FDA ALERT [6/16/2008]: FDA is notifying healthcare professionals that both conventional and atypical antipsychotics are associated with an increased risk of mortality in elderly patients treated for dementia-related psychosis.

In April 2005, FDA notified healthcare professionals that patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with atypical antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death. Since issuing that notification, FDA has reviewed additional information that indicates the risk is also associated with conventional antipsychotics.

Antipsychotics are not indicated for the treatment of dementia-related psychosis.

This information reflects FDA’s current analysis of data available to FDA concerning these drugs. FDA intends to update this sheet when additional information or analyses become available.

To report any serious adverse events associated with the use of this drug, please contact the FDA MedWatch program using the contact information at the bottom of this sheet.

FDA is requiring the manufacturers of conventional antipsychotic drugs to add a Boxed Warning and Warning to the drugs’ prescribing information about the risk of mortality in elderly patients treated for dementia-related psychosis similar to the Boxed Warning and Warning added to the prescribing information of the atypical antipsychotic drugs in 2005.* See the last page of this document for a list of conventional and atypical antipsychotic drugs.

Considerations for Healthcare Professionals

Elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with conventional or atypical antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death.

Antipsychotic drugs are not approved for the treatment of dementia-related psychosis. Furthermore, there is no approved drug for the treatment of dementia-related psychosis. Healthcare professionals should consider other management options.

Physicians who prescribe antipsychotics to elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis should discuss this risk of increased mortality with their patients, patients’ families, and caregivers.

Background Information and Data

Previously, in April 2005, FDA informed healthcare professionals and the public about the increased risk of mortality in elderly patients receiving atypical antipsychotic drugs to treat dementia-related psychosis (April 2005 Public Health Advisory and Information for Healthcare Professionals). At that time, the analyses of 17 placebo-controlled trials that enrolled 5377 elderly patients with dementia-related behavioral disorders revealed a risk of death in the drug-treated patients of between 1.6 to 1.7 times that seen in placebo-treated patients. Although the causes of death were varied, most of the deaths appeared to be either cardiovascular (e.g., heart failure, sudden death) or infectious (e.g. pneumonia) in nature. Based on this analysis, FDA requested that the manufacturers of atypical antipsychotic drugs include information about this risk in a Boxed Warning and the Warnings section of the drugs’ prescribing information.

Recently, two observational epidemiological studies1,2 were published that examined the risk of death in patients who were treated with conventional antipsychotic drugs.

Gill et al.1 performed a retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada of 27,259 adults, 66 years of age or older, with a diagnosis of dementia between April 1997 and March 2002. The investigators compared the risk for death with use of an atypical antipsychotic versus no antipsychotic and the risk for death with use of a conventional antipsychotic versus an atypical antipsychotic. They found that atypical antipsychotics were associated with increased mortality as compared to no antipsychotic use as early as 30 days and persisting until study end at 180 days. The investigators found that conventional antipsychotic use showed a marginally higher risk of death compared with atypical antipsychotic use. The causes of death were not reported in this study.

Schneeweiss et al.2 performed a retrospective cohort study in British Columbia, Canada of 37,241 adults, 65 years of age or older, who were prescribed conventional (12,882) or atypical (24,359) antipsychotic medications for any reason between January 1996 and December 2004. The investigators compared the 180-day all cause mortality with use of a conventional antipsychotic versus an atypical antipsychotic. They found that the risk of death in the group of patients treated with conventional antipsychotic medications was comparable to, or possibly greater than, the risk of death in the group of patients treated with atypical antipsychotic medications. The causes of death with the highest relative risk were cancer and cardiac disease.

FDA considers that the methodological limitations in these two studies preclude any conclusion that conventional antipsychotics have a greater risk of death with use than atypical antipsychotics. FDA has determined, however, that the overall weight of evidence, including these studies, indicates that the conventional antipsychotics share the increased risk of death in elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis that has been observed for the atypical antipsychotics. The prescribing information for all antipsychotic drugs will now include the same information about this risk in a Boxed Warning and the Warnings section.

*FDA is requiring the manufacturers to make these changes to the prescribing information for these drugs under its new authority to require safety label changes provided in Title IX of the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 (creating new section 505(o)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act).

References

1. Gill SS et al. Antipsychotic drug use and mortality in older adults with dementia. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146:775-786

2. Schneeweiss S et al. Risk of death associated with the use of conventional versus atypical antipsychotic drugs among elderly patients. CMAJ. 2007;176:627-632.

Conventional Antipsychotic Drugs Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs

Compazine (prochlorperazine) Abilify (aripiprazole)

Haldol (haloperidol) Clozaril (clozapine)

Loxitane (loxapine) FazaClo (clozapine)

Mellaril (thioridazine) Geodon (ziprasidone)

Moban (molindone) Invega (paliperidone)

Navane (thiothixene) Risperdal (risperidone)

Orap (pimozide) Seroquel (quetiapine)

Prolixin (fluphenazine) Zyprexa (olanzapine)

Stelazine (trifluoperazine) Symbyax (olanzapine and fluoxetine)

Thorazine (chlorpromazine)

Trilafon (perphenazine)

Source: http://www.fda.gov

DRUG USAGE STATISTICS

Thomas Moore, author of Prescriptions for Disaster said that the current use of drugs like Ritalin is

taking “appalling risks” with a generation of kids. The drug is given, he said, for “short-term control

of behavior—not to reduce any identifiable hazard to [children’s] health. Such large-scale chemical

control of human behavior has not been previously undertaken in our society outside of nursing homes and mental institutions.”1

More than 8.5 million American children are prescribed powerful stimulants, antidepressants and other psychotropic drugs for so-called educational and behavioral problems. – 6 million are prescribed amphetamine-like stimulants or others, such as Ritalin, Adderall and Dexedrine.

- Between 1.5 and 2 million are prescribed antidepressants such as Paxil, Prozac, Celexa, Effexor, Serzone, Remeron, Zoloft, Luvox, and Wellbutrin.

- 500,000 children are prescribed antipsychotic drugs (also called neuroleptics, meaning “nerve seizing” or major tranquilizers).

- Unknown numbers of children are prescribed other psychiatric drugs, including minor tranquilizers such as Xanax, Valium and Ativan.

• A survey by the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, released on April 21, 2005, found 10% of

teens abuse the stimulants Ritalin and Adderall.2

• Children 5 years old and younger are the fastest-growing segment of the non-adult population

using antidepressants today.3

• Between 1995 and 1999, the use of antidepressants increased 580% in the under 6 population and

151% in the 7-12 age group.4

• In 2002, roughly 11 million antidepressant prescriptions were dispensed, largely to boys under the

age of 12 diagnosed with “conduct disorders.”5

• Since 1987, when Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) was added to the American

Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSMIV)

there has been a 900% increase in the number of children “diagnosed” with ADHD and a

665% percent increase in the production of cocaine-like stimulants for children.6

There are financial incentives behind so many children being drugged.

• In 2004, sales of the latest antidepressants reached more than $14 billion in the U.S. Nearly 11

million prescriptions were dispensed in 2002 for new antidepressants to 1- to 17-year-olds in the

U.S.7

• Sales of stimulants in the U.S. alone for children have reached more than $1.3 billion dollars a

year.8

• Between 1997 and 2001, prescriptions for the stimulant Adderall increased 1,017% since and

within a year of becoming available, Concerta captured 11% of the market.9

• Between 1991 and 2003, antipsychotic drug sales in the U.S. increased by 1,500%, from less than

$500 million to more than $8 billion. International sales reached more than $12 billion in 2002. 10

• In some U.S. communities, 20% of children are taking stimulants, according to the Drug

Enforcement Administration (DEA) pharmacologist Gretchen Feussner. “That should be a wakeup

call that something isn’t right,” Feussner said.11

THE TRUTH ABOUT “CHEMICAL IMBALANCES”

The APA’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) is a source of scientific

ridicule among medical professionals. Psychologist Tana Dineen, author of Manufacturing Victims,

said, “Unlike medical diagnoses that convey a probable cause, appropriate treatment and likely

prognosis [course of a disease], the disorders listed in DSM-IV are terms arrived at through peer

consensus”—a vote by APA committee members—and designed largely for billing purposes.12

In 2001, Simon Wessley, professor of psychiatry at King’s College and the Maudsley Hospitals, South

London, organized a poll and vote by 150 mental health specialists from around the globe on the 10

worst psychiatric publications in psychiatry’s history. Among the top 10 was the fourth edition of

DSM. The poll determined, “If you are not in the DSM-IV, you are not ill. It has become a monster,

out of control.”13

Psychiatry: The Pseudoscience

Because its diagnostic methods are based on opinion rather than scientific fact, psychiatry is a

pseudoscience. The late Dr. Sydney Walker, III, a neurologist, psychiatrist and author of A Dose of

Sanity, wrote, “Psychiatry has replaced the science of diagnosis with the pseudoscience of labeling.”14

Dr. Thomas Szasz, Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus of the State University Medical University in

Syracuse, New York, states, “Since psychiatry is a pseudoscience, it is not surprising that psychiatrists

are especially eager to be accepted as scientific experts. Since they obviously cannot bring this about

by discovering the causes and cures of mental diseases which-tragically for psychiatrists no less than

for patients—do not exist, they have to do it by producing great quantities of gibberish. That is indeed

the most constant and most frequent thing psychiatrists do, in speech as well as in print.”15

With a significant departure from medical diagnosis, psychiatric diagnoses are devoted to

categorization of symptoms only, not the observation of actual physical disease. None of the diagnoses

are supported by scientific evidence of biological disease or mental illness of any kind.

The cornerstone of psychiatry’s disease model today is the theory that a brain-based, chemical

imbalance causes mental illness. Popularized by marketing, the notion is no more than psychiatric

wishful thinking. It has been thoroughly discredited by researchers, psychiatrists, psychologists and

medical doctors.

• Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, Clinical Instructor in Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and author of

Prozac Backlash, states: “We do not have proof either of the cause or the physiology for any

psychiatric diagnosis….In the absence of any verifiable diseases, in recent decades,

psychopharmacology has not hesitated to construct ‘disease models’ for psychiatric diagnoses.”

• He warns: “Patients are often explicitly told they have such a disease, usually to justify treating

them with medication. But when one looks closely, all the disease models are built on three

pseudoscientific cornerstones: superficial checklist diagnoses, putative [supposed, reputed]

‘biochemical imbalances,’ and alleged genetic determinism [genes].”

• Psychiatrist David Kaiser points out that “…modern psychiatry has yet to convincingly prove the

genetic/biologic cause of any single mental illness.…Patients [have] been diagnosed with

‘chemical imbalances’ despite the fact that no test exists to support such a claim, and…there is no

real conception of what a correct chemical balance would look like.”16

• Bruce Levine, Ph.D., psychologist and author of Commonsense Rebellion said: “Remember that

no biochemical, neurological, or genetic markers have been found for attention deficit disorder,

oppositional defiant disorder, depression, schizophrenia, anxiety, compulsive alcohol and drug

abuse, overeating, gambling, or any other so-called mental illness, disease, or disorder.”17

• Elliot Valenstein, Ph.D., author of Blaming the Brain, is unequivocal: “[T]here are no tests

available for assessing the chemical status of a living person’s brain.”18

• “In recent decades,” Dr. Glenmullen adds, “we have had no shortage of alleged biochemical

imbalances for psychiatric conditions. Diligent [hardworking] though these attempts have been,

not one has been proven. Quite the contrary. In every instance where such an imbalance was

thought to have been found, it was later proven false.” 19

• In 1998, the National Institutes of Health held an experts’ “Consensus Conference on the

Diagnosis and Treatment of ADHD” that concluded, “We don’t have an independent, valid test for

ADHD; there are no data to indicate that ADHD is due to a brain malfunction…and finally, after

years of clinical research and experience with ADHD, our knowledge about the cause or causes of

ADHD remains speculative.”20

Brain Scans Cannot Detect “Mental Illness”

While media and the general public have been fed “breakthrough” news that neuroimaging (brain

scans) appear to have identified mental illness, Dr. Thomas Szasz, Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus of

the State University Medical University in Syracuse, New York, says that psychiatry’s claim that

mental illnesses are brain diseases is “a claim supposedly based on recent discoveries in neuroscience, made possible by [brain] imaging techniques for diagnosis and pharmacological agents for treatment. This is not true.”

• A study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in

September, 2001, noted that although gross differences in size or symmetry [arrangement of parts]

of brain structures can be quantified with neuroimaging, individual cells and cell layers cannot yet

be visualized. This means that, although the volume and shape of brain structures may be

determined, the underlying cause of any differences cannot.21

• An article published in the The Mercury News, in May 2004, stated, “Many doctors warn about

using [brain] imaging as a diagnostic tool, saying it is unethical—and potentially dangerous—for

doctors to use [it] to identify emotional, behavioral and psychiatric problems in a patient. The

$2,500 evaluation offers no useful or accurate information, they say.”22

• M. Douglas Mar, psychiatrist, says: “There is no scientific basis for these claims [of using brain

scans for psychiatric diagnosis].”23

• “An accurate diagnosis based on a scan is simply not possible,” stated Dr. Michael D. Devous,

Nuclear Medicine Center at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.24

Further, when brain scans do indicate any changes, it is most likely drug-induced.

In 2003, Jonathan Leo, Professor of Anatomy at the Western University of Health Sciences and

Professor David Cohen of the School of Social Work at Florida International University, reviewed 33

of the most recent brain-imaging studies of ADHD-diagnosed subjects. They confirmed that every

study concerned medicated kids, a major variable because stimulant drugs “cause very persistent

changes in the brain.” They also reviewed a widely touted 2001 National Institute of Mental Health

(NIMH) study that included unmedicated subjects and had claimed that unmedicated ADHD children

had significantly smaller brains (and this somehow supports that ADHD exists and is a neurobiological

disorder). However, the comparison group was two years older, so naturally the younger children had smaller brains.25

Dr. Valenstein also says: “It is well established that the drugs used to treat a mental disorder, for

example, may induce long-lasting biochemical and even structural changes [including in the brain],

which in the past were claimed to be the cause of the disorder, but may actually be an effect of the

treatment.” 26 Further, “It is now difficult to find mental patients who have not had a history of drug

treatment, and as a result many of the brain abnormalities found in these patients are probably

iatrogenic [doctor/treatment caused], that is, produced by the treatment rather than being the cause of the disorder.”27 [Emphasis added]

DRUG EFFECTS

Dr. Mary Ann Block, author of No More ADHD, points out: “The psychiatrist does not do any testing.

The psychiatrist listens to the history and then prescribes a drug.”28 And these drugs are poisons.

Quite apart from their physically damaging effects, stimulants prescribed to children do not do what

they are promoted to. For example, parents are told children will focus more while taking a stimulant

and this will improve their educational outcomes. However, studies show children who take stimulants do not perform better academically. Evidence presented to a National Institutes of Health conference on ADHD in 1998 said that children who take these drugs fail just as many courses, and drop out of school just as often as children who do not take them.29 This confirms a 1978 review of 17 studies of stimulant drugs that concluded “stimulant drugs have little, if any, impact on…long-term academic improvement….” Their major effect seemed to be an “improvement in classroom manageability.”30

Psychiatrists substitute the word “medication” for drug to ease the minds of parents and teachers,

conjuring up images of some benign cough syrup prescribed by a kindly family doctor. However,

psychiatric medications are all mind-altering drugs, many are addictive, and all have been abused.

The following is information about the more common drugs prescribed to children.

Stimulants

The stimulants most prescribed for ADHD and other so-called learning disabilities include Ritalin,

Adderall, Concerta, Metadate, Focalin and Cylert. As stimulants or amphetamine-likei drugs, they are

categorized by the DEA as Schedule II drugs in the same class as morphine, opium and cocaine. 31

The abuse of these stimulants in the United States is so great that in 1995, the United Nations’

International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) asked governments to “exercise vigilance with regard to

trade in and dispensing of the substance [stimulant prescribed for ADHD] in order to prevent any

attempts to divert it into illicit traffic.”32

The same year the DEA said Ritalin could lead to addiction and that “psychotic episodes, violent

behavior and bizarre mannerisms had been reported” with its use.33

In 2000, ADHD drug manufacturers began “direct to consumer” advertising of these drugs in leading

women’s magazines and on television, breaking a 30 year United Nations Treaty that banned the

promotion of such drugs because of their high abuse potential.34

• The side effects of Ritalin include nervousness, insomnia, hypersensitivity, anorexia, blood

pressure and pulse changes, abdominal pain, weight loss and toxic psychosis. Suicide is a risk

during withdrawal.35 Ritalin and other stimulants potentially can also cause symptoms ranging

from thought disorder to cardiac arrhythmia (irregular heart beat), and can stunt a child’s growth.36

i Ritalin is amphetamine-like as it is very similar in chemical structure to amphetamine and its effects

on the body. An amphetamine’s chemical structure closely resembles natural stimulants in the body,

like adrenaline. It can reduce appetite and fatigue and “speed” you up. A drug of abuse, it is known as “speed,” “crystal meth” and “crank” and can cause addiction, serious bodily reactions and withdrawals. A stimulant refers to any mind-altering chemical or substance that affects the central nervous system by speeding up the body’s functions, including the heart and breathing rates. Common stimulants include cocaine, amphetamines, Ritalin, caffeine, and nicotine.

• Between 1990 and 2000, 186 deaths were linked to Ritalin. The risk is highest for abusers who

snort large amounts of the drug.37

• Dr. Walker reported in his book, The Hyperactivity Hoax, “While studies indicate that the drug is

probably only a weak carcinogen [cancer-causing agent], increasing the future risk of millions of

children—even a little bit—is not something to be done lightly.” He cited another report that

warned Ritalin “may have persistent, cumulative effects on the myocardium (the thick muscle

layer that forms most of the heart wall).”38

In 2005, Texas researchers warned that human studies linked Ritalin to a higher risk of cancer. The

study revealed that after only three months, one of a dozen children treated with Ritalin had a threefold increase in chromosome abnormalities associated with increased risks of cancer. All 12 children showed chromosomal “breaks” that are similarly associated. “This should raise a red flag,” Marvin Legator, an environmental toxicologist and principal investigator in the study, said. 39

Causing Drug Abuse

According to the DEA, the street abuse of Ritalin has become a major problem. The drug now sells for

$5 to $10 a pill on the black market. Known also as “Vitamin R,” “R-ball” and the “poor man’s

cocaine,” it is also abused by grinding up the drug and snorting or injecting it.40

• Stimulants, as Schedule II narcotics, can also lead to future drug abuse and addiction. In an

analysis of a community based group of adults born in the 1960s, the DEA concluded:

“Preliminary data indicated the medicated ADHD group had a higher lifetime frequency of

cocaine use and a higher percentage that used cocaine more than 40 times…this preliminary data

suggest that stimulant treatment of ADHD in childhood may be a risk factor for cocaine abuse in

adults.”41

• A 1998 study of Californian adolescents diagnosed with “ADHD” found that, as adults, those

treated with the stimulant were three times more likely to use cocaine.42

• The Journal of Forensic Science reported in 1999 that there is increasing evidence that Ritalin is

being diverted to illicit use by snorting or injection, with some fatalities, at least one from

intranasal use.43

• In 2000, the DEA said studies show neither animals or humans can differentiate between cocaine

and Ritalin—“They produce effects that are nearly identical.”44 In 2001, officials said ADHD

drugs were among the most stolen and most abused prescriptions, particularly by children who

share or sell their own pills. “This is not something that is driven by the Mafia. It’s the kind of

casual distribution that goes on in high schools where kids pass it around,” said Gene R. Haislip,

former head of DEA’s drug diversion unit.45

• The same year The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry reported

that psychostimulants have an abuse potential: “Very high doses of psychostimulants…may cause

central nervous system damage, cardiovascular damage, and hypertension. In addition, high doses

have been associated with compulsive behaviors, and in certain vulnerable individuals, movement

disorders.” A percentage of children and adults treated at high doses can also have

“hallucinogenic responses.”46

• In August 2001, The Journal of the American Medical Association reported that Ritalin is

chemically similar to cocaine. Injected as a liquid, it sends a jolt that “addicts like very much,”

said Nora Volkow, M.D., psychiatrist from Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York.

