Features

Thank you for having the courage to publish the “Chemical Therapy Endangers Psychiatric Patients,” commentary in your Aug. 5 edition. It is a sad commentary on the state of so-called investigative journalism that articles affecting so many individuals are not reported, let alone investigated, by mainstream media.  

The fact that pharmaceutical companies spend more on direct lobbying, front groups, and political advertising than any other industry is old news. Revelations about “hidden” dangers or silencing of researchers who dare question whether a new or not-so-new drug really is “safe and effective” initially were more likely to appear in the business section of a newspaper than on the front page. These numerous revelations are beginning to raise suspicions in the public—at least with regard to medications that are not touted as remedies for mental illness. 

The risks associated with psychotropic medications continue to be minimized, while drug companies support a deliberate campaign to convince the public that persons who resist taking drugs do so, not because of the effects (or lack thereof) of the medication, but because the person lacks “insight.” Family members of persons diagnosed with mental illness, many of whom are the strongest supporters of forced drugging laws, are an important, if unwitting, force in this drug company funded campaign. 

(See Boston Globe reporter Robert Whitaker’s Mad in America for a sobering introduction to the pattern of deliberate deception, feeding of misleading reports to the media, conducting research with a knowing disregard for the subjects of that research, and the heavy conflicts of interest between “independent” researchers and their funders surrounding drug treatment for the mentally ill. Whitaker points out that the modicum of independent testing that previously existed was replaced in the late 1980s by for-profit clinical trials. Academic research had been replaced by for-profit research. Drug companies got more and more control over study design and therefore the results; clinical researchers and their research “institutions” got more and more money.) For a local angle, think of the recent Novartis UC Berkeley “partnership.”  

Tremendous weight gain, the significant increase in diabetes associated with the new anti-psychotics, the risks of seizures and perhaps suicide associated with new anti-depressants, the acknowledged risk of irreversible tardive dyskinesia and the fact muscle rigidity, movement disorders and a general lethargy and unpleasant feeling was present for almost every person taking traditional anti-psychotics, would be unacceptable to the FDA and certainly the public if the target population for the drugs was not labeled mentally ill. Warnings would at least be more prominent and risks and adverse events more prominently reported. Most significantly, persons who declined such “treatment” would not have their capacity to do so questioned. However, when it comes to mentally illness, instead of acknowledging the effects of this “treatment, ” other drugs are added to supposedly combat the effects of the psychotropics. While polypharmacy may not help the patient, it certainly helps the drug companies. 

The FDA’s mission is to protect public health… and speed innovations … With the passage of PDUFA (Prescription Drug User Fee Act) in 1992 and its reauthorization in 1997 with the FDA Modernization Act, manufacturers (pharmaceutical companies) became explicit clients of the agency. (See Sec. 903 Food and Drug Administration.)  

Drug companies have deep pockets, but federal and state governments and those acting in a fiduciary capacity should be liable for harms caused by drugs that persons are forced or coerced to accept. In spite of the trickling reports of adverse consequences associated with psychotropics, there is clearly a missionary zeal to embrace the belief that these drugs are safe and that research methodologies and reports are unbiased. It’s much more palatable to believe that emotional “disease” and/or homelessness is the product of a “broken brain,” chemical imbalance, or genetic propensity, than to actually reflect upon the myriad causes of dis"ease"and the risks associated with this “treatment.”  

We are all on notice. While we can argue in good faith and conscience about the causes of suffering and human behavior, we should not permit willful blindness to allow us to force harmful treatments on others. We must ensure that all persons have the right to fully informed consent and that others, even those who claim to be using the latest scientific methods, do not determine the amount of risk that is acceptable to another. 

Kathie Zatkin is a Berkeley resident.