Reasons for Non-Adherence

Just want to point out that changes in attitudes by many professionals kind of makes the diagnosis of schizophrenia to be nonsense, and so non compliance with the brain destroying drugs for a non disease makes a ton of sense.
I was someone who was locked up in an American state hospital with the diagnosis of chronic paranoid schizophrenia. I objected mightily but it was years later when the diagnosis of ptsd came into being, and almost overnight the diagnosis went away. Just suggesting that those who are buried under psychiatry might look at the fact that there is a great possibility they have no such “illness”, but were trained to be dysfunctional.
Hugh Massengill

Report comment

Here is the story of my non-compliance…
Was given the opportunity to speak to a University of Oregon class on the nightmare of being trapped in trauma, in a mental health system dedicated to destroying my sense of truth and power..
I include it in the hopes that at least one person sees in it the path to liberation to love and understanding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iScTrOUIQxc&list=UUt1Cu-VlPNy9wZy7eZCK12A&index=41
Hugh Massengill

Report comment

Conclusion: “Whilst medication non-adherence carries serious risks for service users, more than half of service users taking medication for either schizophrenia or bipolar disorder do something different to their treatment recommendations.”
SANE reported no competing interest. Really? Does that mean that SANE’s ‘support’ from Lundbeck pharmaceuticals (who happen to make medication for depression, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) is not regarded as a conflict of interest? I would take any SANE report with a grain of salt! http://www.lundbeck.com/uk/the-community/charities

SANE previously made a statement following the suicide of Lord Milo Douglas: http://www.sane.org.uk/resources/news/show_news/187

Interestingly, they never mentioned the fact that Lord Milo had recently been prescribed Citalopram/Celexa (made by Lundbeck) which double the risk of suicide. The conflict of interest here is mind-boggling! I did broach the subject but they ignored me..http://leoniefennell.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/lord-milos-inquest-and-the-mental-health-charity-sane/
Leonie Fennell

Report comment

I am so glad ‘service users’ was in quotation marks in the headline. That mind bogglingly statist, Orwellian term needs to be quarantined in quotation marks wherever it rears its ugly head.

‘sectioned’? Oooohh….. dadedadada… don’t mind me… just ‘using’ a government ‘service’ over here. Just ‘using’ it, it was ‘available’ and the police kindly helped me ‘use’ it. Oh yeah.

You see those people behind that locked door? Those people we signed CTOs for? Oh they are people who ‘use a service’. Yep. You see that person being dragged kicking and screaming into the facility? Oh he’s using a service. There’s a service there, and he’s using it. Later we’ll survey this ‘service user’ and we will diligently produce a SANE report, indicating what these people who ‘use services’ think of some issue related to the ‘service they use’. And we will type it, and say it, with a straight face, for we are not indoctrinated into the use of scary cult-like language that masks the inherent coercive nature of the ‘service’ we work in at all.

Report comment

“medication non-adherence carries serious risk for “service users”- what a load of rubbish! Medication non-adherence saved my son’s life!

Report comment

I’m not from the UK, but felt an uneasiness after reading this article, highly suspecting SANE has ties to pharmaceutical money.

In spite of knowing very little (other than what a Brit told me about the organization on a phone call some time back…),I’m impressed with the UK charity Mind – their decision to post a very good article on psychiatric drug withdrawal…

One that points out how many folks receive little or no support from their doctors with this decision, and taper with the information at hand, support of peers, etc. –

http://www.mind.org.uk/mental_health_a-z/7996_making_sense_of_coming_off_psychiatric_drugs

I thought this was one of the biggest risks I’d seen taken by any charity.

It’s good to know so many Brits are taking part in this revolution, so many folks from around the world!

Duane Sherry
Texas, USA

Report comment

And yet despite their biases, they still found that the main reasons for “non-adherence” (glad they used that term, rather than “noncompliance”) were dissatisfaction with results or intolerability of adverse effects. Not “Anosognosia” or thinking they’re better so they don’t need them any more. They are interested in QUALITY OF LIFE, and if the drugs don’t improve or reduce their overall quality of life, people are likely to discontinue. That over half of those so treated find their quality of life the same or made worse by the drugs should give the prescribers pause. Instead of trying to force them into agreeing with their treatment, maybe they ought to ask them why they stopped? Radical thought, I know…

—- Steve

Report comment