Losing the Battle, Winning the War
The last few weeks have been some of the most distressing and dispiriting periods on social media I've ever experienced.
At the end of May, we learned of the death in the Prescribed Harm Community, of our friend and sister Shelly Johnson, who lived in the southern United States. Shelly had been experiencing huge distress in her journey of withdrawal from benzodiazepines, and often reached out within the online community for support. Support that clearly was not forthcoming from elsewhere in her real life. Of course, what we could offer, particularly from as far away as the UK, was quite inadequate, but little support is better than none, and we did our best within the limits of what was possible. Shelly's life had become intolerable, that was plain to see - her support from family had dwindled and she felt isolated and alone. She felt she had been blamed for the predicament she found herself in. But all she had done was take drugs that had been prescribed for her. Her videos, posted on Twitter shortly before her death, and still there today, are harrowing and hard to watch, especially knowing now what the outcome was for her. On Thursday 30th May, Shelly reached the end of what she could tolerate and ended her life. It has hit us all hard and left me wondering why, when she had taken drugs as prescribed, she had been left to her own devices to deal with the consequences. This cannot, by any stretch of the imagination be right.
By some strange quirk of fate, Shelly's death coincided with an announcement from the Royal College of Psychiatrists apparently issuing a warning about the problems of withdrawal experienced by patients taking anti-depressants and calling for amendments to the guidelines. We had been waiting expectantly for this announcement, having been told by College President, Professor Wendy Burn to "watch this space". This announcement came on the back of many years of activism and awareness raising of this long ignored problem, by those iatrogenically harmed by meds, the Prescribed Harm Community. My first response, in my naivete, was to thank Professor Burn for finally taking action, which was long overdue. From others, the more seasoned campaigners, the response was more muted. The move was met with a kind of disbelief, a cynicism. It turned out that their hesitance to believe the good news was well founded.
Before the ink was even dry, Dr Adrian James representing the College, appeared on BBC Radio 4, telling listeners that in actual fact, even more people should actually be on anti-depressants (bearing in mind that there were 70 million prescriptions last year for England alone), playing down the tone of the original statement and minimising the problems with withdrawal and side effects. My jubilation at the news that finally those struggling to withdraw from SSRIs would receive the support they needed was dashed, as I realised the whole thing appeared to have just been a stunt. Just another opportunity for spin.
Since the original statement, the messages and press releases have been confusing and often contradictory, with no clear guidance or coherence. It seems for every step forward, there is a step back. But whose best interests are being served I wonder? Another regular spokesperson for the Royal College of Psychiatry, Professor Carmine Pariante, also recently issued a statement, adding yet another dimension to an already confusing picture. Are anti-depressants addictive? he asks. The answer? Yes, no, it depends. I mean, really?? The blog, a summary of the College's 29 page statement, is a step in the right direction, but several sentences caught my eye.
https://medium.com/inspire-the-mind/are-antidepressants-addictive-yes-no-it-depends-7d0a3de1d638
"First, do not take antidepressants unless you really need to take them."
Stating the bleeding obvious yes, but these aren't over the counter meds, and therefore this is surely the responsibility of the prescriber not the patient.
"Second, you should only take the antidepressants for as long as you need them, and not longer."
Again, this should be obvious, and the responsibility of prescribers, but then why do we see countless numbers of people who have been on antidepressants for many, many years, sometimes for decades? The same thing happened with benzodiazepines with the most dire of consequences. Is Adrian James singing from a different hymn sheet I wonder? Does he not think 70 million prescriptions for anti-depressants in England alone is enough?
We need to see clarity and leadership. We need to see spokespeople for the Royal College clearly disseminating the same message, and most of all we need to see some evidence of taking responsibility for the many people who have taken antidepressants and other psych meds as prescribed, and who suffer the often dire consequences of iatrogenic harm.
Our friend and benzo warrior Shelly took her own life because for her, life simply became unbearable, and because she totally lacked support from the medical profession who she had trusted and gone to for help. She was abandoned. I hope at the very least that we are entering a new beginning where prescribing is no longer the cavalier and reckless practice it has sometimes been, and where real informed consent becomes not only a possibility, but a necessary and integral part of the decision to prescribe.