The study also admitted that although psychiatrists have used this drug to treat ADHD for 40

years, they and pharmacologists have never known how or why it worked.47

• Dr. Richard Nakamura, acting director of the National Institute of Mental Health testified before

the U.S. Government Reform Committee hearing into ADHD in September 2002. Under

questioning by Committee Chairman, Congressman Dan Burton, Dr. Nakamura said, “The

stimulant properties of both [Ritalin and cocaine] derive from similar chemical properties.” When

asked whether a person grinding up Ritalin and making it into a powder form to snort, would

experience the same effect on the brain as snorting cocaine, Dr. Nakamura answered: “It would

probably not do as much for them. However, yes, they would get a high from ground up

methylphenidate [Ritalin].” He also said that addiction can occur if Ritalin is snorted.48

COMMON PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS

Stimulants

The Physicians’ Desk Reference lists the side effects of all stimulants. They are Schedule II controlled

substances, so categorized because of their enormous abuse potential.

• Adderall: This can cause mood swings, depression, weight loss, heart palpitations or irregular

heartbeat, involuntary muscle tics or movements, psychosis and restlessness. Adderall is an

amphetamine and potentially habit forming. A doctor should be contacted if a child experiences

vomiting, stomach pain, fever, unusual weakness or tiredness, severe headaches or mental/mood

changes. There is also a warning to contact a doctor immediately in the event of unusually fast

heartbeat, blurred vision, uncontrolled muscle movements (e.g., tics, tremors) or chest pain.49

Adderall, which now comprises 32% of the stimulant market for children, has also been

linked to violence when in 2000 a North Dakota judge acquitted 26-year-old Ray Ehlis of

murdering his 5-week-old daughter after two independent psychiatrists testified he was

suffering a severe psychosis induced by Adderall.50

• Concerta: Approved in 2000, this drug is chemically the same as Ritalin and can cause the same

side effects, such as nervousness, weight loss, stunted growth, heart palpitations, insomnia, tics,

psychosis, liver problems, hallucinations and depression. Withdrawal effects can include suicidal

thoughts.

• Cylert: Also known as pemoline, this is chemically different in structure to amphetamines and

Ritalin but is similar to them in its effects on the body. Side effects include hallucinations,

increased irritability, involuntary movements of the face, eyes, lips, tongue, arms and legs, liver

problems, loss of appetite, mild depression, seizures, tics and uncontrolled muscle spasms. There

have been reports of death related to liver problems in people taking Cylert. Britain and Canada

removed the drug from the market, but the FDA to date has allowed it to remain, despite its own

analysis that found Cylert increased the risk of liver failure almost 17 times. A 2002 agency

report found that stiffer label warnings had failed to prompt doctors to increase testing of patient’s

livers.51

In 1999, the Ontario Medical Association Committee on Drugs and Pharmacotherapy reported that

sales of Cylert were to be suspended in Canada, after a risk benefit assessment had been conducted

by Health Canada on the use of Cylert posing serious liver complications, including liver failure

resulting in death or liver transplantation. The findings said that the risks far outweighed the

benefits of continued use.52 Prescriptions of Cylert in Canada are now severely restricted and are

only available through Health Canada’s Special Access Program, which requires specific written

requests for the drug to be used.

• Dexedrine: This drug is chemically similar to Adderall and can cause the same side effects:

mood swings, depression, weight loss, heart palpitations or irregular heartbeat, involuntary muscle

tics or movements, psychosis and restlessness.

• Focalin: FDA approved in 2001, the same company that makes Ritalin manufactures Focalin. It

is a Schedule II controlled substance. 53 Adverse effects include decreased appetite, headache, dry

mouth, insomnia, irritability, stomachache, and weight loss.54

• Metadate: Approved by the FDA in August 2001, Metadate is a once a day [“extended release”]

version of Ritalin. In 2002, the FDA also approved Metadate to include the option of sprinkling it

onto a small amount of applesauce, making it the first once-daily methylphenidate product to

receive sprinkle administration approval.55 Side effects include headache, loss of appetite,

abdominal pain, insomnia, ticks, “zombie” demeanor, and moodiness.56

• Ritalin: Taken approximately every four hours, the side effects include nervousness, weight loss,

stunted growth, heart palpitations, insomnia, tics, psychosis, liver problems, hallucinations and

depression. The Physicians’ Desk Reference (PDR) warns, “frank psychotic episodes can occur”

with abuse. Suicide is the major complication of withdrawal from Ritalin and similar drugs.57 In

2002, researchers at the University of Buffalo conducted studies that showed Ritalin might cause

long-term changes in the brain. Conducted on rats, the study revealed the changes to the brain are

similar to those seen with cocaine.58

• Strattera (non-stimulant): The drug, which was approved in 2002, was found to potentially

cause severe liver problems. In December 2004, a new warning was added to Strattera packaging

showing that the drug should be discontinued in patients who develop jaundice [unhealthy

condition that causes yellowness of the skin, eyes and body fluids] or liver injury. The FDA

noted, “The labeling warns that severe liver damage may progress to liver failure resulting in death

or the need for a liver transplant in a small percentage of patients.”59 Signs of the possible liver

problems include jaundice, dark urine, unexplained flulike symptoms, upper right-side abdominal

tenderness and a form of itchy skin known as pruritus [caused by irritation of the sensory nerve

endings].60 Other common side effects are headache, abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting,

anorexia [eating “disorder”] and weight loss, nervousness, somnolence [drowsiness].61

• Wellbutrin: Also known as bupropion, this is an antidepressant (also prescribed for depression),

one of the non-stimulant drugs prescribed to the 20% who apparently don’t respond “properly” to

stimulants. Fatal heart attacks in those with a history of heart-rhythm disturbances have occurred.

62 It can cause seizures and at rates of four times that of other antidepressants.63 Other side effects

include agitation, insomnia, increased restlessness, anxiety, delusions, hallucinations, psychotic

episodes, confusion, weight loss, and paranoia.64 Teens have abused the drug by crushing and

snorting it, causing seizures.65

Antidepressants

The new generation of antidepressants [Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Luvox, etc.] was falsely promoted as a

dramatic new type of mood-altering drug, “a designer medical bullet targeting serotonin [a hormone

that transmits nerve impulses],” says Harvard University Dr. Glenmullen.66 “While the alleged

‘selectivity’ of the drugs makes good marketing copy,” he says, “implying that they target a depression center in the brain, no such center is known to exist.”67 Dr. Andrew Nierenburg, director of the depression research program at the Massachusetts General Hospital and a professor at Harvard, says, “The dark side of all this is that we have many elegant models but the reality is that [when it comes to] the exact mechanisms by which these things work, we don’t have a clue.”68

• In 2002, 14 years after Prozac came on the market, studies showed that up to 65% of the millions

who had taken these antidepressants had not been helped. People experienced emotional

numbing, restlessness, and memory lapses.69 Sexual dysfunction affected 60% of patients taking

these antidepressants.70

• In Britain in 2003, the medicine regulatory agency told doctors not to prescribe the drugs for this

reason.71 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Public Health Advisory of March 22,

2004, stated, “Anxiety, agitation, panic attacks, insomnia, irritability, hostility, impulsivity,

akathisia [severe restlessness], hypomania [abnormal excitement, mild mania] and mania

[psychosis characterized by exalted feelings, delusions of grandeur and overproduction of ideas],

have been reported in adult and pediatric patients being treated with [Paxil-like]

antidepressants…both psychiatric and non-psychiatric.”72 Bizarre dreams and violent behavior

have also been reported.73

• The FDA also said these antidepressants have the potential to cause suicidal behavior. In Britain

in 2003, the medicine regulatory agency told doctors not to prescribe the drugs for this reason.74

• On 20 August 2004, the FDA announced that a Columbia University review of the pediatric

[child] clinical trials of Zoloft, Celexa, Effexor, Wellbutrin, Paxil and Prozac, found that young

people who took the antidepressants were more likely than those taking a placebo [sugar or fake

pills] to experience suicidal thoughts or actions.75

• An FDA official, Dr. Andrew D. Mosholder, found that most antidepressants are too dangerous

for children because of a suicide risk. He reviewed 22 studies, which showed that children were

nearly twice as likely to become suicidal as those given placebos.76

• On 15 October 2004, the FDA ordered pharmaceutical companies to add a “black box” warning to

antidepressants, saying the drugs could cause suicidal thoughts and actions in some children and

teenagers. The agency also directed the manufacturers to print and distribute medication guides

with every antidepressant prescription and to inform patients of the risks.77

• On December 9, 2004, ABC’s Prime Time Live exposed that at least 100 children in the United

States had committed suicide while taking these types of antidepressants and many others had

attempted it.78 The precise numbers are unknown.

• According to a report in 2005, the manufacturer of Prozac has settled at least 30 Prozac lawsuits

since 1990 for at least $50 million. It also agreed to pay $2.3 million in cash in 2000 to settle a

class-action lawsuit by California drug consumers.79

Violence and Antidepressants

• In November 2002, FOX National News reported that teenagers either taking antidepressants or

stimulants or experiencing the withdrawal effects of them committed 7 out of 12 school shootings

in the United States. One of these was Eric Harris, one of the teenagers responsible for the

Columbine school shooting in 1999. He had been taking Luvox, which lists mania as a side effect.

