Jump to content

Recommended Posts

What the medication did do, though, was make it bearable.  It took the edge off it, it helped keep my mood stable--I'd rather be holding steady at depressed than having severe mood swing/drops.  It allowed me to focus better on things besides my depression.

 

I agree. smile.gif I was one of those folks who was greatly opposed to taking medication for my depression because I thought I would end up not being able to function without them, that I'd be "weak" because I had to take them, yadda yadda....but now I'm quite glad that I ended up using them. It makes things more bearable.

 

But overall I still have a timidness with medicine. I'm a walking health problem and I take so many meds now: pills for depression, shots for endometriosis, pills for intestinal issues...and I was pumped full of pain killers these last couple years for various reasons. So now I've made it a habit to avoid any extra medicine or vaccinations....>_>

Share this post


Link to post

I tend to get mild sinus infections quite often, because every single person at my school will refuse to stay home sick unless they're practically dying, so the ibuprofen/expectorant/decongestant combination pills that you can just pick up off the shelves are my best friends. I only ever am prescribed antibiotics for stuff like strep and the one time I had bronchitis, I avoid antibacterial soap unless it's actually necessary (like if I have to pick up something that's fifty levels of rotten, I will absolutely wash my hands with antibacterial soap), and even though I HATE vaccinations, I'll still get them, the doctor will just have to put up with a minute or two of whining before they can manage to stick me.

 

So yeah, I recognize that medicine can cause problems when used incorrectly. I try not to use it incorrectly.

Share this post


Link to post
However, no matter how many times you say something like MMR vaccine is "safe," and that every child should get it, not only for themselves and their child, that's not going to help the mother whose child has long-term seizures, or the child who went into a coma, or the child who received permanent brain damage.

There is a fair chance (at least most of) those things were coincidental overlaps.

Share this post


Link to post

There is a fair chance (at least most of) those things were coincidental overlaps.

 

I'm going directly from the official side effects, according to the CDC, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and the reports from the medical companies.

Share this post


Link to post

Why should they trust it though? We're talking about people who have no reason to trust it.

 

Why not? Look at the medical technologies. Look at the success.

 

Because I work in medical research, and I know what can happen with every vaccination. I am the only person with kids in the lab, that I know of, who actually vaccinates.

 

It's an issue of knowing too much.

 

Well, okay. So you’re paranoid. But what exactly would you know more of than someone who has done some basic research? You haven’t mentioned a link to autism, MS, or other things….

What do you think of the use of general anesthetic for just pulling out wisdom teeth? Would you opt for the local injections instead?

 

It does not mean there is no risk. it means there's a four per million chance, and you're hoping on those odds. (Speaking on MMR odds specifically.)

 

That was the odds for serious allergic reactions when receiving the MMRV vaccination. Most of those people would make a full recovery. It says the rest like deafness or brain damage was so rare they didn’t even know if it was related.

 

Share this post


Link to post

The thing is, medical-speak "safe" is, in *general*, a heck of a lot MORE "safe" then refusing medicine/doctors and only going herbal, spiritual, whatever. I speak from personal experience and from years of research.

 

Are there herbal remedies available for my mental disorders? Yes, there are. Are they approved by the FDA? No, they aren't. Are they PROVEN to work the majority of the time? No, they are not. Have I tried a few for a number of months, instead of my doctor-prescribed pills? Yes, I did. Did I learn my lesson? Oh yes. I did.

 

It's one thing to be all "I/child has a cold/wart/scar/cough/etc, and I'm going to choose an alternative-medicine instead of prescription or over the counter drugs". It's a *completely* different issue to KNOWINGLY WITHHOLD life-saving treatment from a child JUST because you don't "believe" in modern medicine, or don't "trust" it. Put your feelings aside and save a life.

Share this post


Link to post

Why not? Look at the medical technologies. Look at the success.

 

Yes, but why should they believe a doctor they don't know is going to give them a good injection? Look at Native history. It's not like disease was ever used to wipe them out before...oh wait...

 

It's not like their land was taken from them and they were shoved on little bitty pieces oh, hold on....

