England UK

tHatDudeUK wrote:
> "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net> wrote in message
> news:3aikhvF6bfhlbU1@individual.net...
> > If ECT is beneficial to some patients (Caroline Aherne was recently

> > reported to have had ECT to help treat her depression) who are you
to say
> > that it is, um, "wrong"?
>
> In cases where it was forcibly given in years gone by
Still is now. That's one of my points.
>
> > If drugs have severe side effects and are given on a long term
basis as
> > the lesser of two evils, then why should this be wrong, and by what

> > definition of "wrong"?

Nobody should be forced to take mind-altering substances. Hanging, hard
labour and the birch have been abolished- corporal and capital
punishment by chemicals should be too. Especially as in many cases the
prisoners haven't been charged with or convicted of anything.

>
> Companies make lots of money from those drugs. How much do you think
they
> re-invest in making better drugs with less side effects?! Not as much
as
> they should I would imagine.

Companies which promote dangerous mind-altering drugs are no different
from street crack and heroin dealers. Yet they are rewarded while the
latter are criminalised. I'm not endorsing anything here, but this is a
glaring inconsistency.

>
> Also there may be some cases, i.e. mild depression or momentary
crises,
> where giving drugs could be helpful, but is probably not justifiable.

SSRIs make many depressed people worse. In the worst cases they drive
people to suicide. There's no legitimate reason why they should be
promoted while less harmful street drugs are banned. Worst of all are
the "neuroleptics" that are used for so-called severe mental disorders.
They can and do cause permanent damage to people forced to take them
long term. Much worse than what cannabis or alcohol does.
Much psychiatry is no better than the old wives' remedies practised in
the Middle Ages. In many cases it's worse.

Edmund Lewis