[The possible drug use by the remaining five school shooters is unknown as their medical records

are sealed.]

• The Physicians’ Desk Reference reports that during clinical trials of Luvox manic reactions

developed in 4% of children. Mania is defined as “a form of psychosis characterized by exalted

feelings, delusions of grandeur and overproduction of ideas.” Applying that figure to the number

of children on these types of antidepressants, that’s about 80,000 time bombs waiting to go off.

• Dr. Glenmullen says antidepressants could explain the rash of school shootings and mass-suicides

over the last decade. People who take antidepressants, he said, could “become very

distraught….They feel like jumping out of their skin. The irritability and impulsivity can make

people suicidal or homicidal.”80

• Dr. David Healy, director of the North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine stated:

“What is very, very clear is that people do become hostile on the drugs.”81

Withdrawal Symptoms

• Withdrawal symptoms associated with SSRIs include deeper depression, which is why a person

needs to gradually stop taking them under a physician’s supervision.82

• Internal pharmaceutical company documents from 1997 show that in some studies, the number of

people taking Paxil who experienced withdrawal symptoms was shockingly high—up to 62%.

Documents directed sales reps to minimize concerns about discontinuation and avoid using the

word “withdrawal.” Forced to testify before Congress in October 2004, manufacturer

representatives admitted their own studies showed as many as 21% of people taking Paxil

experience withdrawal symptoms. Yet the drug packaging only reports a risk of 2%.83

Antipsychotics (Major Tranquilizers)

Approximately 500,000 American children are prescribed powerful antipsychotic drugs, also called

neuroleptics [meaning nerve seizing], for so-called “schizophrenic” behavior or conduct “disorders.”

The older neuroleptics—first introduced in the 1950s—are more commonly known as Thorazine and

Haldol. The current ones are Risperdal, Clozaril, Zyprexa, and an even newer one called Abilify.

Psychiatrists learned very early on that neuroleptics cause Parkinsonian [nervous system damage

resulting in tremor and weakness in muscles] and encephalitis lethargica [brain inflammation]

symptoms.84

• The drugs damage the extrapyramidal system (EPS)—the extensive complex network of nerve

fibers that moderate motor control—resulting in muscle rigidity, spasms, and various involuntary

movements.85

• The drug-induced side effect, Tardive dyskinesia [Tardive, meaning “late” and dyskinesia

meaning, “abnormal movement of muscles”], is a permanent impairment of the power of

voluntary movement of the lips, tongue, jaw, fingers, toes, and other body parts.86 Individuals

you see walking the streets grimacing, shuffling and shaking are suffering, not from their “mental

disorder,” but from the damage induced by psychotropic drugs.

• Since the drugs’ introduction, researchers and psychiatrists have known the risk of neuroleptic

malignant syndrome, a potentially fatal toxic reaction where patients break into fevers and become

confused, agitated and extremely rigid. An estimated 100,000 Americans have died from it.87

• The latest antipsychotic drugs were introduced when the older ones stopped making manufacturers

sufficient profits and their damaging side effects could no longer be ignored. They are sold at

significantly higher prices, in one case at 30 times the price of the older drugs.88 One new

neuroleptic costs $3,000 to $9,000 more per patient, with no benefits to symptoms, side effects or

overall quality of life. 89

• One in every 145 patients who entered the drug trials for Risperdal, Zyprexa, Seroquel, and a

fourth atypical [new] called Serdolect died, and yet those deaths were never mentioned in the

scientific literature.90

• In 2003, The New York Times effectively retracted its earlier high praise for these antipsychotics

stating, “They were billed as near wonder drugs, much safer and more effective in treating

schizophrenia than anything that had come before.” However, now “there is increasing suspicion

that they may cause serious side effects, notably diabetes, in some cases leading to death.”91

Between 1994 and 2002, 288 patients taking the new antipsychotics developed diabetes; 75 became

severely ill and 23 died.

• Some of the newer drugs may be linked to pancreatitis [inflammation of the pancreas, the gland

that breaks down protein, fats and carbohydrates]. Weight gain is a problem, with some patients

gaining up to 65 pounds.92

• Rather than fewer side effects, the newer antipsychotics have more severe ones. These include

blindness, fatal blood clots, heart arrhythmia [irregularity], heat stroke, swollen and leaking

breasts, impotence and sexual dysfunction, blood disorders, painful skin rashes, seizures, birth

defects, extreme inner-anxiety and restlessness, death from liver failure, suicide rates two to five

times more frequent than for the general “schizophrenic” population, and violence and mayhem,

especially in young patients.

• The New York Times also referred to what had been known for more than 20 years—that one of

these drugs had a record of causing a life-threatening blood disorder, and that patients required

regular blood tests to monitor this side effect, also adding to its expense.

• In June 2005, the manufacturer of Zyprexa agreed to pay $690 million to settle 8,000 claims

against the drug. The drug accounts for one-third of the company’s annual drugs sales, generating

$4.4 billion in 2004 alone.93

• Nor are physical effects the full extent of the problem. Many patients complain that the drugs are

spiritually deadening, robbing them of any sense of joy, of their willpower, and of their sense of

being. While the exact danger and side effect profiles have changed, the atypical neuroleptics still

operate as a “chemical lobotomy.”94

Abilify [brand name for the chemical aripiprazole] has been on the market since November 2002 and

has been marketed as safe and effective with less side effects than earlier neuroleptics.

• Abilify has the following side effects: Blurred vision, headache, insomnia, light-headedness,

nausea, restlessness, sleepiness, tremors, vomiting, weakness, tachycardia [heart irregularity], heart

palpitation, hemorrhage [heavy, uncontrollable bleeding], cardiac arrest, heart failure, seizures and

weight gain. Nervous system side effects include depression, nervousness, hostility, suicidal

thoughts, manic reaction, abnormal gait [manner of walking] and confusion.95 Abilify can also

cause tardive dyskinesia.96

• In September 2003, the FDA requested the makers of six atypical antipsychotic drugs, including

Abilify, add a caution to their labeling language about the potential risk of diabetes and bloodsugar

abnormalities.97 Today, the information insert on Abilify lists hyperglycemia [abnormally

high blood sugar—usually associated with diabetes], hypoglycemia [abnormally low blood sugar]

and diabetes. 98

• In April 2003, the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen conducted their own review of

information published on Abilify. They based their evaluation primarily on publicly available

FDA reviews of information submitted by the manufacturer of Abilify in gaining FDA approval for

the drug. FDA approval was based on just five trials lasting four to six weeks. According to

Public Citizen, “…nothing in these five trials can lead one to believe that aripiprazole (Abilify) is a

meaningful advancement in the treatment of schizophrenia.”99

Essentially, all antipsychotics damage the nervous system, which affects the brain and, therefore, the

communication system within the body. Studies also show that when patients stopped taking these

drugs, they improved. 100

All psychiatric drugs are dangerous. Neurologist Sydney Walker, III, wrote in A Dose of Sanity, “In

short, virtually every ‘safe’ or ‘harmless’ psychotropic drug introduced on the market was later found

to have serious or even fatal side effects.”101

DO PSYCHIATRIC DRUGS “HELP”?

Richard Hughes and Robert Brewin, authors The Tranquilizing of America, warned that although

psychotropic drugs may appear “to ‘take the edge off’ anxiety, pain, and stress, they also take the edge off life itself…these pills not only numb the pain but numb the whole mind.”102 In fact close study reveals that none of them can cure, all have side effects, some horrific, and due to their addictive and psychotropic properties, many believe that they cannot deal with life without them.

Peter Schrag and Diane Divoky, authors of The Myth of the Hyperactive Child, say that dozens of drug

experiments have been founded on the “dubious premise: that if the drug worked, or seemed to work, the subject must be suffering from the ailment for which drug was administered.”103 Because the person’s emotional state, behavior or outlook changes, there is a belief that the drugs are helping. However, a person could drink alcohol or take cocaine and may think they “feel better.” It doesn’t make it right and, in the case of psychiatric drugs, it is potentially very dangerous because the drugs mask physical conditions, which left untreated, can be catastrophic.

Because of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental for

Mental Disorders, psychiatrists have deceived millions into thinking that the best answer to life’s

many routine problems and challenges lies with the “latest and greatest” psychiatric drug.

However, Dr. Walker said that the DSM has “led to the unnecessary drugging of millions of Americans

who could be diagnosed, treated, and cured without the use of toxic and potentially lethal

medications.”104

Imagine, he says, what would happen if a physician “simply gave patients symptom-masking drugs

instead of diagnosing and treating them.” He gave the example of a patient visiting a general

practitioner with a swollen hand that is twice its normal size, feels hot and is turning an unpleasant

color. “Now suppose, the physician—instead instead of diagnosing the patient’s life-threatening

infection and treating the infection with antibiotics—simply prescribes pain-killing drugs and sends the patient home! Treating a patient’s behavioral symptoms with Prozac and Ritalin is no different.”

While the patient may be lulled into a temporary sense of wellness, whatever condition has caused the symptom is still present and often growing worse.

