>
>Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2004 17:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
>From: andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Bush Using Drugs to Control Depression,
> Erratic Behavior
>
>There's no shame in taking ADs, and they can help you function more
>calmly, improve your memory, and level your judgment -- it's far better
>than serious depression. I don't knwo of any ADs that have the imputed effects.
Actually it sounds as if what they are talking about are antipsychotic medications and not anti-depressants. And the AP's CAN cause the things mentioned.
>SSRIs can reduce your libido, other can cause nausea. Be that as it may, I
>would not want to see members of this list join in the stigmatization of
>treatment for mood disorders that is all too common in our society.
>
There is a fine line here as we are talking about a man who has access to "the button." If the President (no matter what I might think of him as an individual) is indeed suffering from some form of mental illness that could, untreated, result in the possibility of him making decisions that could result in the deaths and maiming of other living beings, then by the very nature of his position and power he is in a different category than people who do not have such power.
8 of my 22 years working as an RN were specifically in mental health. There is indeed a very negative stigma that continues to get placed on people who are dealing with such things. There is, however, in my opinion, a very REAL difference between people who refuse to deal with their mental health problems (resulting in their inability to function in a safe manner around other living beings) and those who - even in fluctuating ways - deal with it all. The alcoholic who continually gets behind the wheel of a car and then eventually kills someone, is not off the hook because they have an addiction. If they are not willing to stop themselves and get treatment (or are not able to stop themselves) then I do believe, in the interest of the safety of other living beings, those other living beings have a right to defend themselves from the risk of death or harm that the individual poses to them by removing that individual from where they have access to a car AS LONG AS SUCH EFFORT is aimed at helping them come to grips with their addiction or other mental health issue.
Charlie Manson has some serious mental health issues, but there is no way that I think the man is safe to let out on the streets. Bush could indeed be in that same category. To agree that some individuals need to be locked away so they cannot harm others does not mean that ALL individuals dealing with psychosis or mania or depression need such radical intervention. Hell, when I had my own sever bout of depression i took time a leave of absence from work as I knew in that state I was not fully capable of being fully present in my role as nurse for critically ill patients. Nurses make life and death decisions (literally) every day (more than many folks might realize) and I thus hold myself and my nurse colleagues to a much higher level of willingness to recognize there is a problem and then to remove ourselves from situations in which we might temporarily not be practicing in a safe and competent manner. Not everyone, however, works in a position where this is necessary. The President of the United States, however, is to be held to an even higher level of expectation for ability to remain competent and in full control of one's mental faculties.
fwiw
Louis -------------- next part --------------
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.730 / Virus Database: 485 - Release Date: 7/28/2004