Lemmings unite

The scientist Joris Verster of Utrecht University in the Netherlands, says ADHD drugs help you drive better. You know, driving a car. He says methylphenidate, one of those cocaine-like drugs given to people who've been told they've got ADHD, can make you a better driver. How d'you know that then?

Here's an experiment: all you bad drivers out there, and you know who you are. The next time you're pulled over for bad driving, give the policeman a link to this story and ask him for a bit of you know what, and tell him to send you on your way. The docs say it'll make you a better driver, know what I mean? Another problem solved.

Lemmings unite!

How to commit murder by proxy

I've always had a great affection for the all-action, suave, debonair British hero, James Bond. Fast cars, wine, women, oh, and the occasional reduction of baddies to early graves.

Problem is, I saw the news report on psychiatrist Eric Birchall who was responsible for letting Mark Corner out of a psyciatric hospital. Having been released, Corner went on to commit murder.

What's it got to do with 007? Birchall went up before a panel at the General Medical Council to answer up for letting Corner out of the hospital. The GMC said Birchall should not be struck off for “a single error of judgement". It seems as though Birchall and Bond both have a license to kill.

"A single error of judgement?" Excuse me, but in my learned opinion, the Doc didn't have "a single error of judgement". He had brain fade, he messed up big time, and made a decision that ended in two murders. What now then? "Oh well, never mind. Poor old Doc Birchall, he probably feels bad anyway."

No, no, no. Ahem... here's the answer according to Paddy Mac: to ensure accountability for the inability to perform the duties expected of a doc to an acceptable standard whilst maintaining the safety of all concerned.

And here's what we got: a lesson in how to commit murder by proxy, get paid for it, and be allowed to do it all over again. Hey doc, Nurse Ratched would be proud of you.

Kerching!

'Male post natal depression affects child behaviour', says psychiatrist Dr Paul Ramchandani. Ahem... how d'you know that then?

'Psychiatrists warned that the findings could be a portent of future social problems as paternal postnatal depression becomes more widespread.' How d'you know that then?

'Postnatal depression is said to affect about one mother in 10 but is less well recognised, and more controversial, in new fathers.' Yawn, how d'you know that then?

'The latest figures, which are not divided by sex, point to a "persisting and clinically significant level of disturbance" that has significant implications for the future functioning of the children affected and for society.' Yawn, yawn, how d'you know that then?

'Conduct problems at this age are strongly predictive of later serious conduct problems, increased criminality and significantly increased societal costs.' Yawn, yawn, how d'you know that then?

'The finding from this study that paternal depression early in the child's life is associated with these persisting problems… [raises] the possibility that such a sensitive period may be operative, particularly in relation to the effects of parental depression.' Yawn, yawn yawn, how d'you know that then?

Ah, last paragraph. I've woken up now. It says:

'Ramchandani said his study showed the importance of recognising depression in new fathers and providing effective treatments for it.'

Of course, silly me, '...effective treatment for it.' Errrr, expensive drugs?

Kerching!

Sorry to hear you're leaving...

So, a drug company's leaving town to avoid paying taxes? Dare I say profit comes first? No surely not, not when it comes to drug companies. After all, they want people to get better: don't they?


Talking of profits, isn't this one of those companies that fleeces the National Health Service by charging exorbitant prices for new-fangled drugs, which then cause all sorts of iatrogenic illnesses, which then lead to further problems that require further expensive drugs, and which then lead to the person being off work and costing even more in lost production and increased care? Now let's see, what would be more beneficial? Hang on a minute while I do the maths...

By the way, not to seem totally unbenevolent, I found a really great place where the company could take its drug-making outfit: it's called the Kerguelen Islands and it's really nice there...

What's the benefit if the risk is death?

I know kids can be a handful at times, but I'm having trouble understanding why anyone would want to give them tranquillisers. And according to the Guardian, these drugs are putting children's lives at risk.

I don't care what kind of a brat you might have on your hands, but giving kids these kinds of drugs sends out the wrong message, or have I got the wrong hymn sheet?