Professors Herb Kutchins and Stuart A. Kirk, authors of Making Us Crazy, say: “The public at large

may gain false comfort from a diagnostic psychiatric manual that encourages belief in the illusion that the harshness, brutality and pain in their lives and in their communities can be explained by a

psychiatric label and eradicated by a pill. Certainly, there are plenty of problems that we all have and a myriad [great number] of peculiar ways that we struggle…to cope with them. But could life be any

different? Far too often, the psychiatric bible [DSM] has been making us crazy—when we are just

human.”105

SUMMARY

The repercussions are telling. Hundreds of children have committed suicide while taking the latest

antidepressants. Millions more are prescribed “kiddy cocaine” [stimulants] for “disorders” that don’t

exist and put at risk of addiction and worse. Children diagnosed with “ADHD” and prescribed

stimulants can be later ineligible to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. In 1998, the military discharged

more than 3,100 recruits with psychiatric histories, pointing to a rise in “medication” and treatment of ADHD and other “behavioral disorders” as a reason for discharge.106

Parents must be better informed. Few, if any, parents faced with the school situation of their child

being labeled as “mentally” or “learning disordered” and coerced into taking psychiatric drugs, are told that there are many other factors that could be causing the child’s inattention, behavior problems or learning difficulties.

Common causes are poor reading and math skills requiring tutoring, environmental toxins, allergies,

nutritional deficiencies, and other easily detectable and treatable physical conditions. Special medical

doctors can do tests to determine if a person is experiencing an allergic reaction. Diet can also help.

In a study of 803 New York public schools and nine juvenile correction facilities, researchers increased fruits and vegetables and whole grains and decreased fats and sugars over a couple of years. No other changes were made in the schools or correctional facilities. Consequently, the academic performance of 1.1 million children rose 16% and learning disabilities fell 40%. In the juvenile correction facilities violent and non-violent antisocial behavior fell 48%.107

The Washington D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) cited 17 controlled

studies in a 1999 report that found diet adversely affects children’s behavior, sometimes

dramatically.108

Dr. Walker emphatically stated: “Physicians who skip the work of making an accurate diagnosis, and

cavalierly [casually] prescribe dangerous psychotropic drugs based solely on labels picked out of the

DSM are violating one of the most basic principles of medicine: to do no harm. And physicians who

prescribe drugs to perfectly normal, healthy patients looking for a magic pill to make them more

popular, or less sensitive to life’s ups and downs, are even more misguided: they are actually creating

brain dysfunction where none existed, and stunting their patients’ emotional growth as well.”

“A patient’s health is his or her most prized possession,” he added. “To prescribe medicines known to

cause grave risk to a patient’s health, and known to have few beneficial effects, is a perversion of the

physician’s duty and a violation of the Hippocratic Oath. To prescribe such drugs as a means of

helping patients shirk responsibility or avoid life’s tough knocks is simply unconscionable. These

practices should be strongly condemned—not actively encouraged—by the American Psychiatric

Association.”109

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. If you are concerned about a psychiatric drug that you or another is taking, seek medical attention.

No one should stop taking a psychiatric drug without the advice or assistant of a competent, nonpsychiatric

medical doctor.

2. Any diagnosis of a “mental disorder” is not based on a test or any physical means to scientifically

substantiate it. It is important to find a medical doctor that will conduct a thorough physical

examination to first determine what underlying physical condition may be causing any unwanted

behavior or emotion, including, but not limited to testing for:

• lead- or pesticide-poisoning

• thyroid conditions

• early-onset diabetes

• heart disease

• viral or bacterial infections

• malnutrition

• head injuries or tumors

• allergies

• vitamin and/or mineral deficiencies

• mercury exposure

Often a child, for example, may act up or not focus because he or she is experiencing the effects of

such undiagnosed and, therefore, untreated conditions.

3. Concurrently, parents should also ensure that the child fully understands what he or she is learning

in school to determine whether he or she should see a competent tutor who acknowledges the value of phonics and the value of defining key words. There are educational solutions for behavioral and

classroom problems.

4. Any person or any parent whose child has been falsely diagnosed as mentally disordered which

results in treatment that harms should file a complaint with the police and professional licensing bodies and have this investigated. They should seek legal advice about filing a civil suit against any offending psychiatrist and his or her hospital, associations and teaching institutions seeking compensation.

CITIZENS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR®) was co-founded in 1969 by the Church

of Scientology and Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry, Thomas Szasz, to investigate and expose

psychiatric violations of human rights and to clean up the field of mental healing. Today, it

has more than 130 chapters in 34 countries. Its board of advisors includes doctors, lawyers,

educators, artists, business professionals and civil and human rights representatives.

CCHR has inspired and contributed to many hundreds of reforms by testifying before

legislative hearings and conducting public hearings into psychiatric abuse, as well as by

working with media, law enforcement and public officials the world over.

For further information:

CCHR International

6616 Sunset Boulevard

Los Angeles, California 90028, USA

(323) 467-4242

(800) 869-2247

http://www.cchr.org

http://www.fightforkids.com

http://www.psychcrime.org

e-mail: humanrights@cchr.org

REFERENCES

1 Jeanie Russell, “The Pill That Teachers Push,” Good Housekeeping, Dec. 1997.

2 “Survey: 1 in 5 Teens Getting High on Medications, Over-Counter Drugs,” NewsItem.com, 2 June 2005.

3 Joyce Howard Price, “Antidepressant Use by Preschoolers Rising,” The Washington Times, 3 Apr. 2004.

4 Jacqueline A. Sparks, Ph.D. & Barry L. Duncan, Psy.D., “The Ethics and Science of Medicating Children,” Center for Family Services, Palm Beach County & Florida Institute for the Study of Therapeutic Change.

5 Jennifer Washburn, “Tainted to the Core: Why Conflicts of Interest are Hazardous to Your Health,” Institute for Public Affairs, In These Times, 20 June 2005.

6 Fred Baughman Jr., M.D, “Transcript: Calls for Investigation into Diagnosis of ADHD,” ABC Australia Online, 23 Mar. 2000, Internet URL: http://www.abc.net.au; “The White House on Ritalin,” New York Press, 29 Mar. – 4 Apr. 2000.

7 Department of Health and Human Services, FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, “Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee With the Pediatric Subcommittee of the Anti-Infective Drugs Advisory Committee,” Testimony of Dr. Gianna Rigoni from the Office of Drug Safety of the FDA, 2 Feb. 2004.

8 Kate Zernike and Melody Petersen, “Schools’ Backing of Behavior Drugs Comes Under Fire,” The New York Times, 19 Aug. 2001.

9 Karen Thomas, “Back to School for ADHD Drugs,” USA Today, 28 Aug. 2001.

10 “Leading Therapy Classes by Global Pharmaceutical Sales, 2003,” IMSHealth.com, 2004.

11 Op. cit., Karen Thomas.

12 Dr. Tana Dineen, Ph.D., Manufacturing Victims, Third Edition, (Robert Davies Multimedia Publishing, Montreal, 2001), p. 86.

13 “Ten Things That Drive Psychiatrists To Distraction,” The Independent, (United Kingdom), 19 Mar. 2001.

14 Sydney Walker, III, M.D., A Dose of Sanity: Mind, Medicine and Misdiagnosis, (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, 1996), p. 5.

15 Thomas S. Szasz, M.D., The Therapeutic State, Psychiatry in the Mirror of Current Events, (Prometheus Books, New York, 1984), p. 32.

16 David Kaiser, M.D., “Commentary: Against Biologic Psychiatry,” Psychiatric Times, Dec. 1996,

http://www.mhsource.com/edu/psytimes/p961242.html.

17 Bruce D. Levine, Ph.D., Commonsense Rebellion: Debunking Psychiatry, Confronting Society, (Continuum, New York, 2001), p. 277.

18 Elliot S. Valenstein, Ph.D., Blaming the Brain, (The Free Press, New York, 1998), p. 4.

19 Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., Prozac Backlash, (Simon & Schuster, NY, 2000), pp. 193, 196.

20 Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, National Institutes of Health Consensus Statement Online, 16-18 Nov. 1998.

21 “Anatomical MRI of the Developing Human Brain: What Have We Learned? Magnetic resonance imaging; Statistical Data Included. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1 Sept. 2001.

22 Lisa M. Krieger, “Some Question Value of Brain Scan; Untested Tool Belongs in Lab Only, Experts Say,” The Mercury News, 4 May 2004.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

25 Kelly Patricia O’Meara, “In ADHD Studies, Pictures May Lie,” Insight on the News, 19 Aug, 2003.

26 Elliot S. Valenstein, Ph.D., Blaming the Brain (The Free Press, New York, 1998), p. 126.

27 Ibid.

28 Dr. Mary Ann Block, No More ADHD, (Block Books, Texas, 2001), p.30.

29 “National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference: Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention- Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder,” Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, No. 2, Vol. 39, p.

182; Op. cit., Dr. Mary Ann Block, p. 53.

30 Jan Strydom, Susan du Plessis, The Myth of ADHD and Other Learning Disabilities, (Huntington House Publishers, Louisiana, 2001), p. 43.

31 “Drug Scheduling,” U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Online, Internet URL: http://www.dea.gov.

32 Report of the International Narcotics Control Board for 1995, United Nations Publication, ISSN 0257-3717.

33 “Methylphenidate (A Background Paper),” U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Oct. 1995, p.

34 Jim Rosack, “Controversy Erupts Over Ads for ADHD Drugs,” Psychiatric News, 2 Nov. 2001.

35 Physicians Desk Reference, 1998, (Medical Economics Company, New Jersey, 1998), pp. 1896-1897. 36 Ibid., p. 1897.

37 Adrainne Jeffries, “Some Teens Abuse ADD/ADHD Drugs,” The Virginian-Pilot, 29 Mar. 2004.

38 Sydney Walker, III, M.D., The Hyperactivity Hoax, (St. Martin’s Press, New York, 1998), p. 47.

39 Paul Wenske, “Small Study Links Ritalin, Cancer Risk,” The Kansas City Star, 17 Mar. 2005.

40 Kathleen Fackelmann, “Health campaign Takes Aim at Prescription Drug Abuse,” USA Today, 10 Apr., 2001; Nicole Ziegler, “Recreational Ritalin,” The Associated Press, 5 May 2000; Christine Langdon, “Tired? Pop your Pal’s Ritalin: Students Using RX Drug as Study Aid,” The New York Post, 28 May 2000; Kelly Trahan, “U. Michigan Study Finds More Adolescents Using Ritalin Recreationally,” Michigan Daily, Mar. 2001; Peter Maller, Laura Lynch-German, “Adults are Becoming Hooked on Ritalin’s Caffeine-Like Jolt,” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 12 Feb. 2001; Paul Zielbauer, New

York Times Service, International Herald Tribune, 25 Mar. 2000, p. 3.