 

It's not like their religion and their names were forcibly removed from their kids...oh, wait, that too.

 

But what exactly would you know more of than someone who has done some basic research?

 

It's different in that I've actually tested vaccinations. I've been one of the grunts who has to record all the deaths or seizures during animal testing. I've been one of the people whose had to run those calculations.

 

Would you opt for the local injections instead?

 

If it wasn't a point of having to cut away jawbone, and was a simple extraction, yes. For myself I don't even use locals during dental procedures. Talalitha does, however.

 

That was the odds for serious allergic reactions when receiving the MMRV vaccination. Most of those people would make a full recovery. It says the rest like deafness or brain damage was so rare they didn’t even know if it was related.

 

It's characterised as an allergic reaction, but they can't know it's an allergic reaction, unfortunately. The results also vary depending on the testing firm.

 

NOWINGLY WITHHOLD life-saving treatment from a child JUST because you don't "believe" in modern medicine, or don't "trust" it. Put your feelings aside and save a life.

 

Which raises the question of, is it "knowingly withholding" life-saving treatment if you believe it will kill them?

 

Are there herbal remedies available for my mental disorders? Yes, there are. Are they approved by the FDA? No, they aren't. Are they PROVEN to work the majority of the time? No, they are not. Have I tried a few for a number of months, instead of my doctor-prescribed pills? Yes, I did. Did I learn my lesson? Oh yes. I did.

 

To offer a counter point, without invalidating your experiences:

 

Are there medications for my mental disorders? Yes there are. Are they approved by the FDA? Yes they are. Are they PROVEN to work the majority of the time? Depends on the study. Have I tried every one on the market as prescribed? Yes, yes I have. Did I learn my lesson? Yes, absolutely. Would I use them again? No, because they actively made my life and my OCD even worse.

Edited by NobleOwl

Share this post


Link to post
Which raises the question of, is it "knowingly withholding" life-saving treatment if you believe it will kill them?

 

 

 

To offer a counter point, without invalidating your experiences:

 

Are there medications for my mental disorders? Yes there are. Are they approved by the FDA? Yes they are. Are they PROVEN to work the majority of the time? Depends on the study. Have I tried every one on the market as prescribed? Yes, yes I have. Did I learn my lesson? Yes, absolutely. Would I use them again? No, because they actively made my life and my OCD even worse.

See, I think this is what it comes down to. If you go the alternative/praying/whatever route and the child *is not getting better*, then yes, I think it's "knowingly withholding" to *not* look at other options.

 

But for you, you did try medicine, and saw that it *wasn't* working, so maybe alternative *is* the right path for you. If those herbal remedies had worked for me, well I'd much rather be using them then my current 8-pills-a-day routine. But they didn't. And I think I would be acting in a self-destructive manner if I stayed on a treatment that obviously wasn't working, instead of trying other things. And I'm self-destructive enough as it is, so.....

Share this post


Link to post

I have 'mixed' feelings about vaccinations, and 'only if necessary' feelings in regards to medication. In short, I refuse to have any flu vaccinations, and vaccinations for protecting against certain other diseases and cancers are on a "see the doctor first basis", especially vaccinations which have caused autoimmune reactions.

 

It is your choice to vaccinate your children or not, but please be aware of the risks first and if your child is old enough to understand, discuss with them the possible side effects of the vaccination. Why? because vaccinations can be just as dangerous as the disease or virus they're designed to immunize against, especially if your child has an immune deficiency. If the heritage of the child has known immune problems, then it is even more important to investigate the risks involved. Doctors also need to adequately inform parents/caregivers of potential side effects of even the most basic vaccines, regardless if the side effect is 'rare'.

 

If I was a parent, I certainly wouldn't want my child to be the unfortunate one in a million rare case. Being from a family with known immunity deficiencies increases the chance of any children I have also having immune problems. I probably wouldn't deny vaccinations to my children, were I ever to have any, but it would be an informed decision only, not one based on the herd mind frame of 'every child needs to be immunized to stop the spread'. In my opinion, any medical treatment of your child should be an informed decision, through your own research, and by having a doctor explain the risks.

