Talk:David Healy (psychiatrist)

Leaps of logic

One of the things I dislike of the plain claim that antidepressants cause suicide, a claim very common in Citizens Commission on Human Rights, is that it’s a jump. The right way to formulate the claim is something like this: “It has been proven that a number of people on antidepressants, and even more on neuroleptics, suffer from akathisia: a state of extreme inner anxiety. As a result, in some cases such psychiatric drugs may be iatrogenic. Some of the people with a previous mental history may commit suicide in order to escape the torment of akathisia”. —Cesar Tort 00:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This remains controversial but is far from the "leaps of logic" presented here. While it is clear that the act of suicide is not a simplisitic cause/effect outcome of taking the anti-depressants as many people take these drugs and are not killing themselves in a lemming-like action, studies have shown that there is indeed an effect and an increased risk of suicide as an outcome - especially at start of medication and when dose is increased. Healy has said more than once that he is not against the use of the drugs, but is clear about careful case management and awareness of risk. The reaction by many in the physchiatric and pharmaceutical establishement has been fear mongering that the black box warnings would cause reduction in use and result in an increase in suicide, but this has been shown by various studies not to be the case. Suicide is a major cause of death in teens and young adults therefore caution would be common sense. The fact of the potential effect of these drugs is beyond question. Hardly a leap of logic. Szimonsays 209.90.146.46 (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Claiming that sufferers commit suicide as an escape from akathisia is actually the leap in logic. The reality is that medical experts including the drug companies and the prescribing doctors will admit that they don't understand why or how exactly the drugs work. They will say things like, "it is thought that..., and evidence suggests that..." Speaking from personal experience, these drugs do cause suicidal ideation, full stop. It is if the drug is specifically designed to plant that thought in your head. It is a scary feeling to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.188.35 (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• WP:NOTAFORUM. Lesion (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

References and Sources

I know that a lot of material in this article is real because I am active in it's area of study. Many will wonder where it all comes from though. There are a few references, but the article needs much more especially on this subject with suicide being discussed, there MUST be clear citations and references. DJ Barney 13:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

this reads like an essay

This reads like an essay. It appears to be one sided and seeks to sway the readers opinion. It needs work. Essay tag was added as was POV tag. This style creates bias.--scuro (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

More sources needed

This article needs more sources, especially as it's WP:BLP and also deals with with a controversial issue.Autarch (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The article has been improved a lot since 2010, but some of the external links could be used as references, to further support existing text and expand it. Johnfos (talk) 10:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Mis-statements of fact

There are a lot of statements of opinion presented as facts in this article. But I suggest we defer debating these and start out with some examples where Dr. Healy makes assertions that are clearly contradicted by primary sources.

"In his book Pharmageddon, Healy says that a sleeping pill called thalidomide caused a drug disaster in 1962 which involved limbless and handicapped babies being born to distraught mothers. The United States Congress wanted to prevent a recurrence of such a tragedy, and sought to limit the marketing excesses of the pharmaceutical industry. So new drug development was rewarded with product rather than process patents, and new drugs were made available only through prescription"

Prescriptions for new drugs were required by the Durham-Humphrey Amendment of 1951, 11 years before the thalidomide incident. http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/Milestones/ucm128305.htm

Product patents were allowed on U.S. pharmaceuticals since the 1800's, not beginning in 1962 as stated by Dr. Healy. For example, here is a product patent from Merck that was granted in 1950. http://www.google.com/patents/US2494524

Lets address these first. I will then contend that if Healy's book is in error on basic issues of fact, his opinion on more complex issues needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Best wishes 98.155.21.76 (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

But the example you have given above is not strictly "presenting asserions as facts", is it? It starts with "In his book Pharmageddon, Healy says .." (although this might be clearer if quotes were used around actual text taken from the book.) One might argue that the article is thus simply reporting what Healy claims in his book. I think there may be a fine line between 1. Reporting claims made by Healy which are deeemed to be contentious; 2. Pointing out factual errors in Healy's claims and 3. Constructing an argument, by means of example, that "Healy is generally wrong/ misguided, etc". I think there may be problems of WP:OR with all three of these. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful and carefully reasoned response. You make some excellent points here, and have pointed out some un-Wikipedia like directions in my reasoning. However the next sentence is

"Pharmageddon shows how these arrangements have not been successful and have actually led to an escalating number of drug induced deaths and injuries."

My problem here would then be with the word "shows". It accepts as an undisputed fact Healy's assertion that there is "an escalating number of drug induced deaths". It further accepts as undisputed fact that the number of deaths was exacerbated by antecedent events (pharmaceutical patents and the new advent of prescribing requirements) that, as a matter of public record, are not what actually happened. What I propose is

The word "shows" should be replaced by "asserts", "argues" or some other word that does not implicitly accept that David's contentions are accepted fact

The article should clearly state that Healy's description of the legislation that was passed in the aftermath of the tragedy is factually incorrect.

While suggesting that his error in this case makes everything he says unreliable would be both overreaching and OR, one can and should provide the information that he formed this broad opinion without adequately researching the antecedent facts so that readers can take it into account in forming their own opinion of David's work. The current version of the article repeats factually incorrect information from the book as if it were true. This is clearly not acceptable.

I like David, he is a well meaning, smart guy. His perspectives are a valuable addition to the landscape of thought in psychopharmacology, even if a bit extreme at times. I've debated with him on a number of ocassions and he always stays on point and argues honestly and without resorting to bullshit tactics. But he should be shown in a balanced light. The article highlights his strengths and butresses his credibility in many places, citing how many articles he has written (I think the number given is too high), mentioning that he pointed out the anti-depressant suicide risk long before others, etc. Another side of his personality is that he is a little careless with factual accuracy. I don't see how including laudatory information is OK, but any mention that at least in this specific instance he got his facts all wrong is original research or editorializing. In contrast, it helps paint a balanced picture of a man, who like the rest of us has both strengths and weaknesses.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this. 98.155.21.76 (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)