SOBRE A POLÊMICA DOS ANTIDEPRESSIVOS: Debate Radiofônico nos Estados Unidos

0

A matéria publicada no The New York Times, e aqui postada, a respeito das enormes dificuldades para deixar de ser dependente químico dos antidepressivos, tem despertado um forte debate internacional.

A grande mídia nacional, no Brasil, monopolizada, não traz para o conhecimento público a polêmica hoje existente com relação ao tratamento psicofarmacológico. As drogas psiquiátricas tratam de fato os “transtornos mentais” assim diagnosticados pela Psiquiatria e a medicina em geral? Ou o tratamento psicofarmacológico é para a maioria dos seus usuários um “flagelo”?

Em particular: os antidepressivos.

Antidepressant-cropped-1-1000x667

Por que a maioria dos que passam a fazer uso de “antidepressivos” não consegue mais ficar livre dessas drogas?   Quando seus usuários tentam parar de tomar essas drogas, os sintomas de abstinência são em geral terríveis.  Os médicos aprenderam a dizer que tais sintomas são a prova da suposta “doença mental”. Muito dificilmente reconhecem que tais sintomas são sintomas de abstinência do tratamento por eles prescrito.

Os médicos sabem prescrever antidepressivos, mas não sabem como prescrever o processo da sua interrupção.

Há inúmeras evidências científicas que mostram que o uso de antidepressivos cria dependência química, e que os sintomas do seu “desmame” são em geral intoleráveis e que oferecem sérios riscos, entre eles suicídio ou atos de violência.

Os médicos desconhecem como retirar seus pacientes das drogas que eles prescreveram. E a indústria farmacêutica não oferece seus medicamentos psiquiátricos em doses variadas o suficiente para permitir que o “desmame” seja feito de forma segura e o menos sofrida quanto o possível.

Recomendamos esse debate. Os principais debatedores: Benedict Carey, jornalista de ciência do New York Times, autor da reportagem; Dra. Eliza Menninger, psiquiatra e diretora média do Behavioral Health Partial Hospital Program, em Massachusetts;  Dr. Ronald Pies, psiquiatra, um dos mais conceituados psiquiatras do paradigma biomédico da Psiquiatria nos Estados Unidos, da University School of Medicine and Suny Upstate Medical Universit; e vários ouvintes do Programa que participam do debate.

Infelizmente está em Inglês. Essa problemática no Brasil ainda não ganhou expressão.

Vale a pena ouvir esse debate. Clique aqui →

Irving Kirsch: O Efeito Placebo e o que ele nos diz a respeito da eficácia dos Antidepressivos

0

This week we interview Dr Irving Kirsch. Dr Kirsch is Associate Director of the Program in Placebo Studies and lecturer in medicine at the Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. He is also Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Plymouth and the University of Hull in the UK and University of Connecticut in the US. He has published 10 books and more than 250 scientific journal articles and book chapters on placebo effects, antidepressant medication, hypnosis, and suggestion. He originated the concept of response expectancy. His meta-analyses on the efficacy of antidepressants were covered extensively in the international media and influenced official guidelines for the treatment of depression in the United Kingdom. His 2009 book, The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth, was shortlisted for the prestigious Mind Book of the Year award and was the topic of 60 Minutes segment on CBS and a 5-page cover story in Newsweek.

In this interview, we discuss Dr Kirsch’s research into the placebo effect and the efficacy of drugs used for depression.

