Tag Archives: suicide

THIS IS COMPLETE AND UTTER BS!!

Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Behavioral Health Trends in the United States: Results from the 2014 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (2015). The range of conditions includes depression, which the CDC estimates will soon become the second leading cause of disability in the world

Folks, below this I post part of Hillary Clinton’s grand Mental Health Care plan, not because I believe in it, but because I want you all to see what our next president has in store for us. And because I hope you noted what the last thirty years have wrought in DAMAGES. Yes, after all the miracul0us advances of SSRI’s and SRI’s and adjunctive atypical anti-psychotics added to these so-called miracle anti-depressants. OOOooh, we have gotten so much healthier on our miracle pills.YES! We have gotten so much better that we now, get this, commit suicide at a rate 24% HIGHER than we did in 1999, In fact we kill ourselves at our highest rate in 30 years.

Well, I am sorry, people, but this is fucking BULLSHIT, just bullshit. You don’t believe me? Okay, i am used to that. No one ever believes me. So go ahead and read what dear Hillary posted in her Mental Health Care Plan below, from the National Institute of Mental Health. Those are not my numbers but right from the NIMH. So let’s go ahead, take our happy pills and tell ourselves we feel better, go right ahead, but what do we do when another buddy kills herself or himself despite the sweet help of his or her neighborhood pusher, er, psychiatrist???

Well, don’t tell me they did not warn us: ANTI- DEPRESSANTS DO NOT WORK THEY KILL. And it is posted very clearly right there, above.

Okay. Being forwarned is only part of the battle, we have to listen and we have to act.

Sorry for being so strident, I am really sorry.

I AM JUST SO ANGRY, SO FUCKING ANGRY AT THE LOUSY BASTARDS THAT DID THIS TO ALL OF US.

Go ahead and discount me, I do not care. But look at the statistic I posted above and ignore the implications at your peril.

______________________

 

Hillary CLinton’s MENTAL HEALTH CARE PLAN

Federal Support for Suicide Prevention

Suicides, which are usually fueled by mental illness, are rising among numerous population groups, from adolescents and college students[11] to veterans[12] and older adults.[13] The overall rate of suicide increased by 24 percent between 1999 and 2014, and is now at its highest level in 30 years.[14] Over 40,000 Americans die of suicide every year, making it the tenth-leading cause of death nationally.[15] As the former director of NIMH, Dr. Tom Insel, often notes, suicides have 11 victims: the person who dies, and at least 10 people close to them who will never be the same. Hillary believes that suicide is a critical issue that she will prioritize as president. She will:

  • Create a national initiative around suicide prevention across the lifespan that is headed by the Surgeon General: As president, Hillary will move toward the goal of “Zero Suicide” that has been promoted by the Department of Health and Human Services. She will direct all relevant federal agencies, including HHS, the VA, and the Department of Education, to research and develop plans for suicide prevention in their respective settings, and create a cross-government initiative headed by the Surgeon General to coordinate these efforts. She will also launch a citizen input and feedback mechanism, to enable outside groups to comment on agency recommendations, and explore how we can harness technology to reach out to people who need support.
  • Encourage evidence-based suicide prevention and mental health programs in high schools. In 2013, a survey of high school students revealed that 17 percent considered attempting suicide in the last year, with 8 percent actually attempting it. The suicide rate among American Indian/Alaska Native adolescents is even higher, at 1.5 times the national average. There are effective ways to respond. It is critical that school districts emphasize evidence-based mental health education, so that students, teachers, and school nurses are aware of the warning signs and risk factors of mental illness and how to address them. The Model School District Policy on Suicide Prevention, released by four leading mental health organizations, includes concrete recommendations that school districts can follow. Hillary will direct the Department of Education to emphasize mental health literacy in middle and high schools and will work with regional and national PTA, school counselor associations, and associations of secondary school principals to encourage school districts to adopt this model policy.
  • Provide federal support for suicide prevention on college campuses. Hillary believes that every college campus should have a comprehensive strategy to prevent suicide, including counseling, training for personnel, and policies that enable students to take leave for mental health Such multi-layered approaches have a proven track record of decreasing suicides. For instance, the Air Force launched an initiative in 1996 that brought together multiple intervention programs and reduced the suicide rate among Air Force personnel by nearly a third in under a decade. Groups such as the Jed Foundation, American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, the Suicide Prevention Resource Center, and Active Minds have created frameworks around suicide prevention tailored for colleges and universities. Hillary will dramatically increase funding for campus suicide prevention, investing up to $50 million per year to provide a pathway for the country’s nearly 5,000 colleges – whether private or public, two-year or four-year – to implement these frameworks on behalf of students.
  • Partner with colleges and researchers to ensure that students of color and LGBT students are receiving adequate mental health coverage. Evidence suggests that the psychological needs of students of color are disproportionately unmet, impeding their ability to adapt to college life. LGBT students face added burdens as well, with gay youth being four times more likely than their straight peers to attempt suicide. Hillary will direct the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services to work with universities, researchers and community programs to determine how best to meet and respond to the challenges these students face and to provide specialized counseling.

