Last Updated 15 May 2008

Contact:amad@downes-grainger.com

Following the book Prescription for Injury (available by contacting me), I have just finished a new 28 page booklet on the subject of tranquillisers and the refusal of government to admit that those who become addicted through prescriptions are not the same population as those who become addicted through the illegal use of the drugs. That politicians persist in this immoral stance is a continuing cause for questioning concern, particularly as there are somewhere between 1 and 1.5 million innocent patients addicted in the UK at this time. The paper can be downloaded as a pdf by clicking the link below. If you would like a printed copy, they will be available in about three weeks at a cost of £3.00 plus 60p  postage. 

Blaming the Patient

Front Cover

Back Cover

Comments:

Colin,
You are to be congratulated on this particularly excellent and well informed work.  I tried extracting a short synopsis from the pamphlet to illustrate its importance as a tool for those who may have an interest in the ongoing benzodiazepine scandal, but failed. Every sentence is bound to each paragraph and reference so symbiotically, it proved impossible.

The document is so well put together taking any part of it to use as a synopsis would be inappropriate to the task of furthering, what I believe to be,  it’s intended purposes:

Namely: a) Educating people who may be able to do something (politicians, those in power and health professionals) about the ongoing controversial and unnecessary doping of the healthy and worried well with long term use of these damaging drugs, on the chance that once so informed, such influential people will try to do something about the matter.

And: b) Further informing those who have become iatrogenic addicts through no fault of their own, and at the very least, reassuring them that some of things they suffer, others have suffered before them, (and do so still) they are not alone, they have not gone mad, and for some there may even be hope of  at least limited recovery.

And c) perhaps of more importance, your pamphlet may be read by someone who will not meekly submit to doctors orders, and unnecessarily partake of the poisoned chalice of “benzo-treatment “ or an antidepressant, or for that matter, any other psychotropic drug for one of life’s negative experiences, or even as you point out, a minor ache or pain, et cetera.

In short, some may become aware there is not a pill for every ill. That no medicine carries no risk, and apart from when used for the severely afflicted, (e.g.; possibly catatonic depression, etc.) most psychotropic drugs carry a most unfavourable benefit to risk ratio.

It is time to stop this madness - from prescribing pad to lifelong illness - maybe your work will help. If so, many will deserve your thanks. You have mine anyway.

 Stuart Jones.


Brilliant Colin!!

Thanks for sending this paper to me. It is a master piece of truth with no 'holds barred!'  I am always amazed by doctors and the Government and many others who always and persistently BLAME THE PATIENT for their prescribed, involuntary drug addiction illness. But I believe this BLAME THE PATIENT attitude is clearly transference. As any knowledgeable pschychiatrist will know, other people will transfere their emotional feelings and guilt and their lack of responsibility onto others; namely, in this case, they transfer their lack of responsibility onto the patients who are involuntary addicted to prescribed benzodiazepines.

These very ill patients do not abuse these prescribed drugs, but by this method of 'transference, of blaming the patient, they have most definitely been abused by the doctors who continue to prescribe these drugs, who ignore Government guidelines with impunity and the Government who will not acknowledge what they already know to be true!! It is their fault not the patients fault; and they should shoulder their responsibility but they do not. 

It's simple really; they all stick together, it is the UK  'buddy' system of ''you cover your own back and I will cover your back if you cover my back'', and so they are all in denial together because they have the 'power' to do this, and the 'power' to deny these patients proper treatment on the NHS; they deny them of their basic human right, subsequently, they are actively and with intent abusing and keeping these patients addicted to drugs and 'disabled' for life without a twinge of their conscience troubling them. They are just not like the average person who does have a conscience....No, they are not people to be admired or to have any respect for. That's for sure. 
Mary   

New Book:

Worse Than Heroin - The World's most Difficult Addiction Problem

 E. Robert Mercer


The most pervasive drug problem in the world is not heroin, not crack, not
crystal meth, not pot, not any of the illicit drugs. Combined with the
brutal nature of its addiction and the time and difficulty involved in
withdrawing, a legal classification of drugs is by far the worst. Given its
legal status and widespread use, benzodiazepines are secretly taking away
the lives of Americans and people in other western cultures as we
increasingly turn to pills to heal us. The elderly in particular are most
easily victimized. In fact, what is happening in nursing homes across this
country is nothing short of torture, as we frequently turn our elderly
parents into zombies, too often for the sake of the convenience of the
health care system.

http://www.lulu.com/browse/book_view.php?fCID=2385627&fBuyItem=3

31 March 2008

Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op): It is estimated that 1.5 million people’s lives have been destroyed by involuntary tranquilliser addiction leading to long periods of mental ill health. A man whom I met recently had been on tranquillisers for 45 years. Those people want to work, but cannot do so. As far as I am aware, the only primary care trust that has introduced a withdrawal programme is Oldham. Will the Secretary of State encourage his Department and the Department of Health to study the Oldham model with the aim of getting some of those people off prescription drugs and back to work? That would improve their quality of life, and would reduce the benefits bill as well.

James Purnell: My hon. Friend has identified a serious problem, on which I know he has campaigned for some time. He will be glad to know that Dame Carol Black’s review commits my Department and the Department of Health to working together closely on the issue, and that Dame Carol will use that work to ensure that we can help people with mental health problems. We are also working on our drug strategy to ensure that we can provide better support for people who wish to return to workJames Purnell James Purnell was appointed Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in January 2008 following the resignation of Peter Hain

VIDEO

http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/VideoPlayer.aspx?meetingId=1416&st=14:18:20

European Commission Proposes to Allow Direct to Consumer "Information"

RESPONSE FROM SOCIAL AUDIT Ltd TO THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S
'LEGAL PROPOSALS ON INFORMATION TO PATIENTS'

Dear Sirs,

I feel unable to respond to your consultation on ‘patient information’ on the point-by-point basis proposed. But I do wish to register the strongest objections to your plans, not least for the reasons explained in the statement you have received from the consortium of eleven European organisations, led by ISDB, MiEF, HAI and AIM, also in papers from the Picker Institute and others.

From a health perspective, the proposal to expose people to more and more disease awareness messages from pharmaceutical companies seems destitute. It is especially unacceptable that DG Enterprise & Industry should be trying to legalise direct-to-consumer promotion of prescription drugs, yet again by dressing it up as a proposal to liberate consumers with better drug information.

The Commission’s proposals stand for principles that, after 30 years of professional engagement in this field, I have learned to abhor. An abbreviated Curriculum Vitae is attached at Appendix Two.

As a prescription for health, this consultation exercise seems essentially cynical. The main objective of DG Enterprise and Industry (DGEI) is to promote European trade and economic development. That is a legitimate interest in its own right, but it presents grotesque conflicts of interest when it comes to shaping health policy – and these proposals exemplify them. DGEI greatly over-estimates the support they deserve, no doubt partly in the expectation of strong backing from the industry-funded patient groups that it has traditionally promoted and preferred.

The consultation document lacks any coherent health impact assessment. Its proposals further blur the distinction between high and low quality information, and take no account of the health impact of the far greater quantities of partial information to which people will now be exposed. That is a crucial omission.

Professional judgment underpins my fear that the longer-term impact of these proposals will be to damage health and beckon Pharmageddon. See Appendix One. It is of great concern that the European Commission should so vigorously and uncritically promote the cause of an industry whose behaviour is routinely seductive, deceptive, manipulative and grasping, and whose output of useful new drugs is low and in decline.

The activities of the leading pharmaceutical companies – all deeply engaged with DGEI - mainly distract from the health problems we face. Medicinal drugs are of course sometimes extremely valuable – but can only ever be a small part of the effective solutions we need. Real health grows from the roots up, not from cabals down.