In this episode we discuss:

  • How, as an undergraduate student, Dr Kirsch became interested in behavioural therapy but that he doubted the rationale behind these approaches
  • That this led to an interest in beliefs that people had and research into the placebo effect
  • How, while working at the University of Connecticut, his research into the placebo led to an interest in the efficacy of antidepressant drugs when compared to placebo
  • How his work led to the surprising conclusion that, were antidepressant drugs where concerned, the placebo effect was so large that there was very little room for a meaningful drug effect
  • How this changed Dr Kirsch’s views on antidepressant drugs entirely, causing him to ask whether the risks were worth the small benefit for depressed patients
  • That a belief that a person has can affect their response to a drug either in a positive way (placebo) or in a negative way (nocebo)
  • Dr Kirsch found that there are many conditions that can show a profound placebo effect including depression, anxiety, irritable bowel syndrome, pain, Parkinson’s disease and asthma
  • That the placebo tends to have a greater effect in conditions that have a large psychological component when compared to functional disorders such as diabetes
  • That placebo can have an effect even if the patient knows that they are taking an inactive tablet and that part of this response is down to classical conditioning
  • That Dr Kirsch is working on ‘open-label placebo’ which is being able to prescribe placebo to patients without deception
  • That Dr Kirsch used to refer depressed patients for antidepressant treatments, but that his research made him a disbeliever when looking at the evidence of efficacy when compared to placebo
  • How, when you give someone a new treatment, that often will counter feelings of hopelessness that characterise depressive experiences
  • That in looking at this size of this effect, it made clear that the difference between placebo response and antidepressant response was so small that it was not clinically significant
  • That even drugs with very different modes of action resulted in virtually identical responses in patients, for example, Tianeptine, which is an SSRE (selective serotonin reuptake enhancer) and decreases serotonin levels between neurons, this drug should make depressed people worse but instead, it showed the same efficacy as SSRI antidepressants
  • How, when looking at the clinical trials used to demonstrate antidepressant efficacy, it became clear that the obvious nature of antidepressant adverse effects meant that trial participants would often “break blind” and they would know if they were in the active drug group or the placebo group, this would naturally influence the results of the trial
  • That, in a small number of studies, an active placebo was used, which was a substance that mimicked the side effects of the active drug while having no clinical effect itself
  • That in these active placebo studies, you were much less likely to get a significant difference between drug and placebo when compared to trials that used an intern placebo
  • That the trials conducted by pharmaceutical manufacturers are designed to show their drug in the best possible light and so they do not use active placebo in their studies
  • That Dr Kirsch feels that when conducting trials for drugs used for depression, patients should be asked early on in the trial whether they think they are in the active group or the placebo group and that this question would help ensure the trials were reliable
  • How, when using the data from unpublished trials, the difference between placebo effect and drug effect was even smaller
  • How Dr Kirsch was pleased that other researchers found his conclusions controversial because it meant that they were paying attention to the study and that others who have replicated the approach have found similar results
  • That influencing clinicians to better balance risk vs benefit will take time and that we need to share the data and discuss the conclusions as much as we can to allow change to happen
  • That people do need help with depression and that there are many different interventions that are at least as effective as antidepressants but without the associated risk
  • How we can’t infer that ‘off-label’ prescribing is effective until the studies have been undertaken for a particular disorder

Relevant Links:

Dr Irving Kirsch

The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth

The Emperor’s New Drugs: Exploding the Antidepressant Myth (video)

60 Minutes: Treating Depression: Is there a placebo effect? (video)

Antidepressants and the Placebo Effect

Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration

To get in touch with us email: [email protected]

Dr. David Healy: Procurando uma Cura para a Disfunção Sexual Prolongada relacionada com a Medicação

0

This week on MIA Radio we interview Dr. David Healy. Dr. Healy is an internationally respected psychiatrist, psychopharmacologist, scientist, and author. A professor of psychiatry in Wales, David studied medicine in Dublin, and at Cambridge University. He is a former Secretary of the British Association for Psychopharmacology and has authored more than 200 peer-reviewed articles and 20 books, including The Antidepressant Era, The Creation of Psychopharmacology and his latest book, Pharmageddon, published in 2012.

David is a founder and CEO of Data Based Medicine Limited, which operates through its website RxISK.org, and is dedicated to making medicines safer through online direct patient reporting of drug side effects.

In this interview, we discuss Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD) and Dr. Healy’s novel and innovative approach to finding a cure.