 

 

Hospital Art #2 – Rebus : pictures instead of words

This was done with bendable safety ball point pen, all that the first hospital unit would permit me to use.... You read it from the left bottom upwards following the arrows. Hint: the upper left is a knot, not just wood.
This was done with bendable safety ball point pen, all that the first hospital unit would permit me to use…. You read it from the left bottom upwards following the arrows. Hint: the upper left is a knot, not just wood.

I Haven’t Spoken A Word in Four days…

 

I know this audio file may be difficult to understand, but this is what happens when the voices go haywire…I can’t speak. And I cannot even tell you what triggered it, but something did. I tried to go to a Voice Hearers workshop on Tuesday about Taboo and Dangerous voices, but i could scarcely enter the building. I had to “get permission” just to open the door, and when I did, I could not stay…Just could not stay. Forget it. I’m worthless.

To Kill or Not to Kill: Physician-Assisted Suicide?

 

My brother visited me recently and for some reason we got into a discussion about whether or not we supported physician-assisted suicide. We differed on the fundamentals: Phil, aka Chip, supports assisted suicide in every sense of the word. He thinks that it should be legal for a physician to prescribe a lethal medication essentially for anyone who asks.

 

This horrified me. Wait, he went on to explain. In his opinion, everyone should have to push a button upon waking in the morning in order to stay alive. If you failed to push it, you die. Meaning that the day would begin with everyone choosing to live, thus having to take responsibility for making that choice. We would start with the premise that every person who “wakes up alive” has chosen to live and cannot claim rightly to be suicidal…I guess that Chip as a psychiatrist, feels too many of his patients do not want to live, but also do not sincerely want to die, and he thinks that they need to acknowledge the latter. That might be good, but I also know that there are those who are so depressed that in their involuntarily mentally incapacitated state, they might not be able to press the “I want to live” button, and thus would die, even though in a healthier frame of mind, they would have chosen to live…

For me, I agree that when terminally ill, a person should have the right to end his or her life, and should be able to do so without interference from authority, legal or medical. I also think that in certain cases, palliative or hospice care helps with this, and already has done, silently and as it were secretly for years: the administration of a sedating dose of morphine when the time is right goes a long way towards assisting a person’s “dying process.” Not a lethal dose mind you, but a dose to “ease breathing” and one from which the physician and all witnesses understand the person will likely never awaken.

(My friend Joe is another case entirely. They turned off his ventilator and dosed him with morphine after 4 years with ALS. I firmly  believe that they murdered Joe outright, against his will…But no more will be said of that at the present time.)

 

On the other hand, let’s face it, if you really want to commit suicide, it is easy to do so if you are able-bodied and not terminally ill: just jump in front of a bus, or out of a tall building’s window. There are a dozen sure-fire ways and they have been used for millennia as an easy way out. The problem is for those who are physically so debilitated that they literally cannot “jump” or swallow the pills or whatever. Yet  unless they are forcibly nourished and hydrated through a feeding tube, they can always refuse food or liquid, which it seems is not agonizing after all. That is according to what recent research and personal witness (my own) have indicated. When my friend Lynn L died – essentially from not a refusal to take liquids– she did not suffer acutely from deprivation but seemed slowly to cross into a never-never land. She simply drifted off to an endless sleep and passed away.

