Managing psychosis without meds.

Wow, thank you for that information. I was considering trying Anti-psychotics, but now there is no way I am getting on them. I'll have my brain non-shrinkaged thanks.

Why did I not know this

I don't know if I should cancel my appointments now - otherwise I'll be looking for escape routes out of the hospital.

What is an alternative to anti psychotics?
I don't really want to cancel - my nurse is the only person that listens to me.

I think you should keep the appointment. It's good that she listens to you.

With any medical treatment you have to weigh the negative against the positive. Most medications have some negative side effects. The question is are the benefits greater than the down sides. Also, how long and how much you take.

My son takes an AP. I wouldn't want him to if I thought the potential damage outweighed the benefits.

We talk about alternative all the time. The CBT your psychologist had you working on, for example. Diet. Coping skills.

Also, remember that many of the regular posters here use medications to help them manage their symptoms. And they don't seem to be damaged intellectually by them.

I think it just freaked me out when I read it.

I just wasn't thinking of it like that, but your reply and someones blog - it doesn't seem as scary as it did at first - so thank you

I know my doctor is going to mention it - so I could ask her about this as well and I have another question, I think it's really important.

I don't want to end up in the hospital.

That's a good idea. I'm a strong believer in informed consent. But like you said, sometimes you just need the medications. Your nana's meds may have some scary sounding side effects too, but it would be worse for her if she didn't take them. That's where the risk-benefit thing comes in.

I hope you don't too.

[quote=costello;2778938]That's a good idea. I'm a strong believer in informed consent. But like you said, sometimes you just need the medications. Your nana's meds may have some scary sounding side effects too, but it would be worse for her if she didn't take them. That's where the risk-benefit thing comes in.

costello

Sometimes more than informed consent is needed
Sometimes involuntary treatment should be part of the treatment mix.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/int...l?cid=34541466

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...ctors-sentence

AppinIsobel

I disagree. I also think using examples of extremely violent behavior to justify involuntary treatment is unfair.

And I think holding pdocs criminally libel for their patients' actions is not likely to create an atmosphere conducive to good therapy. I wouldn't want to receive treatment from a doctor who was more concerned about staying out of prison than doing what was best for me. Interestingly, the second article you link to makes exactly that point.

The pdoc "had committed the 'grave error' of failing to recognise the public danger posed by ... her patient of four years." Seriously? She failed to predict his future violent behavior? Something that's pretty darned hard to do - if not impossible?

The patient "escaped from a hospital consultation" with his pdoc and 20 days later killed "the 80-year-old partner of his grandmother."

The court said he should have been placed in a "specialised medical unit" or referred to another medical team.

Furthermore, "SPEP, the union for French state psychiatrists, which backed Canarelli during the trial, said the landmark verdict was worrying and risked scapegoating the profession over a complex case. The union said Canarelli had notified police and other authorities after her patient's escape."

You don't have a problem with a court, with 20/20 hindsight, second guessing the man's doctor who had treated him for 4 years? And then holding her criminally liable for his behavior? And he was found not to be criminally responsible?

I agree, it's sketch, this case.

And I think it's kinda unsupportive and iffy to use this thread and other's struggles to push one's own agenda.