A recent email to Dr. Healy starkly highlights the problem:

I took X for 16 years without any side effects. Stopped 7 months ago and all hell broke loose. Some of the side effects I got in the first week after quitting are: no libido, cold testicles/penis, pain around penis and anus, tinnitus, erectile dysfunction, tingling, numbness… 

Life is not very good these days.
 
I am married with beautiful children. They have lost their father. If I can do anything to help, don’t hesitate to get in touch. I would like to give you my biggest thanks for what you are doing and wish you all the best with the fundraising.

These videos explain PSSD and The RxISK Prize.

In the episode we discuss

  • How Dr. Healy came to set up Data Based Medicine and RxISK.org.
  • Why RxISK are focussing on Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD).
  • That genital numbness can occur very quickly upon taking an SSRI antidepressant and can also be triggered by drugs such as Roaccutane (isotretinoin) and Propecia (finasteride).
  • What led to setting up the RxISK Prize.
  • How people can get involved with the campaign.
  • That it’s often people not involved with healthcare who get motivated to take action.
  • How empowering it is to enable people harmed by pills to be part of the solution.

Relevant links

David Healy

PSSD – Professor David Healy (video)

The RxISK prize (video)

The RxISK Prize

The RxISK.org Newsletter

One hundred and twenty cases of enduring sexual dysfunction following treatment 

To get in touch with us email: [email protected]

Dr. Joanna Moncrieff: O Desafio da Nova Onda dos Antidepressivos

0

This week we interview Dr. Joanna Moncrieff. Dr. Moncrieff is a psychiatrist, academic and author. She has an interest in the history, philosophy and politics of psychiatry, and particularly in the use, misuse and misrepresentation of psychiatric drugs. As an author, Dr. Moncrieff has written extensively on psychiatric drugs and her books include The Myth of the Chemical Cure, A Straight Talking Introduction to Psychiatric Drugs and The Bitterest Pills: the troubling story of antipsychotic drugs.

She is one of the founding members of the Critical Psychiatry Network which consists of psychiatrists from around the world who are sceptical of the idea that mental disorders are simply brain diseases and of the dominance of the pharmaceutical industry.

We talk about the recent meta-analysis of the efficacy and tolerability of 21 antidepressant drugs, widely reported in the UK news media on February 22nd.

In the episode we discuss:

  • The approach taken in the largest ever meta-analysis of efficacy and tolerability of 21 common antidepressant drugs.
  • The problems inherent in comparing antidepressants with each other, as opposed to trials that compare the active drug to a placebo.
  • That the main conclusion reached was that all the antidepressants studied were better than placebo at reducing depressive symptoms.
  • The limitations of the study, particularly how response rate was selected as the primary outcome measure.
  • That ‘response’  is mostly defined as a reduction in the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (or other scale) rating of 50% or more during the study.
  • That the response rate can artificially inflate the difference between drug and placebo.
  • The problems with blinding in the supporting trials and the effects of including people who are already receiving antidepressant treatment.
  • That the study did not include adverse effects or withdrawal difficulties, only dropout rates which are not representative of the whole picture of taking the drugs.
  • The short-term nature of the supporting trials, mainly 8 weeks, with a range of 4 to 12 weeks, which cannot be easily compared with the real world experience of people taking the drugs for much longer periods.
  • That, when the primary data is analysed (the depression rating scale scores) the differences between placebo and antidepressants are very small and probably clinically insignificant.
  • The uncritical and sensational nature of the media reporting of the study and the link to the Science Media Centre.
  • The concerns about the reporting that depression is under-treated in the UK which is not supported by the results of the study.
  • That people should carefully consider the balance of benefit versus risk, taking into account the potential for adverse effects or difficulties stopping the drugs.

Relevant links:

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Challenging the New Hype About Antidepressants

The Hamilton Depression Scale

Empirically derived criteria cast doubt on the clinical significance of antidepressant-placebo differences

Efficacy of antidepressants in adults

The Science Media Centre

To get in touch with us email: [email protected]

Jim van Os: Repensando a Psiquiatria Biológica

0

This week on the Mad in America podcast we interview Professor Jim van Os.