 

The idea that a physician could freely prescribe an overdose of a lethal drug to any someone who came asking for it, that just strikes me as the height of 1) irresponsibility and 2) cruelty, by someone whose job, after all, is characterized by the Hippocratic Oath: primum non nocere or “First do no harm.” If killing  a patient is not doing harm, then I do not know what is. I simply do not understand how bloodying one’s hands in the act of killing, no matter how good one’s intentions, cannot but badly affect any so-called healer.

 

Surely there are other ways to deal with a person’s pain and suffering than to throw up one’s hands and say, well, I cannot help you feel better or live longer, so I will simply shoot or poison or – whatever – you so you feel nothing and don’t have to deal any longer.This completely disregards the inherent value of the struggle itself, and the promise of something worthwhile, if only at the very end  at the moment of dying, in having faced the suffering and undergone it fully.

 

Look, I do not like or want anyone to suffer agony in the last stages of life, and am all for morphine use, liberal or sparing, depending on the patient’s desires and needs. But there is no absolute value in complete suffering or pain relief, not in my book. For me, I insist that I must feel my own feelings, and in that quest, I must decide to feel the pain, emotional or otherwise, rather than dull it with drugs or anything else. Yes, it hurts, but the hurt somehow feels better because it is mine and real, and not the forced dull nothingness of being drugged out of it.

 

If you have other thoughts about this, do feel free to share them in the comments section. In the meantime, I found this article on the very same subject at Medscape Psychiatry. It was written by ethicist and psychiatrist, Ronald  W. Pies, MD and may be found in its original form at this link:

 

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/771274

Medscape Psychiatry > Ethics in Psychiatry

 

Do We Need ‘Thanaticians’ for the Terminally Ill?

 

Ronald W. Pies, MD

 

Posted: 09/26/2012

 

The Ethical Dilemma of Physician-Assisted Suicide

My 89-year-old mother had been losing ground for some years, experiencing what geriatricians sometimes call “the dwindles.” Toward the end of her life, she was beset by a deteriorating heart; an inability to walk; and occasional, severe gastrointestinal pain. My family got her the best medical treatment available — eventually including home hospice care — and she generally maintained a positive attitude throughout her long downhill slide.

 

But one day, as I sat beside her bed, she seemed unusually subdued. “Honey,” she said, “How do I get out of this mess?” I had a pretty good idea of what she was really asking me, but I deflected her question with another question: “Ma, what ‘mess’ do you mean?” I asked. “It’s all right,” she replied, smiling sadly, “I’ll manage.”

My mother was doing what she had always done: sparing her children from pain. In this case, it was the pain of dealing with the waning days of her life and the frustration of knowing there was no easy escape from the burdens of dying slowly. “Ma, I’ll always make sure you are getting enough treatment for your pain,” I added, taking her hand — knowing that the prospect of unremitting pain is often an underlying fear of terminally ill persons.

 

Yet, unspoken in my mother’s question was the issue of so-called physician-assisted dying, sometimes called “physician-assisted suicide” — an enormously heated controversy both outside and within the medical profession. In my home state, Massachusetts, the issue has come to the fore, owing to a November ballot initiative for a measure that would allow terminally ill patients to be prescribed lethal drugs.[1] A closely related bill (H.3884) has also come before the Massachusetts Legislature’s Joint Committee on the Judiciary.

 

Similar to laws already on the books in Oregon and Washington state, the proposed Massachusetts law builds in numerous “safeguards”: For example, patients would be required to submit their request in writing twice, and those requests must be 15 days apart. As reported recently in the New York Times,[2] fears regarding widespread overuse or abuse of the so-called “death with dignity” laws in Oregon and Washington have largely failed to materialize, at least according to some studies.

 

Nevertheless, the Massachusetts Medical Society (MMS) has long been opposed to physician-assisted suicide. In March 2012, the MMS President, Dr. Lynda Young, testified before the Joint Committee[3] and did not mince her words. Allowing physicians to participate in assisted suicide, she stated, “…would cause more harm than good,” and she argued that “…physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer.” Instead, Dr. Young asserted, the physician’s role should be to ensure that the terminally ill patient “…continue[s] to receive emotional support, comfort care, adequate pain control, respect for patient autonomy, and good communication.”