 

Note: If I sound like a broken record, it's probably because I'm tired.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm going directly from the official side effects, according to the CDC, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and the reports from the medical companies.

Indeed. And very nasty things can happen to me if I take an aspirin. And I had a relative who could die if he ate the tiniest hint of mushroom.

 

The thing is that LOADS of us have allergies of all sorts. For all we know, the people who had bad reactions from a vaccine could have had FAR worse had they contracted the disease itself - there is anecdotal evidence that these adverse reactions are at least in some cases a reaction to the germ itself - so that contracting the actual illness would have been plain fatal.Not much consolation - but on the whole, I think the mother who needs comfort would have preferred to have a damaged child than no child at all.

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post
If I was a parent, I certainly wouldn't want my child to be the unfortunate one in a million rare case.

Most diseases which are vaccinated against kill or permanently damage far, far, far more than one in million. Severe vaccination side-effects, however, are so rare that in most cases the correlation hasn't even been proven. Those are mostly things which appear about as often for unknown causes in people who weren't vaccinated at all.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree.

 

However, no matter how many times you say something like MMR vaccine is "safe," and that every child should get it, not only for themselves and their child, that's not going to help the mother whose child has long-term seizures, or the child who went into a coma, or the child who received permanent brain damage.

 

Medical "safe" means "it is unlikely you will experience negative effects." It does not mean there is no risk. it means there's a four per million chance, and you're hoping on those odds. (Speaking on MMR odds specifically.)

You're right, it's not going to help that mother. But then again that argument could be used in so many medical and non-medical ways. And I personally would rather take the low chance of a child developing a life-threatening side-effect that cannot be reversed by modern medicine and has long-term effects over the slightly-higher risk of contracting a dangerous disease that will give even more side-effects which are more life-threatening and more likely to have long-term effects. I take that risk with my health and support my sister taking the same risk of immunising my niece in order to preserve her health.

 

I realise that I do have a rather logical approach to such situations and am someone who will almost always go for something that is statistically safer, providing common sense doesn't rule it out. Like you I am involved in the medical industry (ex was a pharmacist, I myself am studying for my Registered Nurse qualification) so I am aware of the risks of medication and vaccinations. I certainly know enough not to ever be in a Phase II trial for any treatment. But in countenance I have seen what happens when someone doesn't take that risk and the gamble doesn't pay off, and would rather take that 4/1,000,000 chance with my life or the life of those I love - given that in many branches of practical medicine they take P>0.05 to be negligible, a 'common' side effect is considered a 1/10,000 effect, and the 4/1,000,000 simply means that may have a grade of seizures/coma/brain damage that may be mild and reversable as well as severe, debilitating or deadly...Once I finish crunching those numbers, I personally see it as a good choice to make.

 

But in the exact same line of thinking, for someone like yourself who has that exposure to the medical field I can perfectly understand why you would rather not take those chances, because like me you will have had close experiences in one form or another of what happens when vaccinations go wrong. I would still argue the safety and necessity of vaccinations, but I understand why you feel so strongly opposed to them.

A lot of people are medicated that don't need to be.  People throw fits if a doctor won't write them a prescription for medication they don't need (like heavy-duty pain killers when advil will be more than enough) or drugs for mental conditions that they don't need.

In fairness these does seem to be more a problem in the American health industry where you have to pay to see a doctor, rather than in the UK where it's free to see your GP. We all have that hope that problems can be fixed by magic pills, but in the US where there is the added pressure on the doctor that the patient has paid to be there and expects a solution it does lead to over-medication in America. In the UK we actually have a problem with under-medication in some areas, especially pain medication for elderly, learning difficulties and mental health.

They are, in my opinion, the last option when every other treatment has failed and only a temporary solution.

I agree that anti-depressants should not be a first-resort and preferably should not be long-term. We are taught that first-line treatment of depression is through lifestyle changes and counselling where possible, and that anti-depressants should hopefully not be a life-long medication. But I would say that they should *not* be considered a "last resort" as they do work and have their times and place. Certainly once my mood stabilised anti-depressants pretty much gave me back my life and more, and that the combination of counselling and anti-depressants have made me feel more alive and in some respects happy than ever, despite the utter heartbreak of losing Amerylis and my personal life now going very quickly to hell.

