are risking humilation in front of too many people. That's indeed very wise of you. I am not claiming I know everything there is to know about these subjects. There are certainly those who have greater knowledge than me on psychatry and the other disciplines related to the topic at hand. As you can see, I'm not an arrogant know-it-all. But, you know what, sirsnake, I get the feeling you aren't one of them.

You got a reference for that? Give me a link, and not from a newspaper/magazine (or any other evil conspiratal) source, give it to me in form of a journal. No? Didnt think so.
On the other hand I could get sources for the papers to show what is going on but sadly its from archive that cant be accessed by the general public.

Well well well. So the only evidence you can use to back your views is not avaliable for inspection. Too bad. In fact, I empathize with your problem. I have sources of information and recordings of conversations which might shake a little the foundations you have built your assumptions on. Probably crack them permanently. But I, like you, am limited by the laws on confidentality. Pity for both. At least we have found something in common.

I suspect again, more than you. Again give me a link, a source that says that. Or your basing it on.... what your conspiracy theories again? Seriously you want to have a serious discussion do it properly.

You know what I think, sirsnake? That you are on a fishing expedition for information. Information that you know little about. And that's fine for me: we all have to learn about things we don't know much about. Like I guess there are things I could learn loads from you.
But please be honest about it. In fact, I am going to dish out sources- a little at a time, though, so you have time to digest it.
Ever heard of Loren Mosher? A psychatrist with an immense reputation in the US? Founder of Soteria? Right. This guy was of the opinion that drugs in the psychatric industry are grossly overused- that just drugging people senseless wasn't going to help in the long run. That the pharmaucetical companies put their interests before those of their patients- that some types of treatment should only be used when absolutely necessary, and he meant absolutely, for the minimum possible time, or not at all. And let me tell you, he was very successful.

Never heard of him and his movement? No? Didn't think so. I'm not really surprised. In fact, I knew personally a former colleague of Mosher-a guy with quite a reputation, actually- whom I would name if the confidentiality laws didn't prevent me from doing so.

I am not bothering because I dont think your capable. Prove me wrong and then we can actually do this.

Beg pardon, friend, but I think you got it wrong on who isn't capable to sustain an argument-IN THIS. Make no mistake- I'm sure you may be great at other stuff. And I am not here to prove anything- I'm here to make a point. You see, not everyone has confidence crises or complexes.

And dont pull punches, by all means get technical I will keep up. But your gonna need a bit more than "-you can't expect them to bribe every single journalist- but most of the time, like, right NOW, things you cannot apparently coniceive of are happening and are not published", I mean really, next you'll tell me aliens are involved

I am not here to educate you, sirsnake. This is not a psychatry forum. You want to get technical, by all means do so- I will keep up. But bear in mind that industries are ran in both visible and not so visible ways- and that shady dealings are part of them sadly. The pharmacological industry is no exception. Do not be naive enough not to understand that.

Cheers to all

jo_2

01-29-2009, 11:26 AM

"Stole a souvenir from her home". lol, that's quite lame.

truefeel

01-29-2009, 11:26 AM

jo_2

01-29-2009, 11:41 AM

Plz people, don't turn this into a topic to insult eachother, I can savely say this is totally not the topic for it. I used this topic to express my emotions, and I'd like to use it now in some way to pay tribute to those children and that daytaker.

Im sorry, truefeel. It was sirsnake who started it. I just expressed my views on psychatry since it was relevant to the topic, but apparently sirsnake didn't agree with those. We aren't technically insulting each other; I didnt swear once at him and for the moment he didnt either. But since he began trying to make out I was an ignorant and bragger and thought he could get away with it, I had no choice but make him realise he wasn't going to.

May I express my sympathy for your feelings on what has happened, and please don't let this affect you too deeply, it happens too often. Damn world we live in, init?

Cheers

truefeel

01-29-2009, 11:49 AM

Well, maybe insulting was the wrong word, but the tone if the discussion was getting very harsh and I believe a few posts more would end up in insulting. I'm also not solely pointing at you; SS is also to blame.

And like I said a few posts earlier, I got past it. Still, it was very shocking, even for the days we live in. As I said, I'd like to use this topic as a tribute now to the children and daytaker, and of course to continually update it with the news, as it seems it does gets some interests.

jo_2

01-29-2009, 12:10 PM

Well, maybe insulting was the wrong word, but the tone if the discussion was getting very harsh and I believe a few posts more would end up in insulting. I'm also not solely pointing at you; SS is also to blame.

As I said, it was SS who started it. And its just as well because... well, I am going to keep a comment about him (nothing rude or swearing but a little abrasive and direct) to myself out of respect to you. You started the thread after all, and you are right we were deviating.

And like I said a few posts earlier, I got past it. Still, it was very shocking, even for the days we live in. As I said, I'd like to use this topic as a tribute now to the children and daytaker, and of course to continually update it with the news, as it seems it does gets some interests.Great idea. I'll check out how the thread develops. Yes, this kind of thing gets lots of interest usually. Thanks for sharing the news and spreading the word truefeel:)

truefeel

01-29-2009, 12:14 PM

As I said, it was SS who started it. And its just as well because... well, I am going to keep a comment about him (nothing rude or swearing but a little abrasive and direct) to myself out of respect to you. You started the thread after all, and you are right we were deviating.
Oh, but I have nothing against the debate itself. But do please (yes, SS, I'm also speaking to you) keep it friendly.

Toxic10x

01-29-2009, 12:46 PM

This guy was of the opinion that drugs in the psychatric industry are grossly overused- that just drugging people senseless wasn't going to help in the long run. That the pharmaucetical companies put their interests before those of their patients- that some types of treatment should only be used when absolutely necessary, and he meant absolutely, for the minimum possible time, or not at all. And let me tell you, he was very successful.

Well, you might recall your original argument, and the one to which SS recoiled against, was regarding the psych industry turning people violent. It is entirely possible the medicines are over-used, and that we're turning people into unfeeling automatons instead of trying to make them well, but that does not relate to your violence stuff.

As a person on a fairly even keel here, I see the debate as follows:

Jo, you're new here and we don't really know you very well, so that puts you at a disadvantage in that you're coming off a bit like a nutty conspiracy theorist. SS on the other hand has been around for years and we know he's had vast experience studying medicine. You also undermine yourself by more or less repeating SS's request for validation (show me some sources. no YOU show me some sources! Speak technicially, I'll keep up. no YOU speak technically and I'LL keep up!).
nilloC too, is a well established member here and has often spoken about his studies and experiences in Psych. Third, your argument is based mostly around ECT, and while I am not an expert, I suspect this is only one small facet in the large field of psychological treatments, and thus cannot be used to make generalizations about the field as a whole.

I don't mean to suggest that I don't take what you're saying seriously, or at least take the possibility of it seriously, but I feel it's very inflamatory to react the way you are against those with credentials who have conflicting opinions. Suggesting that you know what's right and they don't seems harsh, and is insulting to their educations, which they've put a lot of effort in to- Hence the strong reactions.

