treatment for drug addiction. evidence-​based practices. celebrity rehab. benzos.

brain_chart. seizures

is dr. drew too risky for prime time?

This arti­cle gives a good cri­tique on the dan­gers and quack­ery of the “tough-​love” approach to treat­ing drug addic­tion, and relates evidence-​based treat­ments for drug addiction.

With the news last week of coun­try star Mindy McCready’s sui­cide by gun, the death toll among Dr. Drew’s Celebrity Rehab patients now stands at five, giv­ing the show an unusu­ally high mor­tal­ity rate of nearly 13%. But what’s even more dis­turb­ing is that most of those deaths — pos­si­bly even McCready’s — might have been pre­vented if the pro­gram had uti­lized treat­ment prac­tices proven to be most effective.

I would like to use a per­sonal expe­ri­ence to point out that “side effects” of pre­scrip­tion drugs are effects of the drugs and that with­drawal is an effect of the drugs. Though with­drawal is caused by the taper­ing off and ces­sa­tion of a drug’s use, with­drawal is a drug-​induced state. Until the body/​brain has recov­ered from the effects of a drug (which could take as much as a year for the brain to achieve nor­mal func­tion­ing (relapses are usu­ally phys­i­o­log­i­cal, not psy­cho­log­i­cal in nature)) then a per­son free­ing them­selves from addic­tion is still under the influ­ence of a drug.

Accord­ing to this article

…“ben­zo­di­aza­penes “can cause with­drawal seizures if patients aren’t ade­quately med­icated dur­ing detox. Indeed, with­drawal from ben­zo­di­azepines and alco­hol — unlike methadone or heroin with­drawal — can be fatal because these seizures can progress into a con­di­tion called sta­tus epilepticus…the death rate from such seizures can be as high as 10%.“

I had a grand mal seizure dis­con­tin­u­ing a low dose of pre­scrip­tion clon­azepam that I was pre­scribed to help with the sleep prob­lems that were being caused by ritalin. I took and dis­con­tin­ued the drug exactly as directed. Fol­low­ing the seizure I expe­ri­enced automa­tism— I was straight­en­ing and re-​straightening items on my desk in a repet­i­tive and mechan­i­cal man­ner and did not stop until I was inter­rupted by a para­medic. I asked if he was there for my care-​giving client that I sud­denly feared might be hav­ing a med­ical cri­sis. The para­medic said that he was there for me. I said, “Me?!” He and my friend walked me into the ambu­lance. The para­medic asked me if I could tell him my name. I thought about it, drew a blank, and said, “Nooo.” Sud­denly I under­stood why they looked so wor­ried about me, but to me it was just inter­est­ing the way find­ing a con­tainer with left­over lasagna in the refrig­er­a­tor would be inter­est­ing if I couldn’t remem­ber hav­ing made it recently off the top of my head. What was really inter­est­ing was the equip­ment in the ambu­lance. He grabbed my atten­tion, asked me if I could tell him my par­ents’ names. Nope. The town where I went to high school? Uh uh.

So off we went. First ambu­lance ride. Emer­gency room. First I.V. First cat scan. Some­where along the line my mem­ory came back, but it did so with­out fan­fare. You’d think that some­thing like that would make an impres­sion, but it was just there when the doc­tor inter­viewed me again after the tests. For­tu­nately, the V.A. cov­ered my bill. Had I had no cov­er­age, I would have payed that bill for years.

I blanche to think of what might have hap­pened to me in that con­di­tion had I not been in a safe place with a trust-​worthy per­son who looked out for me.

I had no idea that ben­zo­di­aza­pene with­drawal could cause seizures, though I had done research on it when I started tak­ing it. All that hap­pened in 2001. There is much bet­ter infor­ma­tion avail­able now on the risks of taking/​discontinuing drugs that are com­monly pre­scribed. Since then, doc­tors and pre­scrib­ing nurses have been using longer and slower dis­con­tin­u­a­tion sched­ules. Because the drug man­u­fac­tur­ers don’t make these drugs in small enough doses to make the sched­ule gen­tle enough, there are elab­o­rate sched­ules for cut­ting doses in a way that will min­i­mize the bio­log­i­cal may­hem of drug withdrawal.