At the end of May, we learned of the death in the Prescribed Harm Community, of our friend and sister Shelly Johnson, who lived in the southern United States. Shelly had been experiencing huge distress in her journey of withdrawal from benzodiazepines, and often reached out within the online community for support. Support that clearly was not forthcoming from elsewhere in her real life. Of course, what we could offer, particularly from as far away as the UK, was quite inadequate, but little support is better than none, and we did our best within the limits of what was possible. Shelly's life had become intolerable, that was plain to see - her support from family had dwindled and she felt isolated and alone. She felt she had been blamed for the predicament she found herself in. But all she had done was take drugs that had been prescribed for her. Her videos, posted on Twitter shortly before her death, and still there today, are harrowing and hard to watch, especially knowing now what the outcome was for her. On Thursday 30th May, Shelly reached the end of what she could tolerate and ended her life. It has hit us all hard and left me wondering why, when she had taken drugs as prescribed, she had been left to her own devices to deal with the consequences. This cannot, by any stretch of the imagination be right.
By some strange quirk of fate, Shelly's death coincided with an announcement from the Royal College of Psychiatrists apparently issuing a warning about the problems of withdrawal experienced by patients taking anti-depressants and calling for amendments to the guidelines. We had been waiting expectantly for this announcement, having been told by College President, Professor Wendy Burn to "watch this space". This announcement came on the back of many years of activism and awareness raising of this long ignored problem, by those iatrogenically harmed by meds, the Prescribed Harm Community. My first response, in my naivete, was to thank Professor Burn for finally taking action, which was long overdue. From others, the more seasoned campaigners, the response was more muted. The move was met with a kind of disbelief, a cynicism. It turned out that their hesitance to believe the good news was well founded.
Before the ink was even dry, Dr Adrian James representing the College, appeared on BBC Radio 4, telling listeners that in actual fact, even more people should actually be on anti-depressants (bearing in mind that there were 70 million prescriptions last year for England alone), playing down the tone of the original statement and minimising the problems with withdrawal and side effects. My jubilation at the news that finally those struggling to withdraw from SSRIs would receive the support they needed was dashed, as I realised the whole thing appeared to have just been a stunt. Just another opportunity for spin.
Since the original statement, the messages and press releases have been confusing and often contradictory, with no clear guidance or coherence. It seems for every step forward, there is a step back. But whose best interests are being served I wonder? Another regular spokesperson for the Royal College of Psychiatry, Professor Carmine Pariante, also recently issued a statement, adding yet another dimension to an already confusing picture. Are anti-depressants addictive? he asks. The answer? Yes, no, it depends. I mean, really?? The blog, a summary of the College's 29 page statement, is a step in the right direction, but several sentences caught my eye.
https://medium.com/inspire-the-mind/are-antidepressants-addictive-yes-no-it-depends-7d0a3de1d638
"First, do not take antidepressants unless you really need to take them."
Stating the bleeding obvious yes, but these aren't over the counter meds, and therefore this is surely the responsibility of the prescriber not the patient.
"Second, you should only take the antidepressants for as long as you need them, and not longer."
Again, this should be obvious, and the responsibility of prescribers, but then why do we see countless numbers of people who have been on antidepressants for many, many years, sometimes for decades? The same thing happened with benzodiazepines with the most dire of consequences. Is Adrian James singing from a different hymn sheet I wonder? Does he not think 70 million prescriptions for anti-depressants in England alone is enough?
We need to see clarity and leadership. We need to see spokespeople for the Royal College clearly disseminating the same message, and most of all we need to see some evidence of taking responsibility for the many people who have taken antidepressants and other psych meds as prescribed, and who suffer the often dire consequences of iatrogenic harm.
Our friend and benzo warrior Shelly took her own life because for her, life simply became unbearable, and because she totally lacked support from the medical profession who she had trusted and gone to for help. She was abandoned. I hope at the very least that we are entering a new beginning where prescribing is no longer the cavalier and reckless practice it has sometimes been, and where real informed consent becomes not only a possibility, but a necessary and integral part of the decision to prescribe.
Shelly, we miss you sister. I'm so sorry and sad that you lost your battle, your fight for life. But the war goes on and it will be won.
Shelly's Pinned Tweet.
Comments
Post a Comment