There's a chance I missed it, but have you listed any credentials or reasons why you should be informed on this subject? I'd be more than happy to consider them. Again, you don't need a PhD to know a thing or two, but since we don't know you, you just sound like a guy making wild claims.

All this said, I'm a little biased since I consider SS and Collin friends of mine, but if you want them (and the Den at large) to take you seriously you'll consider what I've said.

Anyway, sorry for this continued hijacking of the thread, truefeel. But damned if I don't put my two cents in to business that's not mine! :p

As for the latest, that he doesn't recall killing the woman, I would say the fact that his story is changing every day is only further damaging his defense.

truefeel

01-29-2009, 12:49 PM

We'll see; don't expect that he faces court soon. Everything in Belgium takes a long while, although they will make an exception for this case and speed things up quite soon.

Anyway, sorry for this continued hijacking of the thread, truefeel. But damned if I don't put my two cents in to business that's not mine! :pI don't mind that; It happens in every topic so I'm completely used to it :p. As long as the thread as its whole stays more or less on topic I'm more then happy for it.

jo_2

01-29-2009, 12:59 PM

Nicely put, toxic10x. I do not mean to question the reputation of SS or yours. However, to respond to what you are saying, I fear we are going to get "unfriendly" again because that's partially along the lines your post goes. I have an answer to each and every-one of your points, but I think truefeel said to call it quits. I'm not here to lord over anyone- likewise I'm not here to be lorded over in things that I know of.

Truefeel, do you give permission for this to continue? I don't want to go against your wishes but you have seen that some people want to keep it going.

Cheers

truefeel

01-29-2009, 01:03 PM

Oh, but I have nothing against the debate itself. But do please (yes, SS, I'm also speaking to you) keep it friendly.

Says enough, doesn't it ? :p.

And stop hanging out that friendly. It's getting gay :p.

jo_2

01-29-2009, 01:19 PM

Right. Ok then. A little heated debate never hurt anyone:p

SirSnake

01-29-2009, 01:35 PM

First of all I should like to apologise for the tone of my responses; in all honesty I was a little hung-over and more aggresive than was necessary.

To be honest, sirsnake. I am not sure you have the level of knowledge in this as you try to show. As I said, people can't be experts in everything. But then again, maybe you do know at least part of what you are saying. I don't know.

You can believe what you like; I have very little to gain about lying in what I have or have not done in life on some forums, or what I do or do not know, but since we can both agree that citing sources will be.... difficult, it limits the discussion, but for the sake of debate I shall continue.

Talk to us about the memory impairment and retrogade amnesia. Talk to us about the ocassional-not so ocassional cases of permanent severe memory impairment and permanent cognitive impairment caused by some kinds of ECT.
Better yet, tell us about the cases-once in a good while- when people have been killed by ECT

Well if you can name a single treatment in the world short of paracetemol that doesnt have side-effects Id like to hear it.
Practically ever drug ever will cause someone somewhere to have side-effects ranging from minor emphyesmia to death.
This is hardly unique to ECT, and whilst its not a drug, its still a treatment all the same, and like any treatment, the risk is there.

So thats hardly a fair point; you could use the same point of view to argue against the vast majority of what goes on in hospitals. But most people will be fine or have only minor side-effects.
If could give me an actual statistic for the "occasional not so occasional" then that;d be a starting point, but I know for a fact that in the UK there are certain limitations for treatment contraidcations which if it is above a certain level will not be regulated. Therefore it cant be anymore dangerous (en masse) than, say, radiotherapy (I use that as it has obvious hazards but on the whole is more beneficial).

In fact I have just now run a search on papers for the safety of ECT and it seems, as I said, that generally most people targetted for use (severe depression and epilepsy mostly) are found to be not at risk; it being a safe and effective treatment.
Now you may fall back on your, what was it, "bribing journalists"?, but the sheer volume of papers produced stating the safety of ECT is compelling; I am not naaive in the ways of science, I am well aware that occasionaly results are twisted for personal gain, but the fact remains that on my search there is relatively no material stating that ECT poses any major threat.

Indeed the only papers Ive found that do say that it has issues are always involved with people whom have specific and complicated (more so than usual) mental disorders.
Again I apologise I cannot link to these papers directly, but if you have access to a database I am more than willing to give you the names of the papers.

And while you are at it, also refresh my memory on the numbers of patients who have been and are being forcibly administered ECT in the UK and US, the enlightened countries you mentioned.

Well like I say for the US I cant be sure, but in the UK patients are never forced into such treatment. If they are deemed unsuitable to make coherent decisions for themselves _and_ there is consent from the next of kin then these people may receive treatment without there explicit say so, yes, but again thats hardly limited to ECT, there are many many treatments (again cancer therapy is a common one) where the patient has a decision made on there behalf.
But make no mistake; if a patient ever says explicity that they dont want treatment, they wont be given it.

doctors who admininster it do not yet have a clear idea on HOW ECT WORKS.

This is a fair point; but a lot of doctors dont know the specifics of a lot of things; because as you've said, you cant be an expert on everything. However the consultants will have a good idea, but if you saying that no-one knows how exactly ECT works; well the same can be said of general anaesthetics (to name but one example). They work, and anaesthetiasts can control them, but the specific molecular mechnanisms of many remain a mystery.

So, what we should just never use it then? That would be a ridicolous stance; the results are what, as doctors, you must look at (the molecular mechanisms are being cleared up in labs) and as Ive said, the results of ECT are vastly in the majority safe and effective.
Furthermore, if you can give me a single example of ECT turning a, and lets get this right
non-violent patients who seek help for minor problems are turned into killing machines by these treatments.

So thats saying a non-violent person comes in, gets ECT, and becomes a killing machine?
That displays ignorance on your part on two counts; firstly thats never happened, secondly, ECT is almost always used in people with _severe_ mental problems.
Either way its a ridicolous thing to have said.

In any case, my knowledge of ECT specifically isnt that vast, but frankly I think ive demonstrated how what you have said is mostly taken out of context and blown out of proportion.

Either way, as trixxie has said, this has gone massively off your original point (and the point I had reacted to) but turning patients into "killing machines".
You I think felt your stance to be weak and unfounded and so tried to turn this into a relatively unrelated debate about the side-effects of ECT like memory loss because I guess you know some things about ECT.

I could have ignored that and tried to get you back on track; but Ive humoured this unrelated debate long enough.
So if you want to try and give a good example of how, and Im sorry for quoting it again but I do find it amusing:

non-violent patients who seek help for minor problems are turned into killing machines by these treatments.

then perhaps we can get back on track.
If not, Ive said all I really care to about treatments generally speaking and how they all have possible risks and how we dont know 100% about quite a few of them.

jo_2

01-29-2009, 05:55 PM

First of all I should like to apologise for the tone of my responses; in all honesty I was a little hung-over and more aggresive than was necessary.

By all means. If you are willing to lower the agressiveness, I'm happy to do the same. I'm not ashamed to say I was replying in an aggresive manner to an aggresive statement.