Professor van Os is Chairman of the Department of Psychiatry and Psychology at Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands, and Visiting Professor of Psychiatric Epidemiology at King’s College, Institute of Psychiatry, London.

He trained in Psychiatry in Casablanca, Bordeaux and the Institute of Psychiatry and the Maudsley Royal Hospital in London.

In 2011, he was elected member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW); he appears on the 2014 Thomson-Reuter Web of Science list of the world’s most influential scientific minds of our time.

He is Director of Psychiatric Services at Maastricht University Medical Centre and runs a service for treatment-resistant depression and first episode psychosis.

I was keen to ask Professor van Os about his views on biological psychiatry, why we should sometimes challenge schizophrenia, psychosis and other diagnostic terminology, and how he sees the future of mental healthcare.

In this episode we discuss:

  • How Jim became interested in Psychology and Psychiatry, partly because of the experiences of family members
  • That Jim felt that training in many parts of the world allowed him to see variations in psychiatric models and this led to him questioning the biological model
  • That Jim also saw how dominant the prescribing of medication but noticed the wide variation in practices
  • How Jim observed in France a willingness by the treating doctors to accept that they didn’t know what the root cause of a mental health difficulty
  • That some of the diagnoses that psychiatrists rely on are actually cultural agreements between professionals and that if a patient accepts the idea that they have a diseased brain, it can be limiting for that patient
  • That we should be able to admit that we don’t know causes but we can still help and support people who struggle with their mental health
  • That there is a 25% yearly prevalence of mental disorders, but many nations have a capacity for only 4% to 6% of the general population
  • That selection criteria to get help and support with their mental health just don’t work because we cannot precept outcomes for people
  • That there are interesting developments in eCommunities where people can participate in online communities to share experiences, for example ‘Proud to be Me’ in the Netherlands.
  • That diagnoses are starting to function as an economic measurement of mental illness and treatment and some cannot access treatment without a diagnosis, which perpetuate the diagnostic paradigm
  • That there were attempts in the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM V) discussions to adopt ranges or dimensions of disorders, but the proposal was shot down
  • That it would have been historic if dimensions were adopted in the DSM because then the discussion between the clinician and the patient would have had to change
  • That there is some dimensionality in DSM V, represented as ‘spectrum disorders’ which are the first step towards acknowledging the variations inherent in human experiences
  • That Jim saw in his own family that the initial ‘relief’ of receiving a diagnosis was undone when more and more diagnoses were added
  • That a label of Schizophrenia can mean that other people do not know what to expect and find it difficult to relate psychologically to that person and their experiences
  • That the Maastricht User Research Centre has been discussing the language used in psychiatry, in particular the terms psychosis and schizophrenia and trying to find more helpful terms, for example hyper-meaning
  • That sometimes terms such as ‘susceptibility’ and ‘syndrome’ are far more helpful than giving someone the message that they have a brain disease
  • That biological psychiatry has been trying to reverse engineer and validate the concept of schizophrenia by investigating case control differences
  • That there is more awareness developing about the critical appraisal of diagnostic terminology
  • That the mental health sector should not be viewed as a separate entity, but should reinvent itself as an inclusive local community that is there to connect with people and their range of experiences
  • That patients often indicate that what got them better was community and connection and meaning and empowerment
  • That the User Research Centre, led by Dr. Peter Groot, have developed a solution to help patients withdraw slowly and gradually from their psychiatric medications
  • That when prescribing medication, we should encourage people to monitor their experiences to allow a better discussion about treatment continuing or stopping based on evidence
  • That if we suppress difficulties with medication, it can make it more difficult for the person to build up coping mechanisms

Relevant Links:

Professor Jim van Os

Tedx: Maastricht, Connecting to Madness

Jim van Os interview on Mad in America

Schizophrenia does not exist

Tapering Strips

How to Listen:

To listen in iTunes, click here

To listen on YouTube, click here

To get in touch with us email: [email protected]

Johann Hari: Conexões Perdidas

0

This week we interview journalist and author Johann Hari. Johann is one of our foremost social science thinkers and writers. In addition to writing regularly for the New York Times and Independent newspapers, he has written extensively on social science and human rights issues. His 2015 book Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs, challenges what we believe about addiction, and his TED talk on our response to addiction has been viewed over 20 million times.

