In summary, I think we have a whole load more stress, which causes the initial difficulties. And that has its roots in very many places. Information overload is unlikely to be one of them. However, the ability to make things happen faster and more frequently, partly due to the information revolution is certainly contributing. But the thing I think is most important is a sort of cultivated psychsociopathy. Basically people have so many pressures to live up to, cannot do it nearly as well as necessary, feel abandoned and rejected by the world, especially through unemployment, and utterly hopeless. For this reason, the very unable to cope (men are notoriously bad at working it through in community) end up doing this sort of thing to scorn the world. It's somewhat inevitable when resources are made scarce and people cannot alter their situations by their own efforts. However, that is what we get in the current model of capitalism. It needs changing. And we need to cut down the number of people in the world, too. And stop this idiotic drive for efficiency. It stresses people to the nth degree, then casts them aside. Rat race.

" accumlation into a new level". First of all, I have no sympathy for this guy, his hair costume, screaming out for insane, but I have to scream at our system as far as to how they will handle him.

What I read in your whole blog that turned on a light bulb, was information overload. To me, ( novice that I am) that is it in a nutshell. People have too much access to the ins and outs of crime, whether it be pornography, murder, harrassment, etc......

Modern technology allows this, and they take advantage of it. It is sad that handing out knowledge in an easier, different perspecitve, giving one solutions in a simple matter, to help them, causes such horrible things. JMO

There are things I touched on but didn't explain (because I want to cut down the length of the blog, or people will not read, when people don't read, people won't discuss about their thought). One is the use of anti-depressant. Many doctors don't know what they're prescribing, so that's a very dangerous sign. As with many drugs in use today, people don't know how the drug works. Even scarier is, sometimes the doctors don't know either. They know it works by observation the before and after only.... It is slightly more scientific than lobotomy as treatment of depression really. Side effect is not mentioned, because doctors don't know that either.... But we do know anti-depressant works on sympathetic system, and that unfortunately also controls guilt and social behaviors in some way.

If we are unhappy about something, we don't go out to kill people. It takes a lot more than that. But when your sympathetic system is shut down..., now anything could happen. Some committed suicide, some did homicide. Not everyone is like this of course. Though IMO, the risk should be mentioned. Especially when someone can be misdiagnosed as depression and given drug treatment for (people without depression but taken anti-depressant has a far greater chance to commit suicide than without).

The reason for this blog is of course, discuss and understand the nature of modern society. It's been a while since school massacre like Columbine occurred, and so far, not a lot of honest discussions have been made other than putting blames or disassociation.... There is no shame in admitting mistakes. There is no shame in wanting to know the cause so the tragedy won't happen again. There is no shame in wanting to understand the generation gap between people (it's alarming that most parents don't know what's going on in school, which of course, because most parents have really long work hours, so they rarely see their children anyways...). All I am seeing in our society is, if something tragic like this happens, turn a blind eye and consume more anti-depressant or other mind-numbing measures. It's not a long-term solution.

Please do no say we need to cut down the number of people.... I am smelling a WWIII coming. We have every condition to make it happen: high unemployment rate, transition of power and value system, rise of nationalism, lack of mental stability among people, high stressful mode of living, lack of understanding among people. Human beings will always find way to kill each other.... This blog merely tackles one of the issues mentioned. But it's always good to handle one thing at a time and hopefully WWIII would never happen.

To Joann414. I think the guy should be trialed and be locked away. The blog is centered on our role as a society, not his. As an existentialist, I believe we're ultimately responsible for our own actions, so he should be responsible of his own. However, if for example, he was given anti-depressant and that links to a positive result why he was "temporarily insane" don't you think this is a very valuable study on how the society should modify the treatment so no future tragedy would occur? There are lots of moral ambiguity in this type of matter. Like should we blame bully or victim of bully if s/he struck back? (kind of like the age old argument that it's partly rape victim's fault that s/he is raped, does that make any sense to you?). If a slave killed his/her slave owner, is the problem merely a murder case or there is something else needs to be discussed? That's the essence of this blog.

