Fwd: [SSRI-Research] Andrea Yates: Did Drugs Distort Mother's Nature?

[Guest guest]

JustSayNo

Thu, 01 Jan 2004 23:15:59 -0500

[sSRI-Research] Andrea Yates: Did Drugs Distort Mother's Nature?

 

-- of course it's easy to answer THIS question...

 

Did Drugs Distort Mother's Nature?

http://www.whale.to/drugs/haldol2.html

 

Haldol--haloperidol

Effexor--venlafaxine hydrochloride

Wellbutrin---bupropion hydrochloride

 

 

By Kelly Patricia O'Meara

komeara

 

------

 

Andrea Yates1 crime shocked the nation. Did mind-altering drugs prescribed

to treat her depression actually drive this young mother of five to drown

the children she loved?

 

Only weeks ago, Houston wife and mother Andrea Pia Yates methodically

drowned each of her five children. One by one Yates forced her children,

ages 6 months to 7 years, into the family1s bathtub and held their

struggling bodies under the water until each fell limp.

 

Whatever possessed the 36-year-old mother to commit these

unconscionable acts remains murky. Depression and postpartum syndrome topped

early speculation, but there has been little discussion about the possible

effects of the powerful mind-altering drugs she was taking. Although Texas

District Judge Belinda Hill issued a gag order concerning the case, family

members have released disturbing facts about Yates1 psychiatric treatment

that specialists say may account for her state of mind at the time of the

murders.

 

During a two-year period, Yates was prescribed four extremely potent

mind-altering drugs intended to help her through two episodes of severe

depression that began after the birth of her fourth child. The first of

these psychopharmacological cocktails included Haldol, an antipsychotic most

often used to treat schizophrenia; Effexor, an antidepressant very similar

to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs); and Wellbutrin, a unique

antidepressant that has amphetamine-like effects. According to Yates1

husband, Russell, his wife appeared to respond well to this treatment

regimen and, after a short time, became her 3old self.2

 

At the onset of the second episode of depression following the birth

of her fifth child, and the subsequent death of her father, Yates again was

prescribed a psychopharmacological cocktail. This one contained Effexor and,

at the end, Remeron. While information about the Remeron dosage was not made

public, Yates1 husband has said that his wife was given Effexor at a dosage

nearly twice the recommended maximum limit. Just days before the murders,

the Effexor was for some reason reduced to just slightly more than the

recommended maximum dosage of 225 mg per day and the Remeron was added.

 

Psychiatrist Peter Breggin, a psychiatrist, court-qualified medical

expert and author of numerous books, including Talking Back to Prozac and

the recently released The Anti-Depressant Fact Book, tells Insight: 3The

mixture of Remeron and Effexor would tend to be extremely agitating and

certainly could lead to behavioral disturbances. The mixture of Haldol,

Wellbutrin and Effexor is unpredictable in its effects. Haldol actually can

cause depression, and putting the three drugs together is somewhat

experimental.2

 

Breggin continues: 3Haldol is a very blunting drug. It1s difficult to

come to any definitive conclusions with so little data about her state of

mind at the time. However, Haldol is a drug that produces what can only be

referred to as a chemical lobotomy that tends to make a person more docile

and robotic.2

 

Many Americans who have read or heard reports about this case have

little doubt that Yates was 3out of her mind2 when she killed her children.

What appears to be developing, however, is an argument within the medical

community about whether the mother1s homicidal state of mind was triggered

by the depth of her depression or by the mind-altering drugs prescribed to

her.

Were these the actions of a severely depressed woman who 3lost it,2

or did the mind-altering drugs push this emotionally distraught woman over

the edge? Should the latter be established in the criminal court, it could

raise an even greater issue: Who was responsible? Was it a chemically

poisoned mother who carried out the crazed act, the physician who prescribed

the mind-altering cocktails or the pharmaceutical companies that

manufactured and marketed the treatment?

 

Immediately after reports of the tragic events, psychiatrists flooded

the airwaves with commentary about Yates1 depression. Most pooh-poohed or

avoided any connection between her violent behavior and the prescription of

mind-altering drugs. These commentators included psychiatrist Lauren

Marangell, chief of the Baylor College of Medicine1s mood-disorder research

program in Houston. Marangell tells Insight that 3there is no truth to the

suggestion that the antidepressant could have had side effects that played a

role in the killings.2 She confirms that, like most medical schools, Baylor

receives financial research grants from major pharmaceutical companies. How

much? 3I think I1ll refrain from comment on that,2 Marangell says.

Only recently have pharmaceutical companies been held responsible for

violent behavior associated with their product lines of mind-altering drugs.

A case in point is a June trial in which a jury in Cheyenne, Wyo., found

that the antidepressant Paxil, one of the newer SSRIs distributed by

GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 3can cause some individuals to commit suicide and/or

homicide.2 The jury said Paxil caused Donald Schell, a retired oil-rig

worker, to shoot and kill his wife, daughter and granddaughter before

turning the gun on himself. Schell had been on the mind-altering drug only

two days.

