Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry最新文献

The author reviewed the placebo-controlled literature on electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for depression. No study demonstrated a significant difference between real and placebo (sham) ECT at 1 month posttreatment. Many studies failed to find a difference between real and sham ECT even during the period of treatment. Claims in textbooks and review articles that ECT is effective are not consistent with the published data. A large, properly designed study of real versus sham ECT should be undertaken. In the absence of such a study, consent forms for ECT should include statements that there is no controlled evidence demonstrating any benefit from ECT at 1 month posttreatment. Consent forms should also state that real ECT is only marginally more effective than placebo.

This article seeks to critically examine whether the reliance upon clinical judgment in decision-making under the Mental Health Act 1986 (Vic.) (MHA) and the Mental Health Review Board (MHRB) assists or hinders Parliament's key objective in passing the current MHA in 1986: least restrictive treatment.

Presumably in recognition of the fact that there is no chemical test that can be used to diagnose any of the alleged mental illnesses, journalists and medical opinion leaders have proclaimed that brain scans--particularly, functional imaging studies--can be used to confirm the presence of psychiatric disease. Although the scientific record contradicts these assertions, the news media have ignored a critical evaluation of what, exactly, the new technologies purport to explain. The article that follows presents a critical analysis of the theoretical, practical, and philosophical limitations of the functional neuroimaging modalities (fMRI, PET, SPECT), and why these methods are not used outside of the research setting in the clinical practice of psychiatry today.

The recent announcement by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requiring pharmaceutical companies to warn patients about the increased likelihood of suicidal thoughts when taking antidepressants was largely due to the recent availability of data that had gone unreported in the original research reports. The current article is a summary of the comparison between the published literature and the recently released data available on the FDA web site, with a focus on Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft. The discrepancies between the two versions suggest that the scientific community was not given enough information in the published medical literature to make adequately informed decisions about the optimal method for treating emotionally distressed children. There are many voices that want to blame the FDA for its role in the widespread use of these medications. The current article focuses on the role that academic medicine played in the process whereby these medications became so widely accepted.

In the United States, antidepressant medications are heavily promoted through direct-to-consumer advertising, which is regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Advertisements for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors frequently contain information inconsistent with the scientific evidence on the treatment of depression with antidepressants. The information presented serves to promote the use of antidepressants by biasing the public against nonpharmacological treatment of depression. While the FDA enforces regulations requiring fair and balanced presentation when comparing one medication to another, there appears to be no action taken against pharmaceutical companies that distort scientific evidence in order to disparage nonmedical approaches to depression.