Well if you can name a single treatment in the world short of paracetemol that doesnt have side-effects Id like to hear it.
Practically ever drug ever will cause someone somewhere to have side-effects ranging from minor emphyesmia to death.
This is hardly unique to ECT, and whilst its not a drug, its still a treatment all the same, and like any treatment, the risk is there.

Of course I am not saying that. You are right in that almost every drug or treatment has side effects. But part of applied medicine is about weighing up the pros and cons of each treatment.

So thats hardly a fair point; you could use the same point of view to argue against the vast majority of what goes on in hospitals. But most people will be fine or have only minor side-effects.

Actually, there is quite a lot to argue about in what is going on in hospitals. Lets face it: there are high numbers of people with mental problems. And of course they need help. But the way the system is going about it leaves a lot to be desired. Drugs are being grossly over-prescribed in those places: people are getting much more medication than has been proven they need, and worst of all, cocktails of drugs of different types are being administered, also in inordinate amounts. So while I'm not saying there should be a ban on medication, there has to be an overhaul in the way things are done. Nor should psychotherapy and other non-invasive treaments be neglected. In fact, I know this is somewhat off topic, but the roots of mental health problems lie deeper in the foundations of our society than would seem at first glance.

I know for a fact that in the UK there are certain limitations for treatment contraidcations which if it is above a certain level will not be regulated. Therefore it cant be anymore dangerous (en masse) than, say, radiotherapy (I use that as it has obvious hazards but on the whole is more beneficial).

Excuse me. You are talking about ECT here, right? I am not questioning the legal validity of that. The law, however, is flexible when those who are supposed to be implementing it in their practice make mistakes, screw up badly, then have to cover themselves and their colleagues in order to protect their careers and not end up in legal trouble. By no means am I suggesting this is done routinely, but it does happen once in a while. In most professions, too.

In fact I have just now run a search on papers for the safety of ECT and it seems, as I said, that generally most people targetted for use (severe depression and epilepsy mostly) are found to be not at risk; it being a safe and effective treatment.
Now you may fall back on your, what was it, "bribing journalists"?, but the sheer volume of papers produced stating the safety of ECT is compelling; I am not naaive in the ways of science, I am well aware that occasionaly results are twisted for personal gain, but the fact remains that on my search there is relatively no material stating that ECT poses any major threat.

First off. What constitutes safe for you? If its about not physically killing the patient, then I will admit that statistically speaking the number of patients killed by ECT is relatively low. But it is still there. And yet still there remains that ECT causes significant damage to memory and cognition in some cases. In fact, there is a long list of other side effects caused by ECT, both physiological, mental and physical. Hey, this is not what I am basing my views on, but perhaps you should read the testimonials people have written about this. Better yet, interview them in person. And while some people who have taken part in ECT surveys speak well of it, bear in mind that in many cases, for a person who has a psychatric history to deny the effectiveness of the relevant treatment means to get it again, in a higher dose. So, that may count towards the factor that a significant number of patients do not officialy complain about it.

Good. I am happy that you know about the shady dealings, then. It did not seem so from your other posts, suggesting I was going to say aliens were involved.

Well like I say for the US I cant be sure, but in the UK patients are never forced into such treatment. If they are deemed unsuitable to make coherent decisions for themselves _and_ there is consent from the next of kin then these people may receive treatment without there explicit say so, yes, but again thats hardly limited to ECT, there are many many treatments (again cancer therapy is a common one) where the patient has a decision made on there behalf.

This sentence contradicts itself.
Under the UK Mental Health Act, a person may recieve ECT against their will if a SOAD, or second opinion doctor, in consultation with two people, one who must be a nurse, the other who is neither doctor or nurse, agrees to it taking place. There was a recent amendment to this section of the act, but I do not think very signifcant in terms of practicalities.
But make no mistake; if a patient ever says explicity that they dont want treatment, they wont be given it.

Answered above, sadly. A pity it is not like that.

This is a fair point; but a lot of doctors dont know the specifics of a lot of things; because as you've said, you cant be an expert on everything. However the consultants will have a good idea, but if you saying that no-one knows how exactly ECT works; well the same can be said of general anaesthetics (to name but one example). They work, and anaesthetiasts can control them, but the specific molecular mechnanisms of many remain a mystery.

Good point. And you are right about the last sentence. But we are talking of completely unrelated disciplines. ECT is too controversial a treatment with too many side effects on both mind and body not to have a deep understanding of what you are administering.

So, what we should just never use it then? That would be a ridicolous stance; the results are what, as doctors, you must look at (the molecular mechanisms are being cleared up in labs) and as Ive said, the results of ECT are vastly in the majority safe and effective.

Have already explained why those results could be biased.

Furthermore, if you can give me a single example of ECT turning a, and lets get this right
Quote:
non-violent patients who seek help for minor problems are turned into killing machines by these treatments.
So thats saying a non-violent person comes in, gets ECT, and becomes a killing machine?
That displays ignorance on your part on two counts; firstly thats never happened, secondly, ECT is almost always used in people with _severe_ mental problems.
Either way its a ridicolous thing to have said.

Now that's were you are wrong. You totally missed why I brought in ECT. You were talking about how mental treatments are enlightened here in the West. I was just giving one among numerous examples of how that statement is wishful thinking. Make no mistake- the world would be a better place if that was the case. But it isn't.
I was not for a moment suggesting that ECT turns people into killing machines. And you are right: I know of no case where that has happened. ECT flattens too much the minds of its victims for that.

In any case, my knowledge of ECT specifically isnt that vast, but frankly I think ive demonstrated how what you have said is mostly taken out of context and blown out of proportion.

Either way, as trixxie has said, this has gone massively off your original point (and the point I had reacted to) but turning patients into "killing machines".
You I think felt your stance to be weak and unfounded and so tried to turn this into a relatively unrelated debate about the side-effects of ECT like memory loss because I guess you know some things about ECT.

As I have told you, I didnt try to change the subject, you got it the wrong way. I make nor claim nor made it before that there is a clear link between ECT and violence. I apologise for not making that clear.

I could have ignored that and tried to get you back on track; but Ive humoured this unrelated debate long enough.
So if you want to try and give a good example of how, and Im sorry for quoting it again but I do find it amusing:

Quote:
non-violent patients who seek help for minor problems are turned into killing machines by these treatments.
then perhaps we can get back on track.
If not, Ive said all I really care to about treatments generally speaking and how they all have possible risks and how we dont know 100% about quite a few of them.

Indeed. Thanks for getting me back on track. I was referring to other treatments. To give an example which you yourself used for another purpose, take fluoxetine, for example. A serotonin reuptake inhibitor which has the world famous brand name Prozac. Prozac has agressiveness on its list of adverse effects, along with the suicidal thoughts you mentioned. This is by no means the only example but one of them.