Modern technology certainly makes things more difficult. Knowledge is a double-edge sword. If you gave a smart person some knowledge, he would create something beautiful. If you gave a fool some knowledge, he would be out to wreck the world.

Forgive me, but, I am somewhat weary of your long Blog and your lengthy reply. So, I am gonna keep it short. And I will expect a short-to-the-point answer.

Your perspective on the situation is correct. I do agree to the information overload theory. But, I hope you will agree that, we have all heard that somewhere or the other and therefore lacks originality. Your observations regarding the coming war are astute. I congratulate you on both regards.

Having said that, let me move to my question. Exactly where did you find that, practicing doctors are unable to understand the mechanism of action of anti-depressants? And also if you could mention that, where exactly did you find homicidal intent as an adverse effect of anti-depressants? Please define the source. I hope you are not confusing suicidal intent with this, which is a well-known A/E of Fluoxetine, commonly marketed as Prozac. The more advanced SSRIs do not have this A/E.

Lastly, taking antidepressants itself is not a proof of clinical insanity in a court, therefore exempt from McNaughten's Rule (except in a case of acute intoxication, which is definitely not the case here); because, these drugs are prescribed for myriads of indications, some of which may be trivial, while others quite serious. However, suggesting a trained physician prescribing one without proper knowledge of any drugs' detailed pharmacology, is in itself a very serious accusation. This is equivalent to criminal negligence on the physician's part, liable to punishment. So, please think before you write.

Lastly, taking antidepressants itself is not a proof of clinical insanity in a court, therefore exempt from McNaughten's Rule (except in a case of acute intoxication, which is definitely not the case here); because, these drugs are prescribed for myriads of indications, some of which may be trivial, while others quite serious. However, suggesting a trained physician prescribing one without proper knowledge of any drugs' detailed pharmacology, is in itself a very serious accusation. This is equivalent to criminal negligence on the physician's part, liable to punishment. So, please think before you write.

Sure, you can find clinical studies in libraries for medical journals. I did the study on addiction, and that's how I came across the subjects. I don't remember the source I got, but mostly online reports. I am afraid I lost the sources (but you can't get better than peered reviewed medical journals in a library). You probably have to narrow down the drug's active ingredients. The one I am thinking of is benzodiapzepine, which is responsible for more than 50% of OD cases when combined with stimulants. Yes, the more advanced drug will have less effect. You do have to realize a lab study cannot be established as legitimate study, and long term studies must be done before something is declared as positive result of the side effect. Which is something I find interesting, as why didn't they do a more thorough study before the drug is released. I don't remember what I wrote in the report, so I refrained from posting the statistic of suicide rate. I think it's something like 1% suicide rate and 5% for people who misdiagnosed as depressant, but took anti-depressant anyways. There are lots of things we also need to investigate before we can trust the study, such as what's the motive, who is funding for the study, and what's the study's methodology. My report is preliminary, but it is a cautionary in nature. All I am saying is, do not treat it as a panacea to quickly resolve any life problems. There is no shortcut in anything.

As for why I believe many physicians are not qualified for prescribing mental drugs. Many primary physicians can prescribe drugs like anti-depressant in the U.S., when they do not have the training.... The way neuron works is very different from other part of physiology. I am afraid to say, even today, many organs inside human bodies are not very well known. Nobody knows how brain retains memory, for example. How liver units function is a puzzle still in theory stage. Only in the last decade we figured out how kidney works. Despite of all that, we have drugs for everything, don't we? Don't you find that scary? I personally believe only psychiatrists are allowed to prescribe drug of this nature, and should not prescribe such drug unless the patient has undergoing some sessions before they can be properly diagnosed as "depressed." In reality is, many primary physicians do prescribe such drug only based on patient's one or two self-report.... WTF!!! Not only that, based on what I've read, many people do have anti-depressant in their medical cabinets, and the kids just sell them as party drugs to people. It is a problem in our society, so it has to be addressed.