Johann was twice named ‘National Newspaper Journalist of the Year’ by Amnesty International. And he has been named ‘Cultural Commentator of the Year’ and ‘Environmental Commentator of the Year’ at the Comment Awards.

In this interview, we talk about Johann’s latest book, Lost Connections: Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression and the Unexpected Solutions, which has been called a ‘game changer’ and received plaudits for its explanation of the social and cultural issues leading to depression and anxiety.

In the episode we discuss:

  • How Johann became interested in journalism and began writing about social justice and human rights issues.
  • What led to wanting to write a book that was partly based on his own experiences with depression and anxiety, but also that provided the evidence for social and cultural issues that may underlie the dramatic increase in the number of people seeking support for emotional distress.
  • The facts behind the chemical imbalance theory of mental illness.
  • The role of the bio-psycho-social model of mental distress and why we may have focussed predominantly on biological interventions.
  • Social prescribing as a means to enable connection between people who struggle with depression and anxiety.
  • The Hamilton Depression scale and how it shows us that the effect of antidepressant drugs is small when compared to the improvements that can be achieved without drug therapy.
  • How Johann would like to widen the definition of what may be considered an ‘antidepressant’.
  • How disempowerment often lies at the heart of poor health.
  • How stigma relates to our perceptions of an individual who is labelled mentally ill and how it changes if we think someone has a biological problem.
  • Johann’s experiences in the Berlin district of Kotti.
  • That people can hear audio of the many of the interviews held for the book at https://thelostconnections.com

Relevant links:

Lost Connections: Uncovering the Real causes of Depression and the Unexpected Solutions

Johann Hari talk at the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce (RSA)

Chasing the Scream: The First and Last Days of the War on Drugs

TED Talk, Everything you think you know about addition is wrong

To get in touch with us email: [email protected]

Kermit Cole: Abordagens Dialógicas para Estados Extremos

0

This week, we interview Kermit Cole. 

Kermit’s first career was in film and television, directing, amongst others, Living Proof: HIV and the Pursuit of Happiness in 1994.

Kermit has undergraduate and master’s degrees in psychology from Harvard and he has over two decades experience working with people in extreme states. He likes to say that he likes to work with trauma, especially when it’s being called something else – such as “psychosis”. Together with his partner Louisa Putnam, he works with couples and families with members who have been labeled as having a mental illness, seeking other ways to understand their struggles – ways that often lead to better outcomes.

Kermit has been part of the team at Mad in America since it was founded in January 2012.

I was keen to ask Kermit about what led to his interest in therapeutic work, his experiences of supporting those in extreme states and his thoughts on Open Dialogue and dialogical approaches in general.

In this episode, we discuss:

  • How Kermit came to be involved with a photo project that aimed to change the dominant image usually portrayed for those with HIV or AIDS and how that led to his 1994 film: Living Proof: HIV and the Pursuit of Happiness
  • How Kermit came to feel that a persons life should not be appraised based on its duration
  • How he went on to make the transition from filmmaker to supporting others with their mental health and wellbeing
  • That Kermit came to feel that having a camera got in the way of the connection that he wanted to make with people
  • How he went back to study and developed an interest in trauma and its impact on people and came to develop the skills necessary to be comfortable dealing with extreme states
  • His experiences working on a helpline for people experiencing suicidal thoughts and in a group home setting
  • How it felt to support those in distress without judgement or control, but just being with them and how not being alone sometimes makes a big difference
  • How sometimes supporting someone means not judging but also not colluding with beliefs that may come across as delusional, and how this is different to the approach of trying to medicate away behaviour that has been classified as aberrant
  • That Kermit feels blessed that he could choose between schooling and study or the risk of depression, diagnosis and hospital, but that many are not so fortunate
  • How Kermit and Louisa work together to support people struggling with their mental health through a family therapeutic approach and based on Open Dialog principles
  • That it is important to respond to a network that is in crisis, such as the family unit, rather than a single individual
  • That this approach used in Tornio, Finland resulted in excellent outcomes for patients and a lowering of municipal expenditure on mental health crises
  • How Louisa and Kermit approach working together in an open dialog model
  • How, if you can find a way for people to safely do what they would naturally want to do, then it can be helpful
  • How Kermit became involved with Mad in America after reading Robert Whitaker’s books
  • That taking medication could almost be viewed as an act of communion
  • That life, being human, hurts, but by learning to connect we can ameliorate the trauma

Relevant Links:

Kermit Cole, family therapist

From film director to group home director

Living Proof: HIV and the Pursuit of Happiness

Kermit and Louisa on the Dr. Peter Breggin hour podcast

Soteria Network UK

Open Dialogue


How to Listen:

To listen in iTunes, click here

To listen on YouTube, click here

To get in touch with us email: [email protected]

Olga Runciman: Moving Beyond Psychiatry

0

This week we interview Olga RuncimanOlga is an international trainer and speaker, writer, campaigner, and artist. She co-founded the Danish Hearing Voices Network and sees the role of the Hearing Voices Movement as post-psychiatric, working towards the recognition of human rights while offering hope, empowerment, and access to making sense of individual experiences.

Olga was a psychiatric nurse working in social psychiatry but today she is a psychologist and since 2013 she has had her own private practice in Denmark, working with people who have been labelled schizophrenic or psychotic. Olga is herself a psychiatric survivor and a voice hearer too.

In this interview, we discuss Olga’s professional and personal experiences of the psychiatric system and how she now helps and supports healing and recovery in others.

In the episode we discuss:

  • How Olga became a specialist psychiatric nurse in Denmark, believing at the time the reasons given for psychiatric diagnoses.
  • How she came to see that there was little evidence or corroboration to underpin the diagnosis and treatment that she witnessed.
  • How Olga was also a voice hearer but kept this hidden from her psychiatric colleagues.
  • How, when experiencing stress and trauma, Olga came to be admitted to a psychiatric ward, diagnosed as schizophrenic and treated with a cocktail of psychiatric drugs.
  • Olga’s experiences of the antipsychotic drug Clozapine.
  • How Olga came to stop her psychiatric drugs which she had been taking for ten years.
  • Psychiatry’s story of hopelessness and chronic illness that is so often sold to patients.
  • How Olga now views her work from a post-psychiatry perspective.

Relevant links:

Psycovery

Olga’s posts on Mad in America

The Hearing Voices network

International Institute for Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal

Postpsychiatry: a new direction for mental health

To get in touch with us email: [email protected]

Peter Breggin, MD: The Conscience of Psychiatry

0

This week we have a very special guest for you, it has been my honour to be able to interview Dr. Peter Breggin.

Dr. Breggin is a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and former Consultant at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). He has been called “The Conscience of Psychiatry” for his many decades of successful efforts to reform the mental health field.

His work provides the foundation for modern criticism of psychiatric diagnoses and drugs, and leads the way in promoting more caring and effective therapies. His research and educational projects have brought about major changes in the FDA-approved Full Prescribing Information or labels for dozens of antipsychotic and antidepressant drugs. He continues to educate the public and professions about the tragic psychiatric drugging of America’s children.

He has authored dozens of scientific articles and more than twenty books, including medical books and the bestsellers Toxic Psychiatry and Talking Back to Prozac. His most recent three books are Guilt, Shame and Anxiety: Understanding and Overcoming Negative Emotions; Medication Madness: the Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Murder; and Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and their Families.

