Talk:Chemical restraint: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:13, 17 February 2013

NPOV Issues

The reason I put the NPOV tag on this article is because this seems entirely biased and one-sided. The article is overwhelmingly against ANY chemical restraint use, which is not reflective of medical opinion on the matter. It seems to go so far as to suggest it is not an accepted procedure, despite the fact that it has many indications for it's use (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/109717). It also seems to suggest that it is unacceptably more dangerous than physical restraint alone, which has been shown not to be the case (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23360650). This article has even gone so far as to leave out key portions of source information that changes the implication of the text not consistent with the original context, such as "...individuals have the right to be free from physical or chemical restraints imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience and not required to treat the resident’s medical symptoms" [Emphasis Mine] I will attempt to rewrite this article when I have the time to bring it into line with the current medicolegal aspects of chemical restraints as well as attempt to explain any underlying cause for controversy. ~~If someone wants to take a crack at it in the meanwhile, have at it.~~ WarwulfX (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Made an initial rewrite to some information presented. I removed the medications that were specifically named in favor or the drug class name for the sake of berevity. I've also removed the contradictory section that read "Haldol doesn't have as many bad side effects, except for death" (more or less). Side effects are covered in the articles on drug/class. This seems to bring this article a little closer to NPOV. Not fully happy with it just yet, but it has added balance. WarwulfX (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==NPOV Issues==
-The reason I put the NPOV tag on this article is because this seems entirely biased and one-sided. The article is overwhelmingly against ANY chemical restraint use, which is not reflective of medical opinion on the matter. It seems to go so far as to suggest it is not an accepted procedure, despite the fact that it has many indications for it's use (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/109717). It also seems to suggest that it is unacceptably more dangerous than physical restraint alone, which has been shown not to be the case (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23360650). This article has even gone so far as to leave out key portions of source information that changes the implication of the text not consistent with the original context, such as "...individuals have the right to be free from physical or chemical restraints ''imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience and not required to treat the resident’s medical symptoms''" [Emphasis Mine] I will attempt to rewrite this article when I have the time to bring it into line with the current medicolegal aspects of chemical restraints as well as attempt to explain any underlying cause for controversy. If someone wants to take a crack at it in the meanwhile, have at it. [[User:WarwulfX|WarwulfX]] ([[User talk:WarwulfX|talk]]) 05:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
+The reason I put the NPOV tag on this article is because this seems entirely biased and one-sided. The article is overwhelmingly against ANY chemical restraint use, which is not reflective of medical opinion on the matter. It seems to go so far as to suggest it is not an accepted procedure, despite the fact that it has many indications for it's use (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/109717). It also seems to suggest that it is unacceptably more dangerous than physical restraint alone, which has been shown not to be the case (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23360650). This article has even gone so far as to leave out key portions of source information that changes the implication of the text not consistent with the original context, such as "...individuals have the right to be free from physical or chemical restraints ''imposed for purposes of discipline or convenience and not required to treat the resident’s medical symptoms''" [Emphasis Mine] I will attempt to rewrite this article when I have the time to bring it into line with the current medicolegal aspects of chemical restraints as well as attempt to explain any underlying cause for controversy. <strike>If someone wants to take a crack at it in the meanwhile, have at it.</strike> [[User:WarwulfX|WarwulfX]] ([[User talk:WarwulfX|talk]]) 05:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
+:Made an initial rewrite to some information presented. I removed the medications that were specifically named in favor or the drug class name for the sake of berevity. I've also removed the contradictory section that read "Haldol doesn't have as many bad side effects, except for death" (more or less). Side effects are covered in the articles on drug/class. This seems to bring this article a little closer to NPOV. Not fully happy with it just yet, but it has added balance. [[User:WarwulfX|WarwulfX]] ([[User talk:WarwulfX|talk]]) 07:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)