 

I did used to think that anti-depressants give 'false highs' and was against taking them for that reason. Having spent a year on them I can tel you for free they definitely do not give a false high. The same crap still comes at me, I still have bad days and still feel hopeless sometimes. Anti-depressants simply give me the strength and mental space to see through the day and make a darn good attempt at fighting back against the hopelessness.

Edited by Kestra15

Share this post


Link to post

In fairness these does seem to be more a problem in the American health industry where you have to pay to see a doctor, rather than in the UK where it's free to see your GP. We all have that hope that problems can be fixed by magic pills, but in the US where there is the added pressure on the doctor that the patient has paid to be there and expects a solution it does lead to over-medication in America. In the UK we actually have a problem with under-medication in some areas, especially pain medication for elderly, learning difficulties and mental health.

 

It isn't just the paying factor, but the fear of being sued for malpractice. A doctor is afraid to NOT prescribe something, for what if they are wrong and they DO need that medicine and now they are coming back itching for money compensation? A doctor would rather err on the side of caution and prescribe X so they can at least say they did everything in their power to take care of their patient.

 

Also, in hospitals especially, things are very driven by patient satisfaction. If you make a patient mad by refusing a prescription that they want, but don't necessarily need, they will inform the hospital of their unhappiness, where the hospital then gets on the doctor's case about it.

Edited by Nectaris

Share this post


Link to post
I have 'mixed' feelings about vaccinations, and 'only if necessary' feelings in regards to medication. In short, I refuse to have any flu vaccinations, and vaccinations for protecting against certain other diseases and cancers are on a "see the doctor first basis", especially vaccinations which have caused autoimmune reactions.

 

It is your choice to vaccinate your children or not, but please be aware of the risks first and if your child is old enough to understand, discuss with them the possible side effects of the vaccination. Why? because vaccinations can be just as dangerous as the disease or virus they're designed to immunize against, especially if your child has an immune deficiency. If the heritage of the child has known immune problems, then it is even more important to investigate the risks involved. Doctors also need to adequately inform parents/caregivers of potential side effects of even the most basic vaccines, regardless if the side effect is 'rare'.

 

If I was a parent, I certainly wouldn't want my child to be the unfortunate one in a million rare case. Being from a family with known immunity deficiencies increases the chance of any children I have also having immune problems. I probably wouldn't deny vaccinations to my children, were I ever to have any, but it would be an informed decision only, not one based on the herd mind frame of 'every child needs to be immunized to stop the spread'. In my opinion, any medical treatment of your child should be an informed decision, through your own research, and by having a doctor explain the risks.

 

Note: If I sound like a broken record, it's probably because I'm tired.

Which to me sounds completely reasonable and in line with what I am taught; you've basically pointed out consent, capacity and assent smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
I agree that anti-depressants should not be a first-resort and preferably should not be long-term. We are taught that first-line treatment of depression is through lifestyle changes and counselling where possible, and that anti-depressants should hopefully not be a life-long medication. But I would say that they should *not* be considered a "last resort" as they do work and have their times and place. Certainly once my mood stabilised anti-depressants pretty much gave me back my life and more, and that the combination of counselling and anti-depressants have made me feel more alive and in some respects happy than ever, despite the utter heartbreak of losing Amerylis and my personal life now going very quickly to hell.

 

I did used to think that anti-depressants give 'false highs' and was against taking them for that reason. Having spent a year on them I can tel you for free they definitely do not give a false high. The same crap still comes at me, I still have bad days and still feel hopeless sometimes. Anti-depressants simply give me the strength and mental space to see through the day and make a darn good attempt at fighting back against the hopelessness.

