NationStates Jolt Archive

How seriously should you take warnings on medications? Sure, we all know taking Nurofen isn't to great for your stomach, but you'll live... and we don't even really worry about panadol, antibiotics, injections and much much more... But these things stil come with warnings of side effects and adverse reactions. Is this just to cover themselves in case of a lawsuit, or are these dangers very real? And if there are extreme danegers that a pharmaceutical company is aware of, should they release the drug at all?
These are the following medications I have looked into:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thioridazine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imipramine

Of course Wiki isn't always the most reliable source, but it is usually much easier to understand than medical jargon.

And these are some of the side effects:
fatal neuroleptic malignant syndrome
cardiotoxicity
Tardive dyskinesia
akathisia

And they're only some of the ones for Thoiridazine!


So, are these dangers real? What do these dangers really mean? And is it fair to prescribe drugs, or even release them, if they are not safe?

If they've been released, then they've been through years of clinical trials, and have minimal side effects if prescribed in the correct dosages to the correct people at the correct time. Get any of the above three wrong and you can encounter problems, but generally, medication is safe and effective.

I particularly liked the, "If you experience cardiac arrest you should contact your doctor immidiatly' disclaimer.
Hm, my heart appears to have stopped. I'll wait a bit and see if it starts back up on its own.

Capitolism at work. Clearly SOME people value antipsychotics more than life.
If I recall, a few years ago, there were anti-depressants which advertised their 'low level of sexual side effects'
Of course, their list of OTHER side effects included such items as:
Cardiac Arrest
Indigestion
Narcolepsy
And death.

Lets see...social awkwardness...or death?
I particularly liked the, "If you experience cardiac arrest you should contact your doctor immidiatly' disclaimer.

How seriously should you take warnings on medications? Sure, we all know taking Nurofen isn't to great for your stomach, but you'll live... and we don't even really worry about panadol, antibiotics, injections and much much more... But these things stil come with warnings of side effects and adverse reactions. Is this just to cover themselves in case of a lawsuit, or are these dangers very real? And if there are extreme danegers that a pharmaceutical company is aware of, should they release the drug at all?
These are the following medications I have looked into:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thioridazine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imipramine

Of course Wiki isn't always the most reliable source, but it is usually much easier to understand than medical jargon.

And these are some of the side effects:
fatal neuroleptic malignant syndrome
cardiotoxicity
Tardive dyskinesia
akathisia

And they're only some of the ones for Thoiridazine!


So, are these dangers real? What do these dangers really mean? And is it fair to prescribe drugs, or even release them, if they are not safe?


Can this be used for hypochondriosis? Just because you *could* have adverse reactions doesn't mean you *will*.

As for risk, well, it's all about balancing the benefits and the risk. Are you better off with the possible reaction than with the symptoms of the disease.

Hm, my heart appears to have stopped. I'll wait a bit and see if it starts back up on its own.

Done that before, it restarted after about 20 seconds.

Sure, we all know taking Nurofen isn't to great for your stomach

Actually, I'd never heard of Nurofen.


So, are these dangers real? What do these dangers really mean? And is it fair to prescribe drugs, or even release them, if they are not safe?

No, it's not fair. When I was in Iraq in 2003 they issued us mefloquine, an antimalarial. However, they didn't bother to tell us about the side effects:

Mefloquine may have severe and permanent adverse side-effects. It is known to cause severe depression, anxiety, paranoia, nightmares, insomnia, seizures, peripheral motor-sensory neuropathy,[2] vestibular (balance) damage and central nervous system problems. For a complete list of adverse physical and psychological effects — including suicidal ideation — see the most recent product information.

That part has never been a problem with me, but ever since I got back I've had difficulty with my memory and with concentrating.

If they've been released, then they've been through years of clinical trials, and have minimal side effects if prescribed in the correct dosages to the correct people at the correct time. Get any of the above three wrong and you can encounter problems, but generally, medication is safe and effective.
Generally. But a little lobbying here and little money there makes stuff go through alot easier.

Hm, my heart appears to have stopped. I'll wait a bit and see if it starts back up on its own.

my grandad did that once. he lived another 5 years. finally died of a heart attack in hospital.

So, are these dangers real? What do these dangers really mean? And is it fair to prescribe drugs, or even release them, if they are not safe?If you applied that thinking to anti-cancer drugs then there wouldn't be any anti-cancer drugs. If the side-effects are rare enough or vastly outweighed by their positive effects then I say go for it. In this case you've picked on two very old drugs in a field reknowned for poor understanding of mechanisms of action, hence the drugs that work are deemed necessary because nothing else will.

EDIT: And yes, the dangers are real, just incredibly unlikely.

It's mainly all written down so that on the off-chance there's a lawsuit about it, they've got a standard "we told you so" line they can trot out and the whole thing gets chucked out of court.

my husband is on a medication that is toxic to bone marrow, we just have to check his white count every Monday to make sure it isn't killing him, otherwise it's great stuff! (if it weren't so expensive and not covered by our prescription plan)

this is why they are PRESCRIPTION drugs.

that means that your doctor is on the hook for only giving them to you if they are the correct treatment for whatever you have. you arent allowed to go to the store and buy them for the condition you think you might have. your doc has to tell you all the possible side effects (and keep an eye on them and tell you to report when a serious one happens to you suddenly) and YOU decide if the risk is worth it to you.

for example my mother in law was given a couple of treatment options for her back pain--a drug and a surgery. after going over all the possible side effect she decided to just put up with the pain.