Also consider another issue: it is when trying to get off medication that terrible things are most likely to happen, because it is not done properly. Cutting someone's treatment in a brutal and unregulated manner can result in cases like the one this thread addresses. And yet it has to be done, because giving people medication they do not need, or much much more than is needed as happens routinely in our beloved West, is a huge problem as well in the long run. But PROPERLY.
Please, also bear in mind that all this is made worse by administering cocktails. Like for example, antipsychotics and anxyolitics given together. Aside from the fact that these cocktails can be fatal and cause a plethora of not-very-nice physical and mental effects, cutting these suddenly if the patient/subject has been on it for a certain period of time is even more likely to result in tragedies.
-----------------------------------------------
Do not think for a moment that, by debating your points when I think you are wrong, I am calling into question your reputation and standing in this forum. After all, that' s what forums are for. And please note that I wouldn't do so if I didn't know what I was talking about.

lol, sirsnake, I think we must be attracting plenty of attention. I wouldn't be surprised if lots of people are keeping tabs on our discussion. Lets face it, its quite an interesting topic.

Cheers to all

jo_2

01-29-2009, 06:12 PM

Sorry. Something I forgot to mention about this:

But make no mistake; if a patient ever says explicity that they dont want treatment, they wont be given it.

Actually, there is one case in which you could be right, and that's if the person issued an advance directive, a legal paper stating which types of treatment they did not want to be treated with if they ever became mentally unwell. However, this directive must be signed and witnessed before a person has become unfit to decide for themselves in the eyes of the law.

Cheers

Toxic10x

01-30-2009, 09:06 AM

SirSnake

01-30-2009, 09:27 AM

You totally missed why I brought in ECT. You were talking about how mental treatments are enlightened here in the West.

In relation to your statement about turning people into killing machines, I was saying how it was enlightened. In fact lets have a look at what you first said:

And when these people go and kill somebody or chop someone into little pieces, the media goes "psychatric patient for xxx years, paranoid schizophrenic, etc etc". What these folks don't understand is that most treatments in use today and for the past years are the factors which make patients do these things, NOT the opposite.

So apparently most treatments cause this. Not only is that incorrect and a large reason for why the western approach is relatively englightened, but you, rather curiously, decided to bring up a treatment which _doesnt_ (and we both agree on this) do this.
Furthermore, by your first statement you said most treatments do..... so if thats your point of view, why bother bringing up a treatment which doesnt and is (IE by your own reckoning) in the minority of treatments used?

I find it bizarre that you would use a treatment which is so unrelated to how this debate first sparked....

You are right in that almost every drug or treatment has side effects. But part of applied medicine is about weighing up the pros and cons of each treatment.

Which is what happens, but as Ive already stated, it (ECT) causes nothing major. The very few cases of death and/or major side-effects are no greater than many other approaches; its a risk that comes with all treatments.
However its rare enough that its still well within exceptable safety-limits.

Drugs are being grossly over-prescribed in those places: people are getting much more medication than has been proven they need, and worst of all, cocktails of drugs of different types are being administered, also in inordinate amounts.

Do you mean in general or specifically in regards to mental health problems?

To be fair to you, drug-drug interactions are responsible for a lot of problems (in all areas), and yes people are sometimes put on drugs that perhaps arent strictly necessary, but on the whole any given drug is prescribed with the best intentions of the patient at heart, and in fact Im gonna come back to that....

edit [as trixxie said, ADHD is very good example of this occuring unfairly. And people do expect instant returns, but as for the pysch patients Ill put an edit in slightly further down somewhere....]

First off. What constitutes safe for you? If its about not physically killing the patient, then I will admit that statistically speaking the number of patients killed by ECT is relatively low. But it is still there. And yet still there remains that ECT causes significant damage to memory and cognition in some cases. In fact, there is a long list of other side effects caused by ECT, both physiological, mental and physical.

As stated the same can be said for any treatment; its still well within limits and guidelines with such cases still be a relative rarity.

Hey, this is not what I am basing my views on, but perhaps you should read the testimonials people have written about this.

So why bother mentioning it at all? With a 5 minute search on google I can find testimonies that Harpic toilet cleaner is both the best and worst toilet cleaner, that paracetmol caused someone to imagine pink elephants, and that ECT is both a good and bad thing.

Lets stick with science, and as far as science is concerned, as Ive already stated, the vast overwhelming majority of ECT papers show it to be safe and effective. Either way this is still a pointless debate on a treatment not even related to why I entered this debate in the first place.
If you simply truly believe that ECT causes more harm than good, then fair enough; but so far Ive seen or read nothing to convince me thus.
As I state somewhere below; we'll have to agree to disagree!

This sentence contradicts itself.
Under the UK Mental Health Act, a person may recieve ECT against their will if a SOAD, or second opinion doctor, in consultation with two people, one who must be a nurse, the other who is neither doctor or nurse, agrees to it taking place. There was a recent amendment to this section of the act, but I do not think very signifcant in terms of practicalities.

This on the other hand is very relative, not just in regards to ECT but to all forms of treatment where this may happen.
As you corrected yourself on when a patient can state no treatment and not recieve it when in a fit mental state I wont mention it further.

However what you are talking about hear refers to when someone is not in a fit mental state to be making decisions about their health as deemed by medical professionals (in exactly the same way a baleemic person might be force-fed, for example).
In this scenario, who is more likely to be a better decision for the patient, the mentally-unfit patient themselves, or two trained doctors and nurse (you dont even need a 4th for this to be acceptable, but its an even futher limit on the matter).
If all are in agreement, it seems likely to me that the treatment will be best for the patient.

And despite what you may think (or not, I cant quite tell) medical professionals really do have the patients best interest at heart.

[edit, right here we are. In regards to this, a person who is deemed "unsuitable or incapable" making a rational decision for themselves and would be 'forced' to undergo treatment is suffering from something quite severe in the first place, if they werent, they wouldnt be there. So the only time this really occurs is when the person is not lucid, and is possibly even a danger to themselves and society.
As an interesting aside; if we had mckiller from our first post before he had killed someone and was deemed irrational, but didnt want treatment, what would you suggest? I for one would put the safety of society first and treat him. I guess you could lock him up, but as I suggested, our relatively enlightned approach would rather try to heal him, or at least make him socially capable rather than just lock him away.... then again I would still suggest the same thing even now he _has_ killed someone, whereas judging from some peoples sentiments in this thread I think they would rather have him face capital punishment... hey I never said we were all enlightened! :p ]

Of course they need to cover each other in terms of law and being sued, but thats hardly restricted to medicine, you can get sued by anyone for just about anyone these days, and whats sad is they will probably win!
Even if a doctor does make a genuine mistake (afterall they are only human) what good would suing them do anyway? They will never repeat that mistake, and in the long run they will go on to help far more people. (I apologise for this tangent, its completely off topic, it just annoys me when people sue doctors, if they want to blame anyone, blame the sodding beuracrats and politicians that force you to have to do obscene things, for example in chronic care in GP surgeries there are a number of "points" to be attained, the more you attain the more money you get, but would it surprise you to learn that diabetes gets 10x more points, and thus more money, and thus more time, than palliative care and cancer therapy combined?! Maybe not surprise but sicken. If anyone needs a kick up the arse its the bloody politicians with their "targets" that are actually very unhelpful)

[edit again; in fact, if you sued every doctor who made a mistake and didnt let them to continue practising, we would actually have no doctors. Every single one has made mistakes, and they will all admit it. Some things are attainable, perfect decisions by doctors is not one of them; but they do always have the best interest of the patient at heart (yes I believe that, for people who say doctors are in it only for the money I say this; we are smart enough to get jobs which pay more and demand less work!)]