Actually, my personal experience with anti-depressants wasn't that they made me falsely happy. It felt more like an... undercurrent in my personality, like life was more bearable but at the same time not my own life at all. As soon as they released me from the hospital where I had been for eleven weeks back into the same situation as before, without therapy, my condition began to get worse again, plus the medication made me gain 20-25 pounds. Although I didn't have an unhealthy body image, it made me feel like all the bad stuff had become 'matter' and now literally dragged me down.

I ultimately stopped taking medication because I wanted my life back, even if it was the worst I could possibly have, but at least then I could be sure that it was me feeling downcast and hopeless.

Well, all that was about six years ago. I've experienced a lot of good and bad things since then and by now I think I'm doing okay. I don't care much about mental 'normality', especially since I find it hard to define, so I never bothered to find out if I'm still officially depressed or not. It has been stated earlier that it always will be a recurring problem and I agree, but I'm also aware that it seems to be my reaction to a crisis and I'm doing my best to take precautions if bad things happen. I'm not suicidal, I'm taking care of my own life and there even are some days when I just feel happy. My situation's 'hopeless, but not serious' wink.gif

 

Now, I know that depression is one of those problems that are and feel different to everyone. I think that the best possible outcome of therapy is that you are again able to take care of yourself and your life and make your decisions free from inner restraints. But it takes quite a lot of energy to come to that point. So, if somebody needs to take anti-depressants in order to make a first step, then that's okay with me. Basically that's what I meant with 'last resort' - it would be wonderful if you didn't need them, but if there is no alternative, what else can you do? Let people suffer?

I just wish that depressed people would be given more space and time to find out whether they need them or not. I sometimes get the feeling that it's not the mental recovery which is the goal, but the 'functioning' of the patient.

Share this post


Link to post
I ultimately stopped taking medication because I wanted my life back, even if it was the worst I could possibly have, but at least then I could be sure that it was me feeling downcast and hopeless.

I've never taken any psychoactive drugs, but I will say it again - some of those do alter the functioning of the person so much that I feel that the effect is actually borderline eradicating the actual person. It is the feeling of talking to a person and getting the deepening impression that something is wrong, terribly, horribly wrong. Very much as if it was literally someone else using the body and memories of the person I knew. I've only seen it that bad less than a handful of times, but it is not pleasant.

 

Granted, not everything will do that.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a big proponent of listening to the person who is taking the drugs. If they don't like it for any reason, then I don't see why they should be pressured or feel forced into continuing to take it. The first stabilizers (for lack of a better word) we put my sister on she absolutely hated. She felt suppressed and like she wasn't really herself. We went through several doctors to find one that both my mom and my sister liked. One guy just wanted to dope my sister up. One was completely rude to my mom, encouraged my sister to be rude to her, and wouldn't communicate anything with her. One just creeped my sister out - he just wasn't very friendly. But finally they found a doctor they both liked and that doctor actually worked with my sister and we found a medication that she likes and that helps. I would hate to think if we had just given up and gone with the first doctor and the first medication he insisted was fabulous. She wouldn't be the same person. We'd be going through life with someone who didn't even feel like they were living life. But now, we have a beautiful, happy, dramatic young adult a part of our lives. She doesn't feel suppressed, and she's still herself, but now she's able to go through life actually experiencing happiness and getting along with other people.

 

I think everyone needs to find what works for them, whether that is medication, medication and therapy, therapy, herbal remedies, whatever. As long as they are content with their decision and what they're doing.

 

And yes, the US medical system is awful regarding this and many, many other things. We do like just sticking people, even children, on pills and sending them away. I read two interesting articles recently. One on the fact that our doctors don't actually listen to anything we say (I'd like to find that piece to link, but I can't find it at the moment) and another on the fact that some hospitals could actually lose money by improving care, as they profit from surgical errors, which insurers pay for.

Edited by SockPuppet Strangler

Share this post


Link to post

Sock, that link is.... disturbing.

 

Well, since we're on anti-depressants, might as well mention: Yunno the whole thing (at least in the US) about having to mention that they might *worsen* your condition or make you suicidal? .... Yeah. I've been to hell and back trying to find a medication that not only *didn't* make me *worse*, but actually made me functionally better.

