Posted by linkadge on July 18, 2007, at 21:01:59
In reply to Re: subjective opinions » linkadge, posted by Sigismund on July 18, 2007, at 14:58:23
I completely agree with you. There were/are probably hundreds of very promising potential antidepressant compounds that never make it past stage a, because some animal model detects a hint of possable abuse potential.
I think depression is a serious disease.
Why is it that severe risks can be taken with the treatment of many other serios illnesses but not depression?
Why is it "ok" for chemotherapy (for instance) to have potential side effects so disasterous and yet still be approved as a treatment?
It is because chemotherapy is lifesaving.
Yet when it comes to depression. One cannot risk a "side effect" of euphoria? No doubt the removal of amineptine prompted a lapse back into depression of those unresponsive to other agents.
There may have been many suicides as a result of its removal.But yet the "side effect" of a possable mild euphoria is an "unnaceptable risk" even when considering the lethality of depression?
Why is it that a non-life threatening disease (ADHD) can be treated with drugs with a much more extensive history of abuse? And yet a life threatening disease (depression) will have nothing to do with drugs that posess mild abuse potential?
Its really messed up. And those in charge of such decisions should be ashamed of themselves.
Perhaps do a better job at detecting antidpressant abuse, should it occur, but for goodness sakes don't remove such lifesaving drugs from the market alltogether. Its unethical.
Linkadge
poster:linkadge
thread:769140
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20070702/msgs/770459.html