I hear and I read these words in connection with the use of these drugs: "the benefits outweigh the risks." Can anyone tell me what the benefit is if the risk is death? Immortality? And what are the drugs supposed to do to a kid's brain, apart from fry it?

I want this blog to highlight the stupidity of a system that relies on you and me to nod our heads appropriately and, like lemmings, fall in line and accept the hot air we're fed in the pursuit of mental health. Paddy Mac doesn't nod his head and he doesn't buy the hot air. What about you?

When that pursuit of 'mental health' involves the chemical cauterisation of young minds, we should realise it's time to lift the lid off a new jar of coffee, and breathe deeply.

Lara Croft's out to get me

What does this story in the Inquirer tell you about the author Dr Freeman and his playmates? The Inquirer reports that, "Boffins at the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College, London, have been using a virtual reality tube ride to measure the extent to which people suffer from paranoia."

Well, in my learned opinion, Dr Freeman and his crew really ought to get out more. They've got way too much time on their hands...

By the way, if Lara Croft's out to get me, I give in!

Beemers or Mercs?

I know it's April 7 today, but it could be April 1! A headline in New Scientist said 'male monkeys prefer boys' toys.' This came from Kim Wallen, a psychologist at Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia. So Dr Wallen, ahem... how d'you know that then?

Did the monkeys tell you they actually preferred the dumper trucks over the Barbies? Or was it the fact the wheeled toys could move on their own? Can we say the female monkeys have 'monkeyboy' tendencies? Whoops, I'm getting carried away. Dr Wallen himself even cautions against over-interpreting the results.

Consequently, I have two questions: the first is "So what?" Who cares whether male monkeys prefer boys' toys?

And for fear of being seen as anti-research, anti-psychologist, or whatever, my second question is: did the male monkeys prefer beemers or mercs?

How else are you going to keep granny quiet?

The other day, anti-psychotic drugs were in the news. The stories were about how bad the drugs are, and how they make people worse, especially the elderly. A few months ago, antidepressants were getting a right old slapping, 'the drugs don't work' et cetara. If this trend keeps going, the drugs trolley will be redundant... or will it?

The BBC News site said the drugs were given "...to control behaviour such as aggression." The Mirror reported the pills 'can do harm.' The Guardian reported how the drugs "...do more harm than good..." And the Telegraph reported how the drugs can "...increase the risk of strokes and have other harmful side effects."

Whichever way you look at it, it's pretty bad. Elderly people sitting around in care homes or other mental health places, being given these drugs, sitting in chairs, looking at each other with their tongues hanging out. Yes, it's pretty bad. But is anyone going to take any notice? Will the numbers of anti-psychotic drug prescriptions go down? Will granny get a new lease of life or will she just get another pill to shut her up?

I guess it comes down to the options the experts have to silence the 'cuckoos in the nest.'

D'you hear the one about the psychiatrist who lost his job?

Once upon a time, there was a man who was called a psychiatrist who would be on the telly and who would say things about mental people because he was a famous man and because he was on telly and because he was clever.

He liked doing things with drugs. And he would get money from companies that made drugs for psychiatric things and he would test them on people. And he liked working alot, and he would call people to come and join in the test because he wanted to give them some drugs. And he liked it alot because he made lots and lots and lots of money and he had lots of fun.

And one day he told the people taking some of the drugs some things that were not true and he did some other things too, and the companies making the drugs didn't like it, and they said they were going to tell on him, and they did.

And the psychiatrist then said some nasty things about the companies making the drugs and it got nasty. And the companies making the drugs stopped giving him lots of money after he said horrible things about them. And he said other psychiatrist drug testers didn't like what he was doing because they were not as good as he was.

And then one day, after the companies who made the drugs had told on him, he had to go and say what he had been doing. And the people in charge did not like what he had done and said that it was bad and that he had been naughty and that he lied and that was bad and he would not be allowed to give drugs to people again because they would stop him doing it.

And then they stopped him, and he did not get any more money from the companies making the drugs, and he stopped giving drugs to people, and the people got better.

And it all ended happily ever after.