Good point. And you are right about the last sentence. But we are talking of completely unrelated disciplines. ECT is too controversial a treatment with too many side effects on both mind and body not to have a deep understanding of what you are administering.

They are unrelated, but as ECT is unrelated to attaining killing machines, GA is unrelated too, nethertheless it provides valuable piece of information on the matter; you have to go with what results you get.

If you waited for complete knowledge of a treatment with all its specific effects and outcomes, we;d have approximately 0 treatments for people with mental health disorders. And why? Because we (relatively) know sod all about the brain!
Believe me, during the last few years it was amazed me how much the old saying is true; "the more you know, the more you realise you dont know".
Its astounding how little we truly comprehend of the brain. So waiting to be completely sure about how something like that works would leave us with no treatments in the meantime.

As I say all the research I have done suggests very little wrong with ECT, but as this is hardly the major point of the debate, we shall just have to agree to disagree on the use of ECT!

Prozac has agressiveness on its list of adverse effects, along with the suicidal thoughts you mentioned. This is by no means the only example but one of them.

True but subsquent studies found this to be mostly in regard to specific patients (I believe young ~20s men?).
Therefore these people arent adminstered this any further.

You interestingly choose a specific example of a supposed cover-up by the company doing the research (Im not sure if it was ever proved or not, but Im compelled to believe they did; the complete lack of ethics demonstrated by pharmaceutical companies also sickens me).

Either way, this will now be used for people where there is negligble risk (eg some old dear).

Cutting someone's treatment in a brutal and unregulated manner can result in cases like the one this thread addresses. And yet it has to be done, because giving people medication they do not need, or much much more than is needed as happens routinely in our beloved West, is a huge problem as well in the long run. But PROPERLY.

Wait, are saying that taking people off medicine has to be done, or that it has to be done brutally and unregulated?
Im gonna go with the first :p

This is also a case-by-case scenario, and many people really need to be kept on drugs indefinately; I believe a bigger issue is that people begin to respond ineffectively to these drugs, in which case a change in drug regime is needed. (In fact its a common tactic to try to rotate drugs from the start to help and avoid this).
However this is outside the direct control of the medical professionals, and can hardly be blamed on them; its a weak point I know, but through this learning is achieved, to simply stop all treatment because this happens would be denying the vast vast majority (I would quote figures if I knew them off the top of my head) from getting a treatment that for them, does work.

Its basically playing the numbers game. As a doctor you have to attain the best quality of life for the biggest number of people with the smallest amount of risk.
Yes on occasion these treatments maybe be related (but not solely responsible for) the above mentioned child-freak-mckiller up there, but the huge majority of people get this treatment, their QOL is improved, and they dont become killing machines (or suffer any other major-impairment).
Numbers? Well played.

Please, also bear in mind that all this is made worse by administering cocktails. Like for example, antipsychotics and anxyolitics given together. Aside from the fact that these cocktails can be fatal and cause a plethora of not-very-nice physical and mental effects, cutting these suddenly if the patient/subject has been on it for a certain period of time is even more likely to result in tragedies.

Again a lesson learned in time; and now is very rarely given, only occuring in specific cases. These tragedies happen yes, but they are informative, and helps us to avoid the same mistakes.
Besides, even when we know all of what ECT does exactly, the chances are there will still be someone somewhere who undergoes it and still ends up no better.

Then again some people dont respond to paracetomol, or aspirin, or opiates. Who can say why? Genetic variability is a wonderful (and frequently inconveneint) thing!

Do not think for a moment that, by debating your points when I think you are wrong, I am calling into question your reputation and standing in this forum.

That would be an argument; but Im am enjoying this debate!

truefeel

01-30-2009, 09:33 AM

Damn, just when I was expecting a good flame war, you guys are acting like wussies. Y'all let me down:grumpy:.

SirSnake

01-30-2009, 09:44 AM

Sorry, true, im all up for bashing newbies that make wild statements, but that wouldnt be giving this topic the respect it deserves.

Besides J20 has demonstrated he needs to be given a chance! :p

Seriously though, next newbie who comes in the doors with some silly remark Ill bash twice as hard as usual just for you :D ;)

Toxic10x

01-30-2009, 11:04 AM

Prozac Is A Government Mind Controol Drudg! I Know Is Aw On A Websit!

;)

(edit: lol, the forums auto-caps-lock-remover nerfed my n00b impression :p )

SirSnake

01-30-2009, 12:00 PM

Impression? :p

Toxic10x

01-30-2009, 12:33 PM

Impression!

SirSnake

01-30-2009, 01:37 PM

Dude whatever.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v95/SirSnake/DanMetal.jpg

:p

Toxic10x

01-30-2009, 01:57 PM

01-30-2009, 04:09 PM

Your point about excessive use of meds is interesting jo, but might I suggest that this is as much the fault of consumers as the pharm industry? It's similar to what we see with antibiotics. Someone gets a sniffle and they run to the doctor to get antibiotics. Doc recommends against it? They go to a different doctor.
I believe we see similar things with antidepresents and the like. People demand medication- even force it on their kids.
Hypocondria never was that fashioned before. Ppl don't even stop for a brief moment how things can profilacticaly be treated. They don't even want it. -Let's take this pill to concience cleaning. Best thing ever invented-.
Just look at ADHD medication. Your kid acts out in class? Put him on pills. I was a poorly behaved kid...
were?!:D
...and I can almost guarantee that if I had been born ten years later I would have been one drugged up little boy.
With the age at we see some school kids initiate themselves on light drugs i'd say some would just love it. I'm saying this with kidding tone but it may as well have some to dig in about.:rolleyes:

We live in a society that is very much in to trying to solve its problems with capsules. It's not surprising to me that the psych industry follows suit.

Anyway, my point is the blame for the overuse of pills may fall on society as a whole, and not just one industry. I could take it further and argue that because we live in the age of convenience (fast food, on-demand, high speed internet, everything delivered to your living room in an instant) we EXPECT complex medical/mental issues to be solved equally immediately and with the same simplicity.

...There, a little sociological perspective on the matter ;)
A very valid point here. The concept of fighting for your achievements and its inerent sacrifices is just vanished from today's society. And it does reverberate in ppl self-image, self-esteem and motivation. Then a path is cleared to mental disorder.

if you sued every doctor who made a mistake and didnt let them to continue practising, we would actually have no doctors.
True. Blame the goat is always ther easy part.