 

With considerable ambivalence, I agree with Dr. Young. In my view, terminally ill but mentally competent patients should be at liberty not only to refuse further medical treatment, but also to end their own lives — for example, by refusing to accept liquid or solid food. Contrary to a widespread belief, voluntary refusal of food and fluids does not result in an agonizing or painful death, according to a2003 report in the New England Journal of Medicine.[4] Indeed, medical ethicist Dr. Cynthia Geppert informs me that voluntary refusal of food and drink is now considered an accepted approach to dying in palliative care.

 

As Dr. Thomas Szasz has argued in his book, Fatal Freedom: The Ethics and Politics of Suicide,[5] a liberty is not the same as a right, because the latter entails a reciprocal obligation on someone else’s part. (If I have a right to free speech, the state has a reciprocal obligation to protect that right.) Moreover, the liberty to commit suicide does not entail the “right” to have one’s physician prescribe a lethal dose of medication. Indeed, Dr. Szasz believes that “physician-assisted suicide” is really a euphemism for “medical killing” — more technically, “heterohomicide” on the part of the physician.

 

While I disagree with Dr. Szasz on many issues in psychiatry, I think his analysis here is essentially correct. Physician-actuated heterohomicide, in my view, is “fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer.” I believe that permitting physicians to write prescriptions for lethal drugs will eventually erode the trust that all patients should place in their physicians. More than a euphemism, “physician-assisted suicide” may be a contradiction in terms. And in my view, the very concept violates both the implicit ethical contract between physician and patient, and that between the physician and society.

To be clear: None of this means that physicians should collude in the cruel and unnecessary prolongation of dying, as is often seen in hospital settings. As physician and ethicist Dr. Fred Rosner has argued,[6] “To prolong life is a [commandment], to prolong dying is not.” Thus, in the Jewish medicoethical tradition, “removing impediments to death” is sometimes acceptable — that is, discontinuing treatments that needlessly prolong the dying of a suffering, terminally ill patient, but without actively bringing about the patient’s death. (The distinction between “letting” someone die and “making” someone die was supported in the 1997 US Supreme Court case of Vacco v Quill,[7]which upheld New York State’s ban on assisted suicide.)

 

But what about those suffering, terminally ill, mentally competent patients who will not choose to end their lives by refusing food and drink and instead seek out “assistance” from healthcare professionals? Again, I do not believe that medical professionals should participate in assisting a patient’s suicide. But I sometimes wonder whether society ought to permit somebody to do so.

 

For lack of a better term, let’s call such a hypothetical individual a “thanatician.” Let’s posit that carefully trained and closely monitored thanaticians would be permitted to provide medically screened, dying patients the same type of lethal medication now prescribed by physicians in Oregon and Washington — under essentially the same restrictions and safeguards.

 

But wait: Isn’t this proposal a cop-out? Doesn’t it merely place the moral issue of assisted suicide in the lap of the nonphysician, allowing the dying patient’s physician to shuffle off with a clear conscience? Even worse: Would the use of such death-dealing personnel amount to abandonment of the patient, as Dr. Geppert recently suggested to me?

 

Still other questions arise. As my colleague Dr. James L. Knoll has suggested, might not the training, monitoring, and supervising of thanaticians create more problems and headaches than it would solve? Finally, doesn’t the very notion of “thanaticians” suggest that we have lost faith in what Dr. Knoll rightly calls “the intensely personal journey” of doctor and patient?

 

I, too, struggle with these questions and find no easy answers. I suspect that at present, the best approach to the dying patient is through the skills of the palliative care physician. Palliative sedation, for many terminally ill patients, may be a viable alternative to managing suffering without ending life. Moreover, a careful psychiatric assessment of patients requesting physician-assisted death is always indicated, because major depression may distort the patient’s judgment as death approaches.

 

How we deal with terminally ill patients is a painful topic that I never discussed with my mother, who was fortunate enough to have excellent home hospice care in her final days. But I believe this is a discussion we urgently need to have.

 

Acknowledgment: I wish to thank Cynthia M.A. GeppertMD, PhD, and James L. Knoll IV, MD, for their valuable comments on earlier drafts of this article. The views presented here, however, are solely my own.