To clarify: I don't want the numbers reduced actively, but passively. Stop having so many kids, is the only solution. Taking away someone's life is not a supportable solution. At least not at this stage. That would only be supportable if the entire human race was at threat, which is nowhere near likely yet, and too ghastly to think about.

As for WWIII. Hmmm, not so sure about that. But I do think there is the definite possibility of a radical change not too far off. It will just need the right spark. And it could be conflict based or civil disobedience based. I don't think it has the opportunity to be government based, as politicians are largely too busy trying to do the impossible by keeping us all in the belief that there is prosperity for all, while encouraging a trading system that is based upon the increase for one at the expense of decrease for many. It may be financially efficient, but it is in no way socially so.

I think that's why some of us are gay. The nature has its design and we're here to keep the population down. We're actually threats to animals and plants in this world.... Maybe that's why I love animals and plants more than I love people.... There was this one guy who was in a photography class with me and he said he didn't like take photo of people because people are ugly, and I thought that was love at the first sight.... And I found out he also shot photos of tree trunks like I do.... Only if I were younger....

Anyways, don't underestimate what politicians want to do.... You have to be really dumb to be a politician. If you know what's going on in the world and how some people think war is a solution to economic problem (because they aren't very original), than I think you'll understand my view point. Someone has to save Euros, or antagonism between German and Greece will be just as bad as France and German back in the previous WW's. N. Korea problem must be solved, or there will be war in Asia, and another country will wait for that chance to reap the gain (I shall not name which country).

To clarify: I don't want the numbers reduced actively, but passively. Stop having so many kids, is the only solution. Taking away someone's life is not a supportable solution. At least not at this stage. That would only be supportable if the entire human race was at threat, which is nowhere near likely yet, and too ghastly to think about.

 

As for WWIII. Hmmm, not so sure about that. But I do think there is the definite possibility of a radical change not too far off. It will just need the right spark. And it could be conflict based or civil disobedience based. I don't think it has the opportunity to be government based, as politicians are largely too busy trying to do the impossible by keeping us all in the belief that there is prosperity for all, while encouraging a trading system that is based upon the increase for one at the expense of decrease for many. It may be financially efficient, but it is in no way socially so.

 

 

...The one I am thinking of is benzodiapzepine, which is responsible for more than 50% of OD cases when combined with stimulants. Yes, the more advanced drug will have less effect. You do have to realize a lab study cannot be established as legitimate study...

 

As for why I believe many physicians are not qualified for prescribing mental drugs. Many primary physicians can prescribe drugs like anti-depressant in the U.S., when they do not have the training.... The way neuron works is very different from other part of physiology. I am afraid to say, even today, many organs inside human bodies are not very well known.... personally believe only psychiatrists are allowed to prescribe drug of this nature, and should not prescribe such drug unless the patient has undergoing some sessions before they can be properly diagnosed as "depressed." In reality is, many primary physicians do prescribe such drug only based on patient's one or two self-report...

So, first of all BDZ are not the mainstay of therapy for Depression(MDD). They belong to the group known as Sedative-Hypnotics and are used only for short term (less than 4 weeks) basis during initiation of therapy. And they do carry a significant risk of suicidal ideation, but only when used long term (more than 6 months) as in the case of anxiety disorders. But, Fluoxetine (Prozac) on the other hand has a higher risk, therefore contraindicated in teenagers and elderly (above 65) and can only be given in the morning. As I told you, the recent drugs like Sertraline, which is commonly used these days, do not have this adverse effect. In any case, we are talking about suicidal ideation not homicidal intent, which is a prominent feature of chronic marijuana abuse amongst well known drugs. So, in no cases could the prescribed anti depressants have caused the killing spree as you mentioned thus irrelevant in court.

Nextly, you said something about legitimate studies. Well, while I share your emotion I do not partake your attitude. Lab studies only after detailed studies provides licence to a drug. FDA is notorious for it's rejection. And some drugs have indeed got past it's radar, but, for most it is doing alright.