Every single one has made mistakes, and they will all admit it. Some things are attainable, perfect decisions by doctors is not one of them;
I can't totally agree with this though. First, not all will admit mistakes, at least those significant. It requires a strong honesty which, humans as they are, many don't have.

but they do always have the best interest of the patient at heart (yes I believe that, for people who say doctors are in it only for the money I say this; we are smart enough to get jobs which pay more and demand less work!)
I do believe in the best interest you speak of, truly. But there are a considerable amount of doctors who are there (i won't say only but) mostly for the money. Medicine is seen around here as an investment and less as a vocation. The intrications of our (in Portugal, i mean) medical system have much to answer to, tbh. Specially about money uses and policies which lead to outrageous abuses and therefore fortunes, with little "best interest of the patient at heart".
When one look to this rooted system it's easy to confuse greed with being smart. And being a doctor is one of the most profitable honest (at least from my point of view, since most corporation managing i don't consider honest) jobs, around these parts.
Sorry for going a bit out of topic but this post-it made me itchy.

agree to disagree
I love this cliche statement. This topic back on track and with the proper atitude proved to be one of the best i've seen around. It shows why day by day ppl here seems closer and closer dispite geographical distances. Congrats to those involved sincerely.:)

Plz people, don't turn this into a topic to insult eachother, I can savely say this is totally not the topic for it. I used this topic to express my emotions
Damn, just when I was expecting a good flame war, you guys are acting like wussies. Y'all let me down:grumpy:.
Make up your mind noob! :D

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v330/Toxic10x/SS2.jpg
Now, this scares me!...:scared: :D

truefeel

01-30-2009, 04:34 PM

Make up your mind noob! :D

I'll always will give people a guilt feeling :p.

eLDiablo

01-30-2009, 04:35 PM

Prozac Is A Government Mind Controol Drudg! I Know Is Aw On A Websit!

NAW DATS FLORIDE!

Toxic10x

01-30-2009, 06:48 PM

floride is from communists oin in USSRussia! That was not for like 50 years!!!!!

truefeel

01-31-2009, 04:43 AM

Ok ok, I let the spam flood for a while, but it's getting above too messy now so can we puh-lease get back on topic ? :p

SirSnake

01-31-2009, 08:15 AM

Yeah well that bad-ass picture totally contradicts the text--- It's a clear fraud!

oh, and...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v330/Toxic10x/SS2.jpg

(that's right, I can raid the picture thread too!) :p

Hahaha! Thats classic, im totally gonna start using that everywhere now :rofl:

@ true, who made you moderator? We can do what we like until someone with actual authority turns up :p

@C4,

Well OK maybe not every doctor is that honest to admit making large mistakes, but if any of them said they have never made any they are blatantly lying!
As for people using it for money, I suppose I should not be surprised by that happening more frequently in countries that dont have free healthcare.
Our NHS basically allows anyone in the country (even holiday makers or illegal immigrants) to get emergency medicine for free.
Furthermore almost all medical procedures can be done for free by people who live here; its basically a free healthcare system and if you dont mind the queues you never ever have to pay for treatment in the UK.

This being said I think it helps to keep potential doctors and practising ones a bit more ethical in the first place; though plenty go private and/or leave the country.
And I like your term "investment", I suppose it is, though no less a vocation for it; afterall people will always be ill!
I just personally think I could make a lot more money and lot easier than becoming a doctor! :lol:

truefeel

01-31-2009, 08:44 AM

@ true, who made you moderator? We can do what we like until someone with actual authority turns up :phttp://gomeler.com/pic/Articles/I%20Live/Cartman.jpg

No, truely: the spam is getting redicolous dry; Either you go into high-gear quality spam or you'll respect eric cartman's authority :p.

jo_2

01-31-2009, 07:03 PM

Quote:
You totally missed why I brought in ECT. You were talking about how mental treatments are enlightened here in the West.
In relation to your statement about turning people into killing machines, I was saying how it was enlightened. In fact lets have a look at what you first said:

Ok. Now lets have a look at your original comment, shall we?

but actually in the vast majority of the Western world we have a very enlightened approach to people with mental health problems.
Not to mention stringent regulations on drugs and treatments.

Correct me if I'm wrong, sirsnake, but "very enlightened approach to people with mental health problems" includes violence related and non violence related cases. I thought it was a good idea to use the topic as an opportunity to remind you of the real state of affairs in our dear West, both for violent and not cases... But it doesn't matter: I'm not interested in playing games of who said what when. Lets get to the important stuff.

So apparently most treatments cause this. Not only is that incorrect and a large reason for why the western approach is relatively englightened, but you, rather curiously, decided to bring up a treatment which _doesnt_ (and we both agree on this) do this.
Furthermore, by your first statement you said most treatments do..... so if thats your point of view, why bother bringing up a treatment which doesnt and is (IE by your own reckoning) in the minority of treatments used?

Ahhh, so now we are getting somewhere. First, the western world has a very enlightened approach to mental health. A few posts later, it has a relatively enlightened approach, right? Perhaps you are not as immune to reason as I originally thought, sirsnake. Well done.

Indeed, I brought up a treatment which does not have a significant link with violence. You will recall, however, a paragraph right after I had described some details on ECT

And about the violence- psychotropic medication is perfectly capable of causing that before it turns patients into vegetables- both during routine treatment and worse even if it is cut suddenly- that can spell death for more than one person.

The only mention in that particular post of violence, was not in relation to ECT, but to psychotropic medication. Please tell me where is the inconsistence in that? And as I have already stated, I brought up ECT to take the opportunity to remind you how "very enlightened"(which is now "relatively enlightened") is the mental health system in general in the developed countries. But I forget myself: let's stop saying who said what when, and get to what is most important.

Which is what happens, but as Ive already stated, it (ECT) causes nothing major. The very few cases of death and/or major side-effects are no greater than many other approaches; its a risk that comes with all treatments.
However its rare enough that its still well within exceptable safety-limits.

Since you consider ECT to be off topic and irrelevant to the discussion at hand, may I inquire why you continue to discuss it? However, I shall answer you: I think you have missed a major point made in my previous post: that for many cases to deny the effectiveness of a psychatric treatment means to get it again, doubled. I think you should consider how this may affect statistical research on ECT.

Do you mean in general or specifically in regards to mental health problems?

To be fair to you, drug-drug interactions are responsible for a lot of problems (in all areas), and yes people are sometimes put on drugs that perhaps arent strictly necessary,

In this case, I was talking specifically about mental health treatments.

I am pleased that you have recognised these issues, SS. Congratulations from my part. However, be aware that these happens much more frequently and inapropiately than you believe. I would be more than happy to provide evidence for this, but once again the confidentiality laws prevent me from doing so.

but on the whole any given drug is prescribed with the best intentions of the patient at heart, and in fact Im gonna come back to that....

I know about the Hipprocatic oath, SS. And I also know for a fact that while many psychatrists have their patients best interests "at heart", so to speak, very few indeed have that as a priority. Ambition, the desire to be right about wrong assumptions, the desire to feel superior, wanting to go home early on a friday, the inability to accept mistakes, jealousy and other human weaknesses all play a part in a psychatrists ultimate decisions.

So why bother mentioning it at all? With a 5 minute search on google I can find testimonies that Harpic toilet cleaner is both the best and worst toilet cleaner, that paracetmol caused someone to imagine pink elephants, and that ECT is both a good and bad thing.

