can cause mania, psychosis, hallucinations, suicide and homicidal ideation.

Are meds to blame for Cho's rampage?
Experts say psychiatric drugs linked to long list of school shooting sprees
By Bob Unruh
![]() Cho Seung-Hui |
Cho Seung-Hui's murderous rampage – during which he killed 32 students and faculty members at Virginia Tech – is prompting research into gun laws, resident aliens and graphically violent writings. Investigators also may want to check his medicine cabinet, because psychiatric drugs have been linked to hundreds of violent episodes, including most of the school shootings in the last two decades.
The New York Times has reported the killer was on a prescription medication, and authorities have said he was confined briefly several years ago for a mental episode. They also have confirmed that the "prescription drugs" found among his effects related to the treatment of psychological problems.
Dr. Peter Breggin, a prominent critic of psychiatric drugs and founder of the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, said even if Cho wasn't taking psychiatric drugs the day of the shooting, "he might have been tipped over into violent madness weeks or months earlier by a drug like Prozac, Paxil, or Zoloft."
While media reports have focused on guns and gun laws, Cho's violent writings and autistic behavior at Virginia Tech and the delay in notifying students and faculty of the beginnings of the shootings, there are those who say the focus should be on his medical history.

1 comments:
I would think that the psychiatric drugs were a high contributor to the tragedy.
There are problems though inherent in the system that prevent this viewpoint from being given proper examination.
The main reason is liability, psychiatrists don't wish to admit to the possibility of this as they would then get sued by the victims for prescribing such drugs.
It is much easier to defend a law suit which involves the liberty of a person, then it is take on a law suit which involves the prescription of drugs. The ramifications of getting a civil case against the drugs could reach far and wide in the field of psychiatry, it could effectively bankrupt them all. So, I suspect deals are made early on between professionals to avoid the let's blame the drug and hence the prescriber.
Drug companies also don't want the public to know that potentially their drugs create far more problems than they solve.
And people prescribed these drugs also do not want to make an issue for fear of being incarcerated.
To have enforced medication a person has to be reported as being a danger to themselves or to others. This necessarily involves violence. Quite often this charge of violence will be trumped up, because relatives mistakenly think that seeking psychiatric assistance is something that will solve problems. In fact concerned relatives are often told to make up, or attempt to provoke violence by medical practitioners to enforce medication on a person who is unwilling.
No matter though how it is done or the legitimacy in any particular case, people exposed to enforced medication quickly become aware that any sign of hostility could be construed as violence and would involve an enforced incarceration.
So, even if the drugs are causing the violent thoughts, people prescribed these drugs will tend not to report it.
People will also find it hard to give up the drugs, not just due to withdrawal symptoms, but because if a person decides to stop taking medication this may be at odds with the psychiatrist, who will then move to enforced medication or incarceration for the person. Limited driving licenses are often used to ensure compliancy, and allow psychiatrists to instruct that blood tests be taken to ensure a person is taking the prescribed drug, all of this is invasive and in many cases punitive, so people learn to give stock responses.
I am sure the drugs were a major factor, but I also suspect that the psychiatric process itself was the main reason this all happened combined with Cho's demeanor.
I can only hazard a guess here but I would think that he been accused of some violent act to initially get him detained and on medication, this lead to a distorted view of the world. Where people were falsely accusing him of something, that then lead to him aspiring to that false accusation. It is all very tragic, but call an honest man a thief too many times and don't be surprised if he does hold up a bank, it is not really madness, just a particular response to a perceived injustice.
The prescribed drugs that do this are normally SSRIs, possibly dopamine blockers as well. The increased serotonin levels in the brain would have given him an ability, without personal effort, to disregard any qualms of the superego, unfettered with normal morality he could then go on and satisfy the cravings of his ego.
Psychiatry is not ready for the world yet, it is just too crude, the best course of action is to move to a full responsibility model and just judge behavior on legal grounds. If a person really does wish to see a psychiatrist to get prescription drugs this has to be their choice, all potential side affects should be listed and a person should be told about all of these side affects before deciding on a particular drug.
Psychiatrists need to have less powers, the profession seems to be laden with ego maniacs, and these are the worst people to try and reduce power once they have it, but really they should remember they are here to help the healing of a person, not to act as a group of misguided messianic drug and dystopia pushers.
Post a Comment