 

Oh, and would I prefer to cope with my disorder through therapy instead of pills? Yeah. 'Cept that's not how it works. The insurance company has no problem with long-term prescriptions, and yet for some red-tape messed-up reason I'm only allowed 6 therapy sessions a year. Which is most definitely not enough to keep me consistently stable.

Share this post


Link to post

On the topic of Vaccinations... I had such a severe reaction to the MMR vaccine that my doctor said I shouldn't ever have the booster.

 

Yet when my doc was on holiday - the one that was covering for him saw I hadn't had the booster and REFUSED to issue the antibiotics I needed until I had the booster.

 

So who's actually to blame here for my hospitalization? The replacement doctor for essentially blackmailing my mother OR my mother for giving in?

Share this post


Link to post
So who's actually to blame here for my hospitalization? The replacement doctor for essentially blackmailing my mother OR my mother for giving in?

The doctor holds full blame for this one if indeed you did have a severe reaction to the jab.

Share this post


Link to post
The doctor holds full blame for this one if indeed you did have a severe reaction to the jab.

What about for the refusing other treatment til I had the booster - especially as the reaction notes and the doctors recommendation that I don't have another would be on my medical file?

Share this post


Link to post

One of my roughest medical moments (and there have been a lot in my life) was after my sexual assault, when I was freaking out and seeing the people responsible everywhere. My psychologist sent me to a psychiatrist, who after an hour, prescribed me antipsychotics and told my family it was an antidepressent.

 

I constantly felt like I was going to pass out, I had horrible fevers, I have no memorty of the month I was on them, I got confused super-easily, and kept flipping between languages, unable to differentiate between what I was hearing and the translation in my head.

Share this post


Link to post

One time I had a really bad kidney infection and I went to the doctor complaining of a sore lower back that just kept getting more and more sore throughout the week even though I hadn't done any strenuous activity. I also had very, very low blood pressure, was on the brink of fainting so I couldn't stand, and I couldn't stop crying.

 

He gave me a prescription for painkillers and said I just had back pain tongue.gif . I was in the hospital the next day with a horrible kidney infection. If he would have looked at my medical history and saw that I've had like 50 bladder infections, I think he should have at least tested to see if maybe I had a kidney infection.

Share this post


Link to post

I work in an animal hospital and 90% of my day is spent administering vaccinations to dogs and cats. We vaccinate for a number of different diseases and we use different types of vaccines.

 

Vaccinating is a good idea. In most cases, you successfully trick your body into thinking it's sick so that it learns how to protect itself from a certain disease before it gets truly sick with that disease. Sometimes vaccines need to be boostered a few times before you are truly protected from the disease, which is why pets and kids sometimes get the same vaccine a few times before they are done. That'a also why you are recommended to get tetanus vaccines every ten years or so.

 

Vaccines like the flu vaccine are repeated yearly, not because your immune system needs to be boostered, but because the disease itself mutates quickly in the population and a new vaccine is needed for each strain.

 

As a medical professional, I agree with vaccinating. For the most part, I recommend it for people and pets.

 

BUT

 

I really hate how people vilify those who choose not to vaccinate. No matter how successful it tends to be, vaccinating is never 100% protection against diseases. And it is NOT always harmless. People and animals can and do die from getting vaccines. People who are otherwise healthy and normal can develop life-changing or life-threatening conditions, or have terrible reactions to vaccines. It's not common, but it happens, and I can not blame people who do not want to take the risk. At my job I have seen people's dogs die from routine shots due to Immune Mediated Hemolytic Anemia. It's rare. In three years I have only seen it happen twice. But if someone is truly afraid to take the risk, I don't think anyone has the right to argue.

Share this post


Link to post

I sort of agree in principle - personal choice and all that - but to completely eliminate a disease you need to develop "herd immunity". People who don't have vaccinations also put others at risk. Not least those who CANNOT be immunised. And those whose immune system is compromised by something else (chemo, HIV, Leukaemia). I fully sympathise with schools who will not admit unimmunised children.

 

I won't vilify people who don't get immunised - but I will avoid contact with them, and I would never let them around my children/grandchildren.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.