As a medical-legal expert, Dr. Breggin has unprecedented and unique knowledge about how the pharmaceutical industry too often commits fraud in researching and marketing psychiatric drugs. He has testified many times in malpractice, product liability and criminal cases, often in relation to adverse drug effects and more occasionally electroshock and psychosurgery. A list of his trial testimony since 1985 is contained in the last section of his Resume on Dr. Breggin’s website.

Dr. Breggin has taught at many universities and has a private practice of psychiatry in Ithaca, New York.

For a career as long and distinguished as Dr. Breggin’s we have decided to devote two episodes to hearing him speak. This first part covers Dr. Breggin’s career, his views on psychiatry and psychiatric drugs and also recent developments with the trial involving Michelle Carter.

Part 2 of the interview will focus more on the trial and Dr. Breggin’s involvement.

In this episode, we discuss:

  • How, age just 18, Dr. Breggin worked as a volunteer in a metropolitan state hospital in 1954.
  • That his immediate impression was a comparison with German concentration camps as he witnessed the brutality including lobotomy and insulin coma therapy.
  • How when the drugs were introduced, primarily Thorazine, the patients would quieten, becoming docile and obedient.
  • That this was brain damage for the purpose of control.
  • That Dr. Breggin then wanted to go to medical school and become part of the reform movement.
  • That, in the 1950s, there were still psychiatrists that had an interest and training in  psychological therapy or psychoanalytic approaches, and social and community psychology.
  • That this also resulted in psychiatry becoming very hostile towards psychosocial approaches, which were less expensive and better.
  • Then, in the 1960s, psychiatry went into partnership with the drug companies and got richer.
  • That Dr. Breggin then entered private practice and learned that lobotomy was making a comeback. This led to a multi year, international campaign to halt the use of lobotomy and psychosurgery in the western world.
  • Since then, Dr. Breggin has also campaigned tirelessly to make changes in the FDA labelling of psychotropic drugs.
  • That Dr. Breggin feels blessed to have been able to stand up for others but also occasionally feels worried by the attacks from the psychiatric establishment.
  • How Dr. Breggin feels that we should tell the truth about psychiatric drugs and that claims of ‘scaremongering’ is a mechanism to reduce criticism of the drugs.
  • That informing people is very different compared to frightening them.
  • That each individual person is still the best judge of when and how to go about withdrawing from psychiatric medications.
  • That Dr. Breggin feels that psychiatry has no economic incentive to change, so the consumer has to stop going to psychiatrists for medications.
  • How the District Attorney in the Michelle Carter case is now trying to stop Dr. Breggin’s Mad in America blogs about her case.

Relevant Links

Peter Breggin’s personal website

Peter’s blogs on Mad in America:

Part 1

Part 2

Michelle Carter Blogs and Archives

The handwritten note from the DA to the Judge about stopping Dr. Breggin’s blog

Toxic Psychiatry

Talking Back to Prozac

Guilt, Shame and Anxiety: Understanding and Overcoming Negative Emotions

Medication Madness: the Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Murder

Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and their Families.

To get in touch with us via email: [email protected]

Atenção Psicossocial, Atenção Básica e Território, o que estes três termos aportam para as políticas de saúde pública?

0

CAMILAO artigo Atenção Psicossocial e atenção básica: a vida como ela é no território, dos pesquisadores Silvio Yasui, Cristina Amélia Luzio e Paulo Amarante, trata sobre a relação entre três termos muito caros à saúde mental e presentes nas políticas públicas de saúde, a atenção psicossocial, a atenção básica e território. O objetivo é expor alguns dos significados presentes quando se fala desses três termos, além de contribuir para a reflexão sobre os elementos que compõe as práticas de saúde, aproximando essas mesmas práticas à complexidade da vida.

download (1)

Atenção Psicossocial é o primeiro termo trabalhado pelos autores, o qual se trata de uma busca por alternativa à racionalidade psiquiátrica, enquanto redução do funcionamento psíquico ao seu funcionamento neurobioquímico e aos processos cerebrais, nomeando  os desvios a esse funcionamento de transtornos mentais. A Atenção Psicossocial, pelo contrário, procura olhar para o sofrimento humano em seu vínculo com o plano de vida.