How seriously should you take warnings on medications? Sure, we all know taking Nurofen isn't to great for your stomach, but you'll live... and we don't even really worry about panadol, antibiotics, injections and much much more... But these things stil come with warnings of side effects and adverse reactions. Is this just to cover themselves in case of a lawsuit, or are these dangers very real? And if there are extreme danegers that a pharmaceutical company is aware of, should they release the drug at all?
These are the following medications I have looked into:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thioridazine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imipramine

Of course Wiki isn't always the most reliable source, but it is usually much easier to understand than medical jargon.

And these are some of the side effects:
fatal neuroleptic malignant syndrome
cardiotoxicity
Tardive dyskinesia
akathisia

And they're only some of the ones for Thoiridazine!


So, are these dangers real? What do these dangers really mean? And is it fair to prescribe drugs, or even release them, if they are not safe?I've taken a number of the atypical antipsychotics. They're frequently prescibed for bipolar patients as a mood stabilizer. I've been lucky enough to avoid any serious side effects. (Slight hand tremor with lithium cured by an anti- Parkinsons drug)

But you might consider that bipolar disorder is frequently fatal, having up to a 20% suicide rate. Not feeling compelled to throw yourself in front of a train is worth the risk. These are the reasons they don't let us just pick it up at the drugstore and take them as we please.

Another medication (fazaclo) allows me to actually sleep and reduces my irritability and anxiety, as well as being an anti-psychotic. It may be the sole reason some of the people I know are still in the land of the living. Worth the weekly bloodtest.

Capitolism at work.

Learn how to spell something before you criticize it.

And for the record, I was on an antipsychotic called Abilify for several months (no, I'm not PSYCHOTIC, just bipolar) until I couldn't take it anymore. I didn't experience any cardiac arrest, lungitis, colon leakage, or RSD (rapid spleen disintegration); I just felt like (VERY) slowly drying paint. And sure, I had no mood swings, but that's because I had no moods.

Unless you're truly a danger to yourself or others, stay the hell away from that stuff or you'll have the cognitive abilities of Syd Barrett.

Can this be used for hypochondriosis? Just because you *could* have adverse reactions doesn't mean you *will*.

As for risk, well, it's all about balancing the benefits and the risk. Are you better off with the possible reaction than with the symptoms of the disease.

Of course it doesn't mean you *will*.

And of course it's also about balance, but it's still interesting that drugs can be prescribed when they have a lot of possible side effects, even if they are rare.

Actually, I'd never heard of Nurofen.




No, it's not fair. When I was in Iraq in 2003 they issued us mefloquine, an antimalarial. However, they didn't bother to tell us about the side effects:



That part has never been a problem with me, but ever since I got back I've had difficulty with my memory and with concentrating.

That's horrible that they didn't tell you about the possible side effects!
I think it should be the responsibility of doctors and chemists to explain medications thouroughly to patients, especially those being prescribed psychiatric medication. Just a leaflet isn't enough, because they're usually filled with medical jargon that the average person can not fully understand.

If you applied that thinking to anti-cancer drugs then there wouldn't be any anti-cancer drugs. If the side-effects are rare enough or vastly outweighed by their positive effects then I say go for it. In this case you've picked on two very old drugs in a field reknowned for poor understanding of mechanisms of action, hence the drugs that work are deemed necessary because nothing else will.

EDIT: And yes, the dangers are real, just incredibly unlikely.

I have actually been prescribed these drugs, thus my concern.
But I certainly believe drugs unlikely dangers are much much better than no cure at all.

It's mainly all written down so that on the off-chance there's a lawsuit about it, they've got a standard "we told you so" line they can trot out and the whole thing gets chucked out of court.

Yeh, that's what I think too. It's like peanut butter that says "contains peanuts"!

I've taken a number of the atypical antipsychotics. They're frequently prescibed for bipolar patients as a mood stabilizer. I've been lucky enough to avoid any serious side effects. (Slight hand tremor with lithium cured by an anti- Parkinsons drug)

But you might consider that bipolar disorder is frequently fatal, having up to a 20% suicide rate. Not feeling compelled to throw yourself in front of a train is worth the risk. These are the reasons they don't let us just pick it up at the drugstore and take them as we please.

Another medication (fazaclo) allows me to actually sleep and reduces my irritability and anxiety, as well as being an anti-psychotic. It may be the sole reason some of the people I know are still in the land of the living. Worth the weekly bloodtest.

I had the shakes with Prozac. I have a mood disorder + PSTD, so I agree that meds are better than suicide...

Learn how to spell something before you criticize it.

And for the record, I was on an antipsychotic called Abilify for several months (no, I'm not PSYCHOTIC, just bipolar) until I couldn't take it anymore. I didn't experience any cardiac arrest, lungitis, colon leakage, or RSD (rapid spleen disintegration); I just felt like (VERY) slowly drying paint. And sure, I had no mood swings, but that's because I had no moods.

Unless you're truly a danger to yourself or others, stay the hell away from that stuff or you'll have the cognitive abilities of Syd Barrett.

Hmm... I don't think all antipsychotics cause a lack of mood entirely. Perhaps you were given a drug that wasn't right for you.