No physician receives his degree without a basic knowledge of a common psychiatric disorder like Depression and also it's relevent pharmacopoeia. It is managed in a primary care settings for that matter. However, serious or otherwise, cases are mostly refered to psychiatric evaluation according to the current guidelines. I am not saying, all of the physician community is blameless in this, but most are. Regarding the fact that we don't know all of the brain; well! We know enough thanks to the monumental leaps in molecular biology, imaging and other advancement in medicine. There is still a long way to go, but we are not really as clueless and fumbling as you portrayed. If a psychiatrist was needed to make a diagnosis of depression everytime, we will soon have a commotion outside each psychiatrist's office. Proper evaluation at a primary care level as opposed to specialist care level is the goal we are striving for. This will result in reduction in healthcare costs with more concentrated care for the serious cases. Equitable delivery will be ensured.

Proper evaluation at a primary care level as opposed to specialist care level is the goal we are striving for. This will result in reduction in healthcare costs with more concentrated care for the serious cases. Equitable delivery will be ensured.

I certainly hope you know what you're saying. You do realize there is a problem, but you decided not to looking into the cause of it.... Interesting. All psychiatric treatment requires consultation of DSM-IV-TR, and it's kind of like a bible, in which way it is somewhat open to interpretation and misdiagnosis does happen. This is not the same as saying I am totally against the use of anti-depressant. I only mean it should used with precaution, and anti-depressant should be given (not abused) IF the patient does require it. It's not a shortcut to nirvana, it's not a panacea to everything.

I know someone personally as well as hearing many others that they've been given anti-depressant by primary physicians.... I wonder if the physician actually consulted DSM-IV-TR when they prescribed the drug. With my "untrained eyes" the person does not suffer sleeping disorder, no persistence of suicidal attempt, has no concept of what depression is, but still is prescribed with drug, because he felt terrible for himself.... I know it's nice to be idealistic, but a lot of real world practices should be discussed. This is a very tangible problem, it happens in real world. Once my time is freed up, I'll go to library and makes some research on some anti-depressants. Some drugs are so new, they may not have lab reports though. Any active ingredients you're thinking of that you want me to do a research on?

DSM-IV-TR is indeed the bible, although I don't understand what you mean by mis-interpretation. The diagnostic criterias are pretty clear there. But, as you say, if some physician seems to overlook it, he must do it on his on peril. Mis-diagnosis mostly ends with law-suits. And it is especially true with psychiatric one's.

Anti depressants are not a cure-all for misery. They sometimes help a person to cope with his troubles. That is all there to it. They are the most prescribed medicine currently in the US. Some of it is bound to be drug abuses. But for most, it must be working. Otherwise, we would have seen an escalation of adverse effects, hence caused in the population.

I am not saying, you are wrong in your approach. But, before reaching an inference try to see the bigger picture. And may be the 'untrained eyes' will see better.

I sincerely hope I know what I am talking about. Afterall, I don't wanna end up like the physicians you mentioned.

I sincerely hope I know what I am talking about. Afterall, I don't wanna end up like the physicians you mentioned.

That's all I am asking for: an awareness not everything is fine and dandy as it seems. A physician realizing his/her responsibility to double check if his/her method is as accurate as possible (i.e., ethics) and know to be critical (rather than just merely believes the pharmaceutical company's sophistry) even if theory is sounding (lots of things are sounding in theory but later overthrown, because we found out more stuff that interfered with our original hypothesis. It happens. We're not as advanced as we try to make ourselves believe. It's okay, as long as we're doing our best effort at given technology).

As long as you're being responsible, that's fine. I've seen some professionals (not just physicians, though physicians should have much higher standard of ethics because they're dealing with lives) they only want to get paid, and speed up things without double-check (or maybe because they thought it's very routine, they overlooked). Some of them are really not qualified for their jobs. A degree sets a minimum standard, but does not guarantee competency (some of them are not very critical thinkers, but are good test takers).