Antipsychotics Given to 68.3% of British With Learning Disabilities


Analysis of a survey of 104 provider organizations – representing 3,250 service users in September of 2013 – finds that over two-thirds of British inpatients with learning disabilities receive anti-psychotic medication. The findings also showed that a higher percentage of people from black and minority ethnic groups  (72.6%) were given antipsychotics, compared with 61.8% of non-minority people with learning disabilities.

Anti-psychotics given to 68.3% with learning disabilities (ITV)

Also from the study:

More drugs given to black and minority ethnic groups

More people with learning disabilities from black and minority ethnic groups had been given anti-psychotic drugs on a regular basis than in white ethnic groups – 72.6% (284 out of 391) compared with 61.8% (1682 out of 2,720) – analysis of a census has revealed.

The findings were based on survey responses from 104 (58 NHS and 46 private) provider organisations in England on behalf of 3,250 service users in September last year.

The patient group included people with learning disabilities, autistic spectrum disorder and/or behaviour that challenges.

The census revealed that of the 56.6% (1,841) of patients who had experienced an “incident”, more women experienced every type of incident than men. The HSCIC said the census will be re-run in September 2014 in order to identify change and reductions in inpatient care to community care and support.


  1. Yes, but with language such as “anti-psychotic medication.” the mainstream spoon fed psychiatry supporters are just rolling their eyes if not scratching their heads, going “… and? doctors prescribe medicine to sick people. so?”

    Call it neuroleptic drugs and at least some people will curiously look up what that is. That’s why I call them neuroleptic “anti-psychotic” drugs.

    Report comment

    • One should stop calling any of these drugs anti-whatever. Anti-depressants are not antidepressive, anti-psychotics don’t target psychosis: they’re mostly general tranquilizers, some even aesthetics. It’s like hitting someone over the head with a club and calling it anti-disruptive behaviour therapy.
      Btw, the “sick people” argument falls on it’s head when you see stats showing higher rates of medicalisation of minorities. No one with a half brain will believe that somehow minorities have specifically more “biologically imbalanced” brains or whatever is the newest theory. Same goes for gender, though there will be people who will say that women are more “prone” to mental illness (save ADHD). Sure they are, they’re women and tend to behave as such. I’d love to see APA give their definition of normal.

      Report comment

      • Brilliantly said. They are and never have been anti anything, but I absolutely love the reference to hitting someone over the head, it is exactly the sort of thing psychiatry would try. After all they claim that frying someone’s brain with electricity is a medical treatment. They further claim that courts should not be allowed to limit its use especially in emergencies!! How anyone ever becomes a doctor and then believes this crap is absolutely beyond me. And they claim where the sick ones!!

        Report comment

  2. Thanks JeffreyC,
    They’re strong tranquillizers, they work by doing damage, and they turn people into basket cases. ‘Antipsychotic’ is a marketing term.

    They’re not really antipsychotic anyway, because they make psychosis worse in the long run (Thomas Insel).
    Misuse of these drugs can even cause mental illness in perfectly well people.

    Report comment

  3. This is just another example of a system that creates the conditions for the “manufacture and maintenance of oppression.” Not only does this practice worsen the conditions for those with learning disabilities but it manages to maintain the on going racial disparity which is so endemic to modern capitalism.

    Report comment