Europeans need to take personal responsibility for their own health, and to understand how much it depends on the health of local and global community. DG Enterprise & Industry completely fails to appreciate that you paralyse the healthy human response, once people come to believe that their genes, body chemistry, and social and cosmetic camouflage are key to developing health and well-being. These proposals take absurdly for granted the benefits of technological and medical intervention

People can never take responsibility for health if bombarded with disease awareness propositions - relentless reminders of their vulnerability, with the promise of drug solutions always to hand. This drive to medicalisation not only makes people feel resourceless and ill; it also threatens the very existence of national health services, by creating unsustainable demand.

What do these proposals have to offer in terms of promoting clear and general understanding of the real benefits, risks and harms that come from pharmaceutical interventions? Possibly one step forward; probably three or more steps back.

Health is basically to do with eating sensibility and sufficiently, taking enough exercise, avoiding toxic exposures, and social security and justice. Disease awareness propaganda diminishes these imperatives and makes the situation worse. Medicines have their place, but it is folly to promote them as if they were the bedrock of health development and the key to maintaining good enough levels of personal confidence, social equilibrium and mental and physical health.

These dismal and potentially dangerous proposals from DG Enterprise seem to me a portent of the health chaos that the European leadership on medicines might first precipitate and then hopelessly fail to contain.

I would be happy to further explain and justify these observations, if required.

Yours faithfully

Charles Medawar
Executive Director
Social Audit Ltd
P O Box 111
London NW1 8XG

Charles Medawar
3 April 2008

 

Charles Medawar

Charles Medawar's professional background is in consumer protection. He worked with Consumers' Association (1966-71) and was later elected to its Council (1971-74). After a stint with Ralph Nader, working in Washington DC, he returned to the UK to set up Public Interest Research Centre (a Registered Charity) and Social Audit (its publishing arm), where he led a small team which attempted to develop and apply methodologies for social accounting, reporting on the ways in which major companies interpreted and discharged various social responsibilities. Since 1977, Medawar has specialised on medicines policy and drug safety issues (in both developing and industrialised economies) and on matters of corporate, governmental and professional accountability relating thereto. Most of his work has been funded by a prominent Quaker foundation, the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.

More recently, Medawar has held several appointments with the World Health Organisation, including the WHO Conference of Experts on the Rational Use of Drugs (Nairobi, 1985) and Rapporteur of the Working Group of Experts on National Drug Policy (1988). He is now a member of the WHO Expert Advisory Panel on Drug Policies and Management. He was a member of the Expert Advisory Panel on Consumer Interests and Health Education of the US Pharmacopeial Convention (1995-2000); Editorial Board of Drug & Therapeutics Bulletin, (1990-95); Chair, Investment Sub-committee, Committee of Reference of the Friends Provident Stewardship Trusts; Trustee, Allen Lane Foundation (1989-2001); Hon. Fellow, Centre for Environmental Accounting, University of Dundee; and Council member of SustainAbility Ltd.

During 2004/5, Medawar worked as a specialist advisor on the Parliamentary Health Committee inquiry into ‘The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry’. He has also worked as a consultant to the Australian Department of Health and Aged Care (2000), and as external assessor for the Open University’s MBA course in Life Sciences. During the 1980s, Medawar worked as scientific coordinator on a number of legally-aided class actions, and was responsible for generic research notably on actions relating to transmission of HIV to haemophiliacs via Factor VIII and other blood products; benoxaprofen (Opren/Oraflex); Toxic Shock Syndrome and dependence on benzodiazepine tranquillisers.

Medawar writes, broadcasts and lectures regularly on corporate social responsibility and medicines policy and safety issues. His most recent work (with Professor Anita Hardon) is Medicines out of Control? (Amsterdam: Aksant Academic Publishers, 2004). A publications list is available on request, but much of his recent work (1998-2008) can be accessed on the Social Audit website (www.socialaudit.org.uk) which now attracts over 1,000,000 visitors a year.