41 DEA 1996 report, p. 29.

42 Nadine Lambert, “Stimulant Treatment as a Risk Factor for Nicotine Use and Substance Abuse,” National Institutes of Health Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, 16-18 Nov. 1998.

43 “A Drug Disaster?” Doctors for Disaster Preparedness Newsletter September 2001 Vol. XVIII, No. 5, citing Journal of Forensic Science, 1999, Vol. 44, pp. 220-221.

44 DEA Congressional Testimony, Statement by Terrance Woodworth, Deputy Director, Office of Diversion Control, before the Committee on Education and the Workforce: Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, 16 May 2000.

45 Kay Lazar, “School Daze – Kid-Drug Ads Spark Concern,” Boston Globe, 2 Sept. 2001.

46 Op. cit. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement, p. 5.

47 Brian Vastig, “Pay Attention: Ritalin Acts Much Like Cocaine,” Journal of the American Medical Association, Aug. 22/29, 2001, Vol. 286, No. 8, p. 905.

48 Dr. Richard Nakamura, Evidence Before the U.S. Government Reform Committee Hearing on the Over Medication of Hyperactive Children, 26 Sept. 2002.

49 “Adderall,” DrugStore.com, Internet URL: http://www.drugstore.com.

50 Brian Witte, “Slaying blamed on reaction to hyperactivity drug,” Associated Press Wire, 25 Oct. 1999.

51 Gardiner Harris, “Citizens’ Group Wants Hyperactivity Drug Taken Off the Market,” The New York Times, 25 Mar. 2005.

52 “Drug Report,” Quarterly Report, Ontario Medical Association Committee on Drugs and Pharmacotherapy, 1 Dec. 1999.

53 Jim Rosack, “ADHD Treatment Arsenal Increasing Rapidly,” Psychiatric News, 21 Dec. 2001.

54 “Study Suggests Focalin (TM) LA Capsules (d-MPH-ER) Are Safe and Effective for ADHD in Adults,” PR Newswire, 5 May 2004; A.D.D. Warehouse website.

55 “ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER: FDA Approves Sprinkle Administration for Once-Daily ADHD Treatment,” Pain & Central Nervous System Week, 6 May 2002. 56 ADHDHelp, Internet URL: http://www.adhdhelp.org/metadate.htm.

57 Ibid.; Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Third Edition–Revised) DSM-III-R, (American Psychiatric Association, Washington D.C., 1987) pp. 136, 175.

58 Kelly Patricia O’Meara, “Ritalin Could Cause ‘Long-Lasting Changes,’” Insight Magazine, 12 Dec. 2002.

59 “Attention Drug to Get New Warning,” Los Angeles Times, 18 Dec. 2004.

60 “Strattera to Get New Risk Label,” The Washington Post, 18 Dec. 2004.

61 “New Drugs in Pipeline,” Psychiatric News, 21 Dec. 2001.

62 Alice Park, “More Drugs To Treat Hyperactivity,” Time, 10 Sept. 2001.

63 Bupropion Wellbutrin, Prozac Truth website.

64 Ibid.

65 “Teen Suffers Seizure After Snorting Antidepressant,” HealthScoutNews Reporter, 23 Apr. 2003.

66 Joseph Glenmullen, M.D., Prozac Backlash, (Simon & Schuster, New York, 2000), p. 13.

67 Ibid., p. 203.

68 Ibid.

69 “Antidepressants Lift Clouds, But Lost ‘Miracle Drug’ Label,” The New York Times, 30 June 2002.

70 Op. cit., Joseph Glenmullen, p. 8.

71 “Worsening Depression and Suicidality in Patients Being Treated with Antidepressant Medications,” US Food and Drug Administration Public Health Advisory, 22 Mar. 2004.

72 Ibid.

73 “Adverse SSRI Reactions,” International Coalition For Drug Awareness website, Internet URL:

http://www.drugawareness.org; “Medication Profiles: Serotonin Reuptake Blocking Agents (SSRIs),” Anxieties.com website, Internet URL: http://www.anxieties.com; Karen Thomas, USA Today, 14 July 2002.

74 Op. cit., FDA Public Health Advisory, 22 Mar. 2004.

75 Anna Wilde Mathews, “FDA Will Seek to Revise Antidepressant Labels for Youth,” The Wall Street Journal, 20 Aug.

20, 2004; Gardiner Harris, “Antidepressant Study Seen to Back Expert,” The New York Times, 20 Aug. 2004.

76 Ibid.

77 Labeling Change Request Letter for Antidepressant Medications – FDA Letter, 15 Oct. 2004; “FDA orders strong ‘black box’ warnings on antidepressants used by children,” Associated Press Worldstream, 15 Oct. 2004.

78 Chris Cuomo, “DRUG DANGER COVER-UP? EVIDENCE OF SUPPRESSED INFORMATION,” Prime Time Live, ABC News, 9 Dec. 2004.

79 Jeff Swiatek, “Uncertainty was Driver in Zyprexa Deal,” IndianapolisStar.com, 11 June 2005.

80 “FDA Mulls Antidepressant Warnings,” Daily Press, 21 Mar. 2004.

81 Ibid.

82 Kevin Lamb, “Increased Fears Over Side Effects Concern Antidepressant Users, Medical Experts,” Cox News, 26 Mar. 2004.

83 Op. cit., Chris Cuomo, Prime Time Live.

84 Robert Whitaker, Mad in America: Bad Science, Bad Medicine, and the Enduring Mistreatment of the Mentally Ill, (Perseus Publishing, New York, 2002), p. 203.

85 Ibid., pp. 253-254; Ty C. Colbert, Rape of the Soul, How the Chemical Imbalance Model of Modern Psychiatry has Failed its Patients, (Kevco Publishing, California, 2001), p. 106.

86 George Crane, “Tardive Dyskinesia in Patients Treated with Major Neuroleptics: A Review of the Literature,” American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 124, Supplement, 1968, pp. 40-47.

87 Op. cit., Robert Whitaker, p. 208.

88 Ibid., p. 286.

89 “Leading Therapy Classes by Global Pharmaceutical Sales, 2003,” IMSHealth.com, 2004.

90 Op. cit., Robert Whitaker, p. 269.

91 Erica Goode, “Leading Drugs for Psychosis Come Under New Scrutiny,” The New York Times, 20 May 2003.

92 Ibid.

93 Op. cit., Jeff Swiatek, IndianapolisStar.com.

94 Robert Whitaker, “Forced medication is inhumane…,” The Boston Globe, 9 June 2002.

95 “ABILIFY Rx Only (aripiprazole) Tablets,” Package Insert, revised Mar. 2004; “GENERIC NAME: Aripiprazole

BRAND NAME: Abilify,” Internet URL: http://www.MedicineNet.com, Last Editorial Review: 9/8/04; “Aripiprazole

Brand Name: Abilify,” Internet URL: http://www.HealthyPlace.com, Last updated 3/04.

96 Ibid.

97 “FDA: Antipsychotic Drugs, Diabetes Linked,” Associated Press Online, 18 Sept. 2003.

98 Op. cit., “ABILIFY Rx Only (aripiprazole) Tablets.”

99 “The New Anti-Psychotic Drug Aripiprazole (ABILIFY),” Public Citizen’s eLetter, Apr. 2003.

100 Op. Cit., Erica Goode.

101 Op. cit., Sydney Walker, A Dose of Sanity, p. 67.

102 Richard Hughs and Robert Brewin, The Tranquilizing of America (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., New York, 1979), p. 15.

103 Schrag and Diane Divoky, The Myth of the Hyperactive Child, (Pantheon Books, New York, 1975), pp. 56-57.

104 Ibid., p. 51.

105 Herb Kutchins, Stuart A. Kirk, Making Us Crazy, (The Free Press, NY, 1997), p. 265.

106 Dave Moniz, “Thousands of Troops Let Go for Psychiatric Troubles,” The Indianapolis Star, 28 Sept. 1999.

107 Op. cit., Dr. Mary Ann Block, p. 84.

108 Raymond M. Lombardi, N.D., D.C., C.C.N., “ADHD, A Modern Malady,” Nutrition Science News, Aug. 2000.

109 Op. cit., Sydney Walker, pp. 73-74.

Source: http://h11.protectedsite.net/files/10891/drug_effects0626.pdf

Source: http://theicarusproject.net/downloads/ComingOffPsychDrugsHarmReductGuide1Edonline.pdf

Source: http://theicarusproject.net/downloads/ComingOffPsychDrugsHarmReductGuide1Edonline.pdf

Current medical theory is that most psychiatric drugs work by changing the levels of chemicals called neurotransmitters (anti-convulsants, anti-epileptics, and “mood stabilizers” like lithium appear to work by changing blood flow and electrical activity in the brain in general). Neurotransmitters are linked with mood and mental functioning, and all the cells of the nervous system, including brain cells, use neurotransmitters to communicate with each other. When neurotransmitter levels change, “receptor” cells, which receive and regulate the neurotransmitters, can grow or shrink to adjust, and become more sensitive.

SSRI anti-depressants (“selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors”) for example are said to raise the level of the neurotransmitter serotonin present in the brain and reduce the number of brain serotonin receptors. Anti-psychotic medications like Haldol lower the level of dopamine and increase the number of dopamine receptors in the brain. This action on neurotransmitters and receptors is the same as for many street drugs. Cocaine changes the levels of both serotonin and dopamine, as well as noradrenaline, and alters receptors.
While these chemical changes are taking place, your consciousness works to interpret and respond in your own way, while your body responds in its way as well. Because everyone is different, your experience of medication may not be the same as other people, and will ultimately be uniquely your own. Trust yourself.
Why do People Find Psychiatric Drugs Helpful?