O objeto de interesse sofre aqui uma mudança, deixa de ser a doença e passa a ser a complexidade da vida. Não pode mais ser abarcado por apenas uma disciplina ou campo, ele exige uma perspectiva que privilegie um profundo e intenso diálogo entre diferentes e diversas disciplinas e conhecimentos sobre o humano, apagando os limites e fronteiras e permitindo possibilidades diversas para pensar e fazer. Essa perspectiva é denominada por Passos e Barros (2000) como transdisciplinaridade.

O sujeito da experiência da loucura, antes objeto de saber, era isolado para receber o tratamento terapêutico. Hoje, deixou de ser objeto e transformou-se em sujeito, seu cuidado torna-se criação de possibilidades, cujo acontecimento se dá na vida cotidiana, assim como os desafios que devem ser enfrentados.

A psiquiatria e a saúde mental sempre tiveram uma relação íntima com o espaço urbano, sendo exemplo de controle social e poder exercido sobre os sujeitos, ademais de orientar as condutas e comportamentos morais socialmente aceitos. Os espaços urbanos também apresentam divisões, hierarquização, estabelecendo quem pode ou não circular. Dessa forma, o termo território, pode ser um espaço da racionalização dominante, do exercício do controle e da captura. Mas para Deleuze, também é um lugar passível de surgimento de formas e processos de resistência.

Trazendo o território para a perspectiva da Atenção Psicossocial:

“(…) trata-se, então, de acompanhar, cuidar e investir em movimentos de resistência, de produção singular da existência para que estes possam operar a criação de uma nova terra na qual seja possível traçar linhas de vida. ”

Ou seja, significar estar atento, ver, ouvir e incentivar a vida que palpita em cada território.

A Atenção básica compartilha com a atenção psicossocial a forma de olhar o sujeito que adoece. Este olhar não se limita a um corpo que adoece, ele é atravessado por múltiplos planos (histórico social, econômico) e pelas múltiplas histórias que compõe a singularidade de cada situação.

“Produzir saúde é produção de modos de fazer andar a vida (Canguilhem, 1966/2009). ”

Atenção psicossocial e atenção básica também podem compartilhar uma armadilha que se apresenta no cotidiano de ambos os serviços, a lógica manicomial. Esta lógica supera as estruturas físicas do manicômio, podendo estar presentes em outros espaços. Caracteriza-se por ser um poder normatizador que exclui e reprime, não só os loucos, mas todos aqueles que saem dos limites da “boa conduta”, aqui entram os homossexuais, dependentes químicos, moradores de rua, etc.

“Especificamente nos espaços e serviços da saúde mental, este poder se evidencia quando profissionais não conseguem operar um cuidado efetivo, especialmente nas crises, e têm como única solução a intervenção medicamentosa e a internação. Ou, mais sutilmente ainda, quando as intervenções dos profissionais são pautadas por julgamentos morais que prescrevem aos usuários modos corretos de se comportar ou de agir frente as contingências que a vida apresenta. Cabe aqui ressaltar que o uso extensivo e indiscriminado dos medicamentos psicotrópicos é prática naturalizada nos serviços de saúde e, em especial, na Atenção Básica. ”

Por fim, os autores consideram que a reflexão apresentada possibilita traçar algumas linhas de atuação para os profissionais de saúde. Primeiro, é necessário dar atenção às várias formas presentes no modo como cada pessoa vive, considerar e ativar os dispositivos presentes no território, se responsabilizar pelas demandas, de maneira especial, nos momentos de crise, criar diversas e variadas estratégias de cuidado.  Há que estar sempre atento para não cair na rotina do dia a dia e perder de vista a elaboração de um contínuo movimento de construção e desconstrução.

Artigo completo →

 

Noticias

Blogues