Yeah but nobody really wants to pay for that anymore. A lot of those mentally ill patients are either indigent or not real good with personal finances.

Thank you!

That’s the point I’m trying to make. There seems to be a knee jerk rush in this thread to blame the drugs themselves.Here are suggested laboratory monitors for various psychoactive drugs, some of which have other uses, for example, to prevent seizures:

I don’t think ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā– ā–  Birx or various celebrities admonishing average Joes and Janes to ā€œstay home to save livesā€ has encouraged patients who should be monitored to visit the prescribing doctor. Really, I’ve seen a big drop in patient records of therapeutic drug monitoring.

While morons like Laura Ingraham blame weed or the prescribed drugs, these patients may not actually be taking them at all. Or may be self