Unlike their risks, the benefits of psychiatric drugs are widely and loudly promoted in the media. The helpful aspects of the drugs, however, tend to be mixed in with inaccurate claims about biological causes and distorted by sensationalistic advertising hype. The information below is an attempt to cut through the confusion and describe the basic ways that many people find psychiatric drugs helpful.
• Sleep deprivation is one of the single biggest causes of, and contributors to, emotional crisis. Short term medication use can get you to sleep.
• Short term medication can interrupt and “put the brakes on” a difficult extreme state of consciousness or an acute moment of crisis. Ongoing use can sometimes prevent episodes of mania or depression, or make them less severe. Some people report that extremes and symptoms feel less severe and more manageable on medications.
• Interrupting crisis and getting some sleep can reduce stress in your body and settle you down, which can allow you to reduce chaos in your life and take care of yourself better with food, relationships, and other basic issues. This can lay a groundwork for greater mental stability and making changes that might not have been possible otherwise.
• Medications can sometimes help you show up for and function at work, school, and in your life, which is especially useful if you cannot change these circumstances. Work may require you to get up in the morning and avoid mood swings, and relationships may need you to avoid emotional reaction or sensitivity.
• All drugs have a powerful placebo effect: just believing they work, even unconsciously, can make them work. Recovery from very serious illnesses is possible just from receiving a placebo sugar pill the patient thinks is real, or undergoing
a “placebo surgery” believed to be real. In clinical trials many psychiatric drugs have little proven effectiveness beyond that of placebo, because of the powerful mental effect at work. The mind plays a central role in any healing, and there is no way to determine whether effectiveness for an individual comes from placebo or drug effects.
• Compliance also contributes to the placebo effect: sometimes people will feel better when they find a clear official explanation of their suffering to believe in, and when they follow and get support from a doctor, family member, or other authority figure.
• Advertising, especially direct-to-consumer television advertising (allowed in the US and New Zealand), is extremely powerful and influences people’s experience to fit their hopes and expectations.

Source: http://theicarusproject.net/downloads/ComingOffPsychDrugsHarmReductGuide1Edonline.pdf

Source: http://theicarusproject.net/downloads/ComingOffPsychDrugsHarmReductGuide1Edonline.pdf

Source: http://theicarusproject.net/downloads/ComingOffPsychDrugsHarmReductGuide1Edonline.pdf

Source: http://theicarusproject.net/downloads/ComingOffPsychDrugsHarmReductGuide1Edonline.pdf

“If the body is the temple of the spirit, the brain may be seen as the inner sanctum of the body, the holiest of places. To invade, violate and injure the brain, as electroshock unfailingly does, is a crime against the
spirit and a desecration of the soul.” – Leonard Roy Frank, shock survivor, editor and writer, 1991

Electroshock appears to be increasingly prescribed as a treatment for “clinical” depression and other so-called mental disorders. Women and elderly people, particularly old women, are its chief targets–more
damning evidence of psychiatry’s sexism and ageism. In the United States during the last ten years, an estimated 100,000 people have been shocked each year. In Canada, perhaps as many as 10,000 people, again mostly women, have been electroshocked each year, but nobody knows for sure because Health and Welfare Canada and the provincial health ministries do not publish ECT statistics, some of which are available on request.

Besides, ECT statistics are notoriously inaccurate and unreliable, because collection methods differ from province to province and state to state; hospitals aren’t required to keep accurate ECT records and not all
hospitals are required to report ECT to provincial health ministries or state mental health departments.

I have discovered some recent shock statistics in Ontario which point to alarming trends:the increasing use of ECT and the targeting of women and the elderly for electroshock. Consider these statistical highlights:

1) In 1993-94, 11,360 shock treatments were administered to approximately 1,600 people in Ontario’s general, community and psychiatric hospitals – an average of seven shocks per patients. In 1994-95, 12,865 shocks were administered to over 1,500 people, a 12 per cent increase.

2) Most electroshock (over 80 per cent) in Ontario is administered in the public general hospitals, not provincial or private psychiatric hospitals.

3) Over 40 per cent of electroshock has been administered to people 60 years and older during the last five years.

4) In 1994-95, 97 elderly people, including 72 women (60 years and older), were subjected to 1,023 shocks in Ontario’s provincial psychiatric hospitals – a high average of approximately 10 shocks per patient. In
Toronto’s Queen Street Mental Health Centre, over 70 per cent of the shock patients are from its psychogeriatric unit.

5) In 1993-94, approximately 600 elderly people (60+ years) were subjected to 4,033 electroshocks in Ontario’s general and community psychiatric hospitals.

6) In the provincial psychiatric hospitals, the number and proportion of elderly people (65+ years) shocked grew from 70 (33 per cent) in 1990-91, to 82 (40 per cent) in 1993-94, to 44 per cent in 1994-95.

7) Among elderly and other ECT patients, significantly more women than men are electroshocked: two to three timnes more women than men have been electroshocked in both Canada and the United Stastes for many years.

8- During 1994-95 in the provincial psychiatric hospitals, 72 per cent of elderly shock patients (75+ years) were women, and significantly more
ECT was administered to an elderly woman than an elderly man (average 10.9 ECTs vs. 8.7 ECTs).

9) Women in their eighties and nineties have been electroshocked in general, community and provincial psychiatric hospitals in Ontario. In 1993-94, a total of 102 shocks were administered to at least 10 women of 85 years and older in general and community psychiatric hospitals. In 1994-95, at least 14 women of 80 years and older were subjected to 158 shocks in eight provincial psychiatric hospitals,an average of 11 ECTs per patient.

10) During 1994-95 in Ontario, the estimated cost of one electroshck treatment, including physicians’ fees, drugs, use of a hospital bed and nursing care, was $400. The (under) estimated total cost for all ECT that year was well over $1,000,000.

Two very common psychiatric myths state: first, that electroshock can prevent or greatly reduce the risk of suicide in people diagnosed with “clinical depression” or “bipolar affective disorder”; and second, that
electroshock is safe and effective for old and physically ill people.

The first myth was exposed at least six years ago by Dr.Donald Black and four colleagues. This study involving more than 1,000 depressed patients in Iowa found that there were no significant differences in the
suicide rate among the various groups treated with electroshock, antidepressants and no treatment. However, the higher percentage of deaths among the shock patients (85 per cent higher at two-year follow-up than the non-shock patients) clearly implicates shock as a contributing factor in their deatths (Black et al.,1989).

Regarding the second myth, Drs.David Kroessler and Barry Fogel’s longitudinal study involving sixty-five depressed patients 80 years and older found that for the ECT group, 27 per cent died within one year
following the “treatment”, but only 4 per cent of the “medicated” group died. In addition, one patient died after undergoing two ECTs. In other words, this study together with several previous ones, clearly show that
electroshock threatens people’s survival, especially if they are old and sick (Kroessler and Fogel, 1993).

Deaths related to or caused by electroshock are usually attributed to medical conditions, not reported or simply covered up in the medical-psychiatric literature. For exmple, only six or seven ECT-related
deaths in Canada have been reported in the Canadian medical-psychiatric journals during the last fifty years. No doubt a serious underestimate or cover-up. Nevertheless, respecred shock investigator and psychiatric critic, Dr. Peter Breggin, has estimated the general ECT death rate as one death for every 1,000 patients shocked, and a much higher rate of one death per 200 for elderly patients. However, in its official
shock-promoting booklet the American Psychiatric Association claims the ECt death rate from shock is !1 in 10,000″ patirents and that only “1 in 200″ patients suffer permanent memory loss (APA,1990). The Canadian
Psychiatric Association also claims there have been virtually no deaths or medical complications from electroshock in Canada, despite the fact that approximately 500 shock-related deaths and many more serious medical complications (e.g.,cardiac arrest, other serious heart problems, permanent epileptic seizures, brain damage) have been reported in the English langugage medical-literature for over 50 years since the early 1940s when electroshock was first introduced in Canada and the United States.

Together with many shock survivors and other shock critics, Peter Breggin wants electroshock banned, because psychiatrists routinely fail to warn patients about the serious risks of permanent memory loss and brain damage (a serious violation of informed consent), and because elderly, sick and frail patients are being increasingly targeted for electroshock. He explained his position in a recent phone interview with me last March:

“The escalating rate of shocking the elderly is one reason why I   have come out in recent years for a complete ban on the treatment.   The elderly are less able to defend themselves against shock
treatment, and their brains are more susceptible to devastating damage.”   (Breggin, 1996)

Leonard Roy Frank, an electroshock-insulin shock survivor living in San Francisco, shock critic, author and editor,insists that “ECB – electroconvulsive brainwashing” is a more accurate term. He agrees with
Breggin and asserts, “the studies indicate that it’s the elderly who are getting the most shock, and they’re the most vulnerable, not only physically but politically” (Frank, 1996). A 1989 report from California’s
Department of Mental Health supports Frank’s assessment; it reveals that 48 per cent of the 2,503 people shocked that year in the state were 65 years and older. Frank claims the figure is currently over 50 per cent and climbing.

Electroshocking women and elderly patients is also on the rise in England. For example, in a 1993 critique, patients’ rights advocate Alison Cobb reports that “…women are the majority of ECT patients (about 70 per
cent), half are over 65 years of age. …59 per cent of the 100 (in the study) … were aged over 65, the oldest being 92 years. Given the vulnerability of older people’s memory and cognitive abilities, this has
to be a grave cause of concern…”,(Cobb,1993).