I am not sure if you realise the disparate ridiculousness of the comparisons you have just drawn here. We are talking about a treatment which can potentially leave someone without cognitive ability: without remembering who they are: leave them feeling raped and emotionally disturbed, to name a few. If you want my friendly advice, SS, you'd better think twice before making comparisons of such trivialities with such serious issues in the future. Certainly not in the presence of a patient/victim if you ever interview one, at least... I wouldnt.

Lets stick with science, and as far as science is concerned, as Ive already stated, the vast overwhelming majority of ECT papers show it to be safe and effective. Either way this is still a pointless debate on a treatment not even related to why I entered this debate in the first place.
If you simply truly believe that ECT causes more harm than good, then fair enough; but so far Ive seen or read nothing to convince me thus.
As I state somewhere below; we'll have to agree to disagree!

Hmm. You have not quoted a single official source for your views. As we commented earlier, if this is because of confidentality reasons, then please ignore this. I am in the same unfortunate situation.

This has nothing to do with beliefs. This has to do with how psychatry is being practised. But since we both think that we could both cite convincing evidence if permitted to by law, I am afraid we will have no choice but to follow your suggestion and agree to disagree on ECT, so to speak.

This on the other hand is very relative, not just in regards to ECT but to all forms of treatment where this may happen.
As you corrected yourself on when a patient can state no treatment and not recieve it when in a fit mental state I wont mention it further.

However what you are talking about hear refers to when someone is not in a fit mental state to be making decisions about their health as deemed by medical professionals (in exactly the same way a baleemic person might be force-fed, for example).
In this scenario, who is more likely to be a better decision for the patient, the mentally-unfit patient themselves, or two trained doctors and nurse (you dont even need a 4th for this to be acceptable, but its an even futher limit on the matter).
If all are in agreement, it seems likely to me that the treatment will be best for the patient.

Be aware that in all cases, the tribunals decision takes precedence. Even if the patient issued an advance directive, this can be overturned if deemed necessary by the tribunal considering the case. I recall you said something about

But make no mistake; if a patient ever says explicity that they dont want treatment, they wont be given it.

Now where does that go?

Force-feeding cannot be compared with using certain types of mental health treatments. Force-feeding is a geniuely life-saving intervention with no side effects which can be compared to those of, say, ECT or antipsychotics.

SS. A piece of advice which will come in use if you pursue a medical career: One thing is how things are supposed to be. Quite another how they are implemented. No offence meant, but this paragraph shows great inexperience on your part on how psychatric cases are dealt with. And that's just as well: we aren't born knowing or having seen everything. But to get to my points:

In this scenario, who is more likely to be a better decision for the patient, the mentally-unfit patient themselves, or two trained doctors and nurse (you dont even need a 4th for this to be acceptable, but its an even futher limit on the matter).

Be aware that there are many cases of people who are deemed "unfit to decide for themselves" prematurely and without being so. In fact, this is a part of the topic in which I would really like to be able to cite names, dates and places, but I cannot because once again there are legal and ethical constraints involving those handling privileged data.
In fact, from the above quote I suppose you believe that all the parties act as discrete, separate entities with their own opinions and input in the decision making process, right? Wrong. While each case is different, you'll find that there is usually one who takes the lead, and the other parties usually agree to what there is to say without much discussion. Which leaves the patient quite alone, and unrepresented.
I would go into further detail, but I prefer you not to take my word for it, and gain this knowledge from the profession you are working towards yourself. At least you will not be so let down from what you find if your assumptions are questioned at this stage. Though of course, unless you specialize in psychatry, you rarely will take part in such cases.

[edit, right here we are. In regards to this, a person who is deemed "unsuitable or incapable" making a rational decision for themselves and would be 'forced' to undergo treatment is suffering from something quite severe in the first place, if they werent, they wouldnt be there. So the only time this really occurs is when the person is not lucid, and is possibly even a danger to themselves and society.

Again, geniuely, no offence meant, but you have little idea what you are talking about. You wouldn't be able to concieve just how many people are deemed as such without necessity to do so. There are cases in which may be true, but they are in the minority. Consider that once someone has a psychatric history, even for something relatively minor like minor depression, thats on their record for life. Which means next time they come into contact with the mental health services, there is already a precedent. So this person is now considered by society more likely to cause trouble than would otherwise be the case. Next comes the effect of maliciousness. Stories can be twisted in more wicked ways than you can imagine. Before the law, the truth can be stretched to breaking point to cover up the mistakes done by "professionals". I will not go into details on this, but bear in mind that almost everyone considers preferable what is good for them instead of what is morally right.
The effect of all this is that over time, records build up, occasionaly without the patient displaying serious symptoms of mental illness, but due to the other factors I have already commented. So these people are put in medication. And this, SS, is where my original point is relevant:

the treatments administered cause or aggravate the mental problems.

Please take the time to consider the significance of all this.
Both were violence is involved, and where it isn't. The medication given makes people addicts in quite a few cases, even if not in all: which means that if they stop taking it, in particular if cut suddenly, to the untrained eye it will look like they were crazy in the first place because of the withdrawal symptoms. After all, if they stop the medication and then go on the rampage, it means the medication was good for them, is it not? And all this is a million times worse if it is a cocktail the patient was having on a regular basis.

And if they keep on having it, then come the adverse effects of the medication, which are not as obvious as withdrawal symptoms, but are still very tangible. I can't be specific or technical here because each mental treatment has its particular side effects. But in quite a few instances, the side effects are what one would expect from a mentally ill person. I wonder if you have ever stopped to think about this.

And so we come to my original point at long long last. That patients are ocassionaly turned into killing machines by the treatments they are given, and not the opposite.

Now lets proceed to the rest of your post.

As an interesting aside; if we had mckiller from our first post before he had killed someone and was deemed irrational, but didnt want treatment, what would you suggest? I for one would put the safety of society first and treat him. I guess you could lock him up, but as I suggested, our relatively enlightned approach would rather try to heal him, or at least make him socially capable rather than just lock him away.... then again I would still suggest the same thing even now he _has_ killed someone, whereas judging from some peoples sentiments in this thread I think they would rather have him face capital punishment... hey I never said we were all enlightened! ]

Indeed. Good argument. As you may recall from my original post, I was of the opinion that if this guy was fully aware of what he was doing, his life should be "forfeit", to quote myself. If it could be demonstrated that he was not, however.... let me tell you that what they would do with a case like this is far from enlightened, SS. First of all, they actually would lock him away. Second, to pump someone full of the latest medication which has been proven not to cure anyone of anything(i.e antipsychotics), is not my idea of an enlightened way of doing things, even if it may be yours. Nor is it going to heal him. The medication will subdue him, at best.

You do have a point that something must be done, however. I suppose that if he was unaware of what he was doing, he should not be killed.

But I have my reservations about this case. I consider feasible other possibilities as the causes of this tragedy. And of others, too. We actually know very little about this man's actual life, so far. But that is another story, for another place and another time, which is not immediately relevant to our super debate on psychatry...