 

The jury awarded surviving family members $8 million in damages,

finding that 80 percent of the fault lay with the drugmaker. Andy Vickery of

the Houston law firm of Vickery & Waldner, lead attorney in the Wyoming

case, has taken dozens of similar cases seeking to hold responsible those

dispensing and manufacturing these drugs. 3The important thing,2 Vickery

explains, 3is to lay the responsibility and accountability at the doorstep

of those who ought to have it and those who could and should do something

about it. Whether it1s criminal or civil responsibility, there isn1t a lot

of difference.2

 

As Vickery puts it, 3Look, if I give you a loaded gun and for

whatever reason it1s likely that you1re going to shoot someone, then I1m an

accessory before the fact of murder. Shouldn1t the drug company that1s

encouraging doctors to prescribe a drug and is aware that these drugs cause

adverse reactions be held responsible? No one can believe that a mother

would do such a thing. It1s too horrible. But the fact is these people get

completely out of touch with reality because of these drugs. Unfortunately,

in most of the cases that I get involved with, we never know if the people

committing the violence knew what they were doing when they did it because

they also killed themselves.2

 

Although alcoholic-beverage distillers have yet to be held

responsible for the overwhelming number of fatalities resulting from alcohol

abuse, in many states bartenders are held civilly and criminally liable when

customers get drunk and cause automobile fatalities. With the growing number

of physicians and psychiatrists prescribing mind-altering drugs and the

alarming data filtering out about adverse reactions to them, tort lawyers

are asking if medically trained dispensers of psychotropic drugs shouldn1t

also be held liable.

 

For example, Yates1 psychiatrist, Muhammad Saaed, reportedly

prescribed at least one mind-altering drug (Effexor) at almost twice the

maximum recommended dose as part of a cocktail of mind-altering drugs that

also included Haldol and Wellbutrin during her first bout with severe

depression. A cautionary note in the Physicians Desk Reference says Effexor

negatively interacts with Haldol. Apparently, Effexor hinders Haldol1s drug

clearance by a factor of more than 40 percent and can cause Haldol

concentration levels to increase by nearly 90 percent, creating toxicity.

 

Did Saaed know the contraindications associated with the cocktail he

prescribed? If the psychiatrist was unaware of the toxic mix, would

ignorance of the potential poisoning make him any less liable than if he had

known and prescribed the mind-altering drugs anyway? These are just a few of

the questions Saaed may be asked should he have to defend his treatment

under oath.

 

According to Ann Blake Tracy, executive director of the International

Coalition for Drug Awareness (www.drugawareness.org) and author of the

recently updated book Prozac: Panacea or Pandora?, there is little doubt

about Saaed1s culpability. Tracy, a doctor of health sciences specializing

in adverse reactions to serotonergic medications, tells Insight that 3when

doctors start prescribing Œoff label1 outside the FDA [Food and Drug

Administration] guidelines, they run the risk of being sued for malpractice.

In the case of Yates, her psychiatrist already had her on superhigh doses,

and on the Monday before the tragedy he dropped the Effexor back to almost

the maximum dosage, then added Remeron. It1s well-documented that when doses

are increased or decreased, patients experience negative reactions. A great

many of the court cases, but certainly not all of them, are a result of the

drastic change in the medication.2

 

According to Tracy, 3There1s a lot of science to demonstrate that

depression is the result of an inability to metabolize serotonin, but

somehow the drug companies have got the world believing that an increase in

serotonin, rather than an increase in serotonin metabolism, is what the

depressed person needs. This is the exact opposite of what research on

depression shows and, if you look at the research over the last 50 years it

is clear that there has been a horrible mistake. There is such a wanton

disregard for life. Why can1t these doctors at least read the package

inserts so they know how to prescribe the drugs properly? They1re not

supposed to prescribe over the maximum doses, and they know that they are at

toxic levels at that point. That1s why they have maximum-dose information;

that1s why the Food and Drug Administration puts a maximum dose on the

packaging. They do it to show that over the allowable dose level, a person

becomes toxic and it1s extremely dangerous.2

 

When asked what questions she might have for Yates1 psychiatrist,

Tracy tells Insight: 3I1d want to know how he could have ignored so many

warnings and contraindications in [reportedly] giving this poor woman this

dangerous drug cocktail. I1d also like to know which sleeping pill he uses

to knock himself out at night when those five children1s faces run over and

over again through his mind?2

 

Harsh words? It appears this is just the beginning. Many who follow

such matters say that because of the high profile of the likely trial of

Yates for capital murder, it may turn into a landmark case pitting the

pharmaceutical giants against the medical practitioners and vice versa,

perhaps even dragging in the American Psychiatric Association.

 

George Parnham, Yates1 attorney, has reported that he will enter a

not-guilty plea on behalf of his client for reasons of insanity. After

meeting with Yates and speaking with psychiatrists that had examined her,

Parnham told reporters, 3I1ve accumulated evidence in the last 24 hours that

strongly suggests that the mental status of my client will be the issue.2

Just what Parnham has discerned is anyone1s guess, including whether he1ll

defend his client by challenging the pharmaceutical companies and his

client1s psychiatrist. In the meantime, sources close to the case report

that Yates still is being medicated. Saaed has turned his files on Yates

over to the court and has, to date, made no public statement.