Douglas Cameron, another outspoken shock survivor, critic and co-founder (with Diann’a Loper) of the World Association of Electroshock survivors based in Texas, is extremely critical of the alleged safety of
psychiatry’s modern shock machines, which can deliver as much as 300 to 400 volts of electricity to the brain:

“All modern day Sine Wave and Brief Pulse ECT devices are more powerful than early instruments. Modern day Brief Pulse suprathreshold devices have not proved safer than Sine Wave suprathreshold devices. Side
effects have been >convincingly identified as products of electricity. These facts warrant the elimination of all ECT machines from the marketplace” (Cameron,1994).

Since 1995, there has been growing public protest against the only shock machine in Whitehorse in The Yukon, stored in Whitehorse General Hospital. Apparently, the shock machine hasn’t zapped anybody in
Whitehorse (yet). The Second Opinion Society (SOS), the Yukon’s self-help advocacy group in Whitehorse, isn’t waiting. SOS has been organising rallies and marches against the machine.

More than fifteen years ago in Toronto’s Sunnybrook Hospital (a teaching, research and veteran’s hospital affiliated with the University of Toronto), psychiatrists Harry Karlinsky and Kenneth Shulman were
electroshocking elderly people. Most were in their 70s, some in their 80s. Karlinsky and Shulman (1984) reported having electroshocked thrity-three elderly atients (62-85 years old). At a follow-up study six months later, after having been subjected teo an average of 9 ECTs, only one-third of ther patients “were doing well”. Karlinsky and Shulman concluded that “clinically one is compelled to use ECT on an urgent or demand basis”. Compelled? In my recent phone interview with Dr.Shulman, chief psychiatrist at Sunnybrook, he said that electroshock is still administered to old people but only “from time to time, a relatively small
number.” He couldn’t say how many, but recalled the average age of his elderly shock patients is “73 or 74″. Shulman added he has “never heard” of any deths or serius medical crises from ECT at Sunnybrook or any other hospital in Canada. The ECT “mortality rate”, he added, was “similar to that for (general) anaesthesia”. He insisted that electroshock “remains an effective treatment for some debilitating and life-threatening
depressions”, and claimed the only ECT risk was “short-term memory loss”. He also asserted that electroshock is not controversial, and claimed that most patients “completely recover”. Shulman explained the use of electroshock on the elderly in these terms: “If we didn’t use ECT, these people would suffer tremendously and be at risk of dying”.

It is difficult to find any study to support the common psychiatric claim that electroshock prevents suicide or minimises the suicide risk. Further, the relapse rate from shock is over 60 per cent, which, according
to the American Psychiatric Association, still greatly minimises permanent memory loss, brain damage and death from ECT (APA,1990).

Some elderly patients have also been electroshocked at Toronto’s Clarke Institute of Psychiatry. Apparently nobody knows how many, partly because no accurate,up-to-date ECT statistics are kept at the Clarke,
according to Dr. Barry Martin, head of its ECT Unit. In a recent phone interview I had with Dr. Martin, he speculated that a total of “about 100 courses” were administered at the Clarke in 1995. Each course consists of 8-10 ECTs, at least 80-90 people were electroshocked last year. According to Dr.Martin, the main reason for shocking old people is, “severe depression that has not responded to medication” (e.g.,antidepressants).
Martin estimated the ECT death rate as “3-4 per 100,000 ECTs”, similar to that for “general anaesthesia”, and said he was “not aware” of any ECT-related deaths in Canada or anywhere else.

During a 15-month period in 1993-94, eight people died in Texas,”within two weeks of receiving electroshock”; over half were elderly patients (Smith, 1995).The Texas elderly death rate from ECT at that time was probably higher than 1 in 200.

Some very courageous shock survivors and advocacy groups are fighting back and want electroshock abolished in the United States and Canada. For example, 81-year-old Lucille Austwick successfully refused to be shocked while languishing in a Chicago nursing home a couple of years ago (Fegelman, 1995). While confined in the home, Austwick was depresseed, had stopped eating and was becoming frail, so a psychiatrist wanted to shock her. She repeatedly refused the “lifesaving:” treatment which she called
“bullshit”, and received strong legal support from the Illinois Guardianship Commission and other advocates across the United States. Last September, the Appellate Court “reversed the trial court’s ruling” which
had ordered a series of ECTs for her two years earlier.

Psychiatrists and other medical staff at St.Mary’s Hospital in Madison, Wisconsin were found to be violating the human rights of several elderly patients subjected to electroshock against their will (Oaks, 1995). Sparked by the courageous whistleblowing of psychiatric nurse Stacie Neldaughter, who was “fired after refusing to directly assist with a shock treatment”, several women shock survivors and anti-shock activists
organised a public protest outside the hospital in September 1994. In January 1995, the Wisconsin Coalition for Advocacy issued a detailed and scathing 75-page report based on its own investigations, which documented serious violations of informed consent and other rights involving at least eight elderly women patients.
In Toronto from 1983 to 1992, there have been several anti-shock protest demonstrations, particularly in front of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry and Queen Street Mental Health Centre. Non-violent civil
disobedience (“sit-ins”) were also held in the office of at least two Ontario health ministers, organised by the Ontario Coalition to Stop Electroshock (succeeded by Resistance Against Psychiatry). During a
non-violent public demonstration against electroshock in front of the Clarke in May 1988, shock survivor Jack Wild and I were charged with “trespass” and arrested while trying to hand out alternative and accurate
shock information to patients on one ward during visiting hours. We were arrested on the ward while engaged in a non-violent sit-in, fined over $50 each and lost our court appeals (Phoenix Rising, 1998).

Unfortunately, there have been no shock cases in Canada since “Mrs.T.” in 1983 (Weitz,1994). The “Mrs.T.” case involved a young, allegedly suicidal but cxompetent women who firmly and repeatedly refused
shock while being asked to consent by both her psychiatrist and a regional review board while incarcerated in Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital. Although the case lost, “Mrs.T.” was not electroshocked. The national publicity and public outcry arising over the fact that people in Canada could still be shocked against their will led to a few important amendments in Ontario’s Mental Health Act, which now prohibits electroshock or other treatment for any person who refuses. However, electroshock can still be adminsitered against the will of an “incapable” person if he or she did not instruct a substitute decision-maker otherwise while capable. (Note: The judge’s decision in a 1997 Ontario court case involving a mother’s refusal to consent to shock for her “incapable” daughter” is pending.)

In March 1994 at a public City Hall meeting before the Toronto Mayor’s Committee on Aging (TMCA), I presented some alarming ECT statistics from the Ontario government’s Ministry of Health which showed
that a disproportionately large number of people being electroshocked in Ontario’s psychiatric facilities were elderly people (over 40 per cent) and women (over 65 per cent). In one Final Report, the Committee recommend that, “the Chair of the TMCA should be asked to write to the Minister of Health to inform her of the data on ECT and the deep concern of the TMCA about the apparent misuse of this therapy.”

There is still no law banning electroshock in Ontario, Canada or the United States for elderly people or anybody else. However, some states have outlawed shock for young children. For example, Texas has banned shock for children under 16 years old, and California banned it for children under 14. There are no such age restrictions in Canada.

I believe that electroshocking old people is elder abuse. Electroshock is a crime against humanity. It should be abolished.

[acknowledgement - My sincere thanks to Lenard Roy Frank for his valuable editorial assistance.]

Don Weitz

References

American Psychiatric Association (1990). The practice of >electroconvulsive therapy. Washington: APA.

Black,D.W., Winokur,G., Mohandoss,E., Woolson,R.F. and Nasrallah,A. (1989) “Does treatment influence mortality in depressives?” Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 1(3), 165-173.

Breggin,P.R. personal communication in March 1996. Also see: Breggin, Toxic Psychiatry (St. Martin’s Press,1991), and Breggin, Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry (Springer Publishing Co,1997)

California Department of Mental Health (1989). Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) report. Sacramento,California.

Cameron,D.G. “ECT:sham statistics, the myth of convulsive therapy and the case for consumer misinformation”. Journal of Mind and Behaviour, 15(1-2),177-198.

Clark,R (1983) From an invited address during the annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association in New York, May 1983.

Cobb,A. (1993) Safe and effective? MIND’s views on psychiatric drugs, ECT and psychosurgery. London: MIND Publications.

Fegelman,A. (1995) “Forced shock therapy faces key legal test”. Chicago Tribune, May 2, 2995.

Frank,L.R. (1991). “San Francisco puts electroshock on public trial:feature report”. The Rights Tenet, Winter 1991.

Frank,L.R. (1996) Personal communication on February 28, 1996.    Karlinsky,H. and Shulman,K. (1984). “The clinical use of electroconvulsive therapy in old age”. The Journal of American Geriatric
Society, 32, 83.

Kroessler,D. and Fogel,B.S. (1993) “Electroconvulsive therapy for major depression in the oldest old”. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 1(1),30-37.

Oaks,D. (1995) :”Zap back against forced shock”. Dendron, 36,1-5.   Phoenix Rising (October 1988). “Toronto Protesters Arrested for Trying to Distribute Shock Information”, 22-23.

Smith,M. (1995) “Eight in Texas die after shock therapy in fifteen mnonth period”. The Houston Chronicle, March 7, 1a.

Weitz,D. (1984) “Shock case: a defeat and victory”. Phoenix Rising, 4,3/4,28a-30a.

Biographical note: Don Weitz is a psychiatric survivor, antipsychiatry and antipoverty activist in Toronto. He is co-founder of the former antipsychiatry magazine Phoenix Rising, former board member of Support
Coalition International (a coalition of approximately 100 survivor and human rights advocacy organizations in 14 countries), and co-founder of the Coalition Against Psychiatric Assault (CAPA). He is also host-producer of “Antipsychiatry Radio” on CKLN (88.1FM) in Toronto. This unique program airs around 6:30pm on the last Friday every month.

Source: capa.oise.utoronto.ca/electroshocking.doc