Of course they need to cover each other in terms of law and being sued, but thats hardly restricted to medicine, you can get sued by anyone for just about anyone these days, and whats sad is they will probably win!

True. I remember saying something about "in most professions, too.";) .
Even if a doctor does make a genuine mistake (afterall they are only human) what good would suing them do anyway? They will never repeat that mistake, and in the long run they will go on to help far more people.

I respect your point of view. Very idealistic. But I think I am not the only one here who thinks this just isn't realistic. I'm too tired to just write what is obvious, particularly when more than one person shares a similar opinion.

[(I apologise for this tangent, its completely off topic, it just annoys me when people sue doctors, if they want to blame anyone, blame the sodding beuracrats and politicians that force you to have to do obscene things, for example in chronic care in GP surgeries there are a number of "points" to be attained, the more you attain the more money you get, but would it surprise you to learn that diabetes gets 10x more points, and thus more money, and thus more time, than palliative care and cancer therapy combined?! Maybe not surprise but sicken. If anyone needs a kick up the arse its the bloody politicians with their "targets" that are actually very unhelpful)/QUOTE]

I believe that the problems in health care are due to both the doctors, for reasons already stated several times over, and the politicians. Therefore its both that need "a kick up the arse", to quote a nice line;). And also note that most of my previous argument is about psychatry, not about health care professionals in general, though there are instances where this overlaps.

[QUOTE][edit again; in fact, if you sued every doctor who made a mistake and didnt let them to continue practising, we would actually have no doctors. Every single one has made mistakes, and they will all admit it.

Wishful thinking. People have a lot to lose, particularly when they have screwed up BAD, to be that honest.

Some things are attainable, perfect decisions by doctors is not one of them; but they do always have the best interest of the patient at heart (yes I believe that, for people who say doctors are in it only for the money I say this; we are smart enough to get jobs which pay more and demand less work!)]

You are right in some cases, but not in most. I'll appreciate that you are studying medicine and can interprete from some comments an attack on your future profession, but it's the way it is, and I think we agree not only in medicine.

They are unrelated, but as ECT is unrelated to attaining killing machines, GA is unrelated too, nethertheless it provides valuable piece of information on the matter; you have to go with what results you get.

The already mentioned adverse effects of ECT, the risk involved, not to mention its forcible administration in a significant number of cases, makes it unsuitable for comparison with general anasthethics, sirsnake.

True but subsquent studies found this to be mostly in regard to specific patients (I believe young ~20s men?).
Therefore these people arent adminstered this any further.

Perhaps. And yes, studies found younger subjects were more susceptible. But it is merely one example.

Wait, are saying that taking people off medicine has to be done, or that it has to be done brutally and unregulated?
Im gonna go with the first

You know the answer to that;)

This is also a case-by-case scenario, and many people really need to be kept on drugs indefinately;

You are not yet in a position to back up this by professional or personal experience of your own, I think. Therefore it would be wise to wait until then before you make such a claim. In case you want more than my word for it, check out the theories and successful projects of Dr Loren Mosher, for one.

I believe a bigger issue is that people begin to respond ineffectively to these drugs, in which case a change in drug regime is needed. (In fact its a common tactic to try to rotate drugs from the start to help and avoid this).
However this is outside the direct control of the medical professionals, and can hardly be blamed on them; its a weak point I know, but through this learning is achieved, to simply stop all treatment because this happens would be denying the vast vast majority (I would quote figures if I knew them off the top of my head) from getting a treatment that for them, does work.

I am going to choose not to comment heavily on this, though I could. However, do bear in mind that I doubt that you have seen in action the effects of the tactic you have just described. I grant that it does show that you are well informed, however.

Noone has talked about stopping all treatment, at least not me. But bear in mind that your point about the vast majority would be more convincing, at least for me, if it was inverted. I have already explained why many cases of mental illness are aggravated by treatment instead of helped.

Yes on occasion these treatments maybe be related (but not solely responsible for) the above mentioned child-freak-mckiller

Indeed. I am glad that at least you finally acknowledge the possibility of my point being valid. It shows that I might have been too quick in judging your knowledge level, and maybe overly offensive in suggesting it was a joke. And yet I know you far from agree completely with me. That is your decision....

up there, but the huge majority of people get this treatment, their QOL is improved, and they dont become killing machines (or suffer any other major-impairment).

Maybe the vast majority do not become killing machines (though some certainly do), but the wide range of side effects caused by these treatments, such as cognitive impairment, sexual dysfunction, memory impairment, irrational behaviour( to be very broad), personality changes etc in the majority of cases, can hardly help build towards a better QOL, when non-invasive treatments could have done a better job, and in some instances come cheaper.

Again a lesson learned in time; and now is very rarely given, only occuring in specific cases

Wrong. Anxiolytic+antipsychotic cocktails are still in relatively common usage, unfortunately.

That would be an argument; but Im am enjoying this debate!

Great. I am, too. And I get the feeling we are not the only ones,eh?
--------------------------
Well, I said my piece for now.

Cheers to all

jo_2

01-31-2009, 07:20 PM

Prozac Is A Government Mind Controol Drudg! I Know Is Aw On A Websit!

;)

(edit: lol, the forums auto-caps-lock-remover nerfed my n00b impression :p )

lol that goes for me???

how 'bout this

I Know All Bout Psychatric Treatments But Nver Worked in Anything relited!
hahaha

Sorry truefeel. Won't happen again.:uhh:

jo_2

01-31-2009, 07:30 PM

jo_2

01-31-2009, 07:40 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirSnake
Every single one has made mistakes, and they will all admit it. Some things are attainable, perfect decisions by doctors is not one of them;

I can't totally agree with this though. First, not all will admit mistakes, at least those significant. It requires a strong honesty which, humans as they are, many don't have.

I consider this to be a very truthful statement, C4. My hat is off to you;)

truefeel

02-02-2009, 07:23 AM

Dude, there's an edit button you know :p.

jo_2

02-02-2009, 08:13 AM

Dude, there's an edit button you know :p.

if thats in relation to:

I Know All Bout Psychatric Treatments But Nver Worked in Anything relited!

But I gotta retaliate!!!:uhh:

Derek

02-02-2009, 08:50 AM

if thats in relation to:

But I gotta retaliate!!!:uhh:
No. Hes talking about your quadruple post. :rockbrow:

jo_2

02-02-2009, 09:02 AM

No. Hes talking about your quadruple post. :rockbrow:

Ahh riight:)

I'll admit it was a bit long...

thanks Derek:p

nyarlathotep

02-05-2009, 02:45 PM

And what does one of the more popular newspapers of belgium do on their site?

truefeel

02-08-2009, 09:00 AM

Update on this.

The last child who was wounded by Kim is fired from hospital. He stabbed her in throat (!!!); suggesting that might had been his method of attemping to kill al those children.

Also something related happened: a person who was running stage to become baby atendant, got fired due he was wearing a shirt of the Joker. Ok, I know that was a mistake in the daylight of what happened 2 weeks ago, but firing him was over the edge. He did not do that on purpose.

(Kim de Gelder had his face painted like the Joker's face when he killed those children).