If you’re think­ing about using ben­zos, please con­sider their addic­tive nature, whether or not you could han­dle the cost of cat­a­strophic effects, whether or not you can be sure that you won’t run out and can rea­son­ably expect to have the pre­scrip­tion refilled with­out delay. Whether other slower and more con­scious efforts to change your lifestyle so that you can get ade­quate sleep or man­age stress would be much bet­ter for you. And whether of not your prob­lem with sleep­less­ness may be caused by a drug that you’re taking.

If you’re tak­ing ben­zos illic­itly, you might seri­ously want to recon­sider because if it does cause a prob­lem that requires emer­gency treat­ment, you may find your­self iden­ti­fied as a drug user in the med­ical sys­tem and, like those labeled with men­tal ill­ness, you may find your­self being treated as if your med­ical prob­lems are per­sonal prob­lems, be deprived of some of the ben­e­fits of sci­ence, and be at the mercy of folk psy­chol­ogy being exer­cised by med­ical staff. Most of them should know bet­ter, but we all have our biases.

Pre­scrip­tion drugs are respon­si­ble for more over­doses and deaths than heroin or cocaine com­bined now, so emer­gency med­ical per­son­nel can rea­son­ably bet that an over­dose is caused by a pre­scrip­tion drug, though they shouldn’t bet on it. One rea­son why it is so com­mon for peo­ple to over­dose on pre­scrip­tion drugs is that they are being over-​prescribed and are being given too many refills with­out ade­quate warn­ing of the risks. Many peo­ple make the mis­take of think­ing that a pre­scrip­tion drug can’t be as dan­ger­ous as a street drug. Don’t make that mis­take, please.

pharmaceutical industry. clinical trials. missing data. fraud.

large

tsuki blue via Flickr

fraud is never a right by Dr. Mickey Nardo, psychiatrist

While Tam­i­flu is off my usual radar, the con­tro­versy is so much a part of the effort to restore some­thing like com­mon decency to the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal indus­try that it can’t be ignored. Roche has tried to take every road around true data trans­parency imag­in­able, and I think that the gen­eral sus­pi­cion [mine at least] is that if the data­base is exposed and exam­ined by inde­pen­dent sci­en­tists, the drug will not live up to its adver­tised expec­ta­tions and the coun­tries that stock­piled it are going to be pretty damned angry. The name for this kind of behav­ior is f·r·a·u·d.

We don’t use the word f·r·a·u·d very much when we talk about the Clin­i­cal Tri­als, or the jury-​rigged arti­cles, or the with­held stud­ies, or the fan­tas­tic ad cam­paigns. Even in a lot of the judge­ments, they talk about false-​advertising and off-​label pro­mo­tion, but it’s all sim­ply f·r·a·u·d. And it looks like the Roche peo­ple have dug them­selves a deep hole, one that’s grow­ing deeper by the minute. And many in the phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal indus­try in gen­eral seem to be try­ing to make a case that they have a right to main­tain their abil­ity to con­tinue to use f·r·a·u·d in their future drug mar­ket­ing campaigns.

In my sim­ple way of see­ing things, the authors of these f·r·a·u·d·ulent arti­cles are also com­mit­ting f·r·a·u·d. Either they have seen the pri­mary data, or should have. Either they know the pro­to­cols and the pri­mary out­come vari­ables, or they should have. Either they have checked the stats, the tables, or the graphs, or they should have. And I would think that at least some of them should have met the sub­jects in the stud­ies. Deci­sions like the one by the Uni­ver­sity of Penn­syl­va­nia in the case brought by Dr. Jay Ams­ter­dam might be okay in acad­e­mia, but not in a courtroom:

abortion. reproductive freedom. reproductive rights. activism.

prochoice

refresh­ing the move­ment by sujatha jesu­da­son at the mobi­liz­ing ideas website

Accord­ing to Gallup, over the last three decades there has been a mod­est increase in pub­lic sup­port for abor­tion and, para­dox­i­cally a decline in num­ber of peo­ple who iden­tify as “pro-​choice.” But the proof of a move­ment is in the social con­di­tions it cre­ates and cements: we’re barely keep­ing our heads up in the wave of anti-​abortion leg­is­la­tion pro­posed and passed in many states.

The Guttmacher Insti­tute reports that in 2010 anti-​choice state leg­is­la­tors intro­duced 950 mea­sures, among these 89 are now law in 32 states. In 2011, these law­mak­ers got even busier, intro­duc­ing 1,100 restric­tions; 135 of these passed in 36 states.

Fights over women’s repro­duc­tive health­care nearly tor­pe­doed the Afford­able Care Act and con­tin­ues to plague its imple­men­ta­tion. At the same time, angry white men called a law stu­dent “slut” for desir­ing con­tra­cep­tive cov­er­age and promi­nent pres­i­den­tial can­di­dates seemed ready to embrace a return to the bare­foot and preg­nant era. Any guar­an­tee of repro­duc­tive choice seems increas­ingly precarious…

…our activists, advo­cates, actors, and agents com­prise a diverse, highly-​connected net­work of mostly white females over 30 who are work­ing at the national level; never mind that ours is increas­ingly a nation of color and young peo­ple are con­sid­ered a piv­otal demographic.

Sec­ond, there is no uni­fy­ing vision, cohe­sive strat­egy, or inspir­ing nar­ra­tive. The move­ment is dom­i­nated by large, well-​known orga­ni­za­tions like Planned Par­ent­hood, NARAL and the ACLU; insti­tu­tions that excel at com­mu­ni­cat­ing what they do (pro­vide repro­duc­tive health ser­vices, fight polit­i­cal bat­tles, or pro­tect civil lib­er­ties), but not so clear at con­vey­ing why they do it. When we asked, our col­leagues in the move­ment more often described the work they do and recited their orga­ni­za­tional mis­sion state­ments. Rarely did they speak to what inspired them or their vision for the future.

Strate­gies pur­sued by dif­fer­ent camps are too often at odds.

inequalities. economic. civil. legal. social.

poverty in america
vari­eties of inequal­ity by joshua miller

I can think of at least six kinds of inequality:

1) Inequal­ity of income: dif­fer­ent peo­ple receive dif­fer­ent wages, either for dif­fer­ent jobs or for the same job, as prof­its from cap­i­tal invest­ments, or as gov­ern­ment sub­si­dies, trans­fer pay­ments, or pri­vate charity.

2) Inequal­ity of con­sump­tion: dif­fer­ent peo­ple con­sume dif­fer­ent prod­ucts (i.e. the generic wid­get) in dif­fer­ing amounts and of vary­ing qual­ity. Some peo­ple have cell phones, com­put­ers, and tablet com­put­ers; some have just a cell phone; some peo­ple own no elec­tron­ics. Some peo­ple have two homes, some are home­less, etc.

3) Inequal­ity of lib­erty: some peo­ple are sub­jected to more threats and inter­fer­ence than oth­ers. Some peo­ple can break the law, for instance by using ille­gal drugs, with­out con­se­quence, while oth­ers are impris­oned and sub­jected to the whims and demands of insti­tu­tional forces and indi­vid­u­als with strength or authority.

4) Inequal­ity of secu­rity: some peo­ple live more pre­car­i­ous lives than oth­ers. Some peo­ple are sys­tem­at­i­cally sub­ject to more fre­quent risks of loss, or have less assis­tance or fewer resources to fall back on should things go badly.

5) Inequal­ity of sta­tus: some peo­ple get more respect than oth­ers. Some peo­ple are treated with dis­dain and denied the pre­req­ui­sites of basic human dig­nity. Some peo­ple are ignored and invis­i­ble, while oth­ers get more atten­tion than they want from paparazzi and news media.

6) Inequal­ity of capa­bil­i­ties: some peo­ple have more beings and doings than oth­ers. Rather than more wid­gets and gad­gets, some peo­ple have bet­ter access to the things that make a life go well: work, play, love, health, safety, an oppor­tu­nity to be heard and make a dif­fer­ence, etc…

…Amer­i­cans cur­rently con­front a sit­u­a­tion domes­ti­cally where the rich have made dis­pro­por­tion­ate gains in income and con­sump­tion com­pared to other classes, while the very poor expe­ri­ence severe losses in every cat­e­go­ryAmer­i­cans cur­rently con­front a sit­u­a­tion domes­ti­cally where the rich have made dis­pro­por­tion­ate gains in income and con­sump­tion com­pared to other classes, while the very poor expe­ri­ence severe losses in every cat­e­gory due to absurdly high rates of incar­cer­a­tion, lost life expectancy, increaased labor con­tin­gency, loss of mean­ing­ful par­tic­i­pa­tion in the polit­i­cal process, and many other fac­tors, due to absurdly high rates of incar­cer­a­tion, lost life expectancy, increased labor con­tin­gency, loss of mean­ing­ful par­tic­i­pa­tion in the polit­i­cal process, and many other factors. 

alcohol and caffeine. disinhibition. reaction time.

four-loko-pro1

alco­hol and caf­feine, no need to go loko by sci­cu­ri­ous at the sci­en­tific amer­i­can blog

Increas­ing how stim­u­lated and ener­getic a drinker feels can be very dan­ger­ous when it is com­bined with a decreased abil­ity to inhibit actions due to alco­hol. These indi­vid­u­als have ele­vated con­fi­dence and energy lev­els, slowed reac­tion time, and are less able to stop them­selves from drink­ing – prob­a­bly not a for­mula for suc­cess! Not to men­tion the other dan­gers these alcohol-​energy drinks pose to drinkers, includ­ing increased like­li­hood of rid­ing with a drunk dri­ver, get­ting hurt, or need­ing med­ical atten­tion (O’Brien et al., 2008). In 2010, the United States Food and Drug Admin­is­tra­tion (FDA) came down hard on Phu­sion Projects, LLC (devel­op­ers of Four Loko) and other alcohol-​energy drink man­u­fac­tur­ers. The FDA informed sev­eral alcohol-​energy drink com­pa­nies that they would need to alter the ingre­di­ents of their bev­er­ages or prod­ucts would be seized due to poten­tially haz­ardous safety issues (United States Food and Drug Admin­is­tra­tion, 2010). How­ever, the demands imposed by the FDA have not pre­vented bars, gas sta­tions, and 7-​Elevens across the coun­try from con­tin­u­ing to sell and pro­mote the alcohol-​energy drink com­bi­na­tion. When a drinker is less able to eval­u­ate how drunk they are, they are three times more likely to reach the legal limit, and four times more likely to drive home after drink­ing than drinkers who con­sume non-​caffeinated bev­er­ages (Thombs et al., 2010). Just because your energy level is high doesn’t mean you are less impaired. Ignor­ing that fact would be loko.

book review. psychosis. recovery.

ProcessionDamnedBaja

rogier van der wey­den, pro­ces­sion of the damned
from the polyp­tych last judge­ment
c. 1445 – 1450
oil on oak panel

rethink­ing mad­ness: towards a par­a­digm shift in our under­stand­ing and treat­ment of psy­chosisa book by paris williams (avail­able in kin­dle edi­tion), reviewed by michael appol­lio­nio at psy­che central

If mad­ness, or psy­chosis, is just a result of a phys­i­cal defect in the brain, then it makes sense to devote lit­tle effort to under­stand­ing the expe­ri­ences of mad peo­ple, and to focus instead on sup­press­ing such expe­ri­ences as much as pos­si­ble. That’s what our vast “men­tal health” indus­try has been doing for decades, with­out suc­cess. In his book, Rethink­ing Mad­ness: Towards a Par­a­digm Shift In Our Under­stand­ing and Treat­ment of Psy­chosis, psy­chol­o­gist Paris Williams out­lines a very dif­fer­ent approach — one that pri­or­i­tizes under­stand­ing and the valu­ing of per­sonal experiences.

Before writ­ing this book, Williams spent time as a hang glider pilot, win­ning one world cham­pi­onship and sev­eral national awards. Then, he tells us, he expe­ri­enced a men­tal cri­sis that could have been labeled psy­chosis, but avoided get­ting diag­nosed or “helped” by psy­chi­a­try. Instead, he says, he worked through his expe­ri­ences on his own. This caused him to become inter­ested in help­ing oth­ers, and he became a psy­chol­o­gist and researcher focused on the detailed explo­ration of the expe­ri­ences of peo­ple who have under­gone psy­chosis and then full recovery.

One of the key ideas Williams sets forth is that psy­chosis, in the pres­ence of the right con­di­tions, can be expected to most com­monly result in a pos­i­tive out­come: an out­come that is bet­ter than the state that existed before the psy­chosis. This asser­tion flies in the face of most of what our cul­ture thinks it “knows” about psy­chosis, but the author doc­u­ments the argu­ment well.

Still, the per­spec­tive should not be con­fused with some roman­tic notion that psy­chosis is always a good thing — Williams is clear that it is haz­ardous under the best of con­di­tions, and likely to lead to major ongo­ing life dif­fi­cul­ties when the focus is just on attempts to sup­press the process, as usu­ally hap­pens in devel­oped coun­tries today. What is crit­i­cal to note, he tells us, is that these poor out­comes are typ­i­cally due to poor han­dling of the expe­ri­ence, and not the nature of the expe­ri­ence itself.

Another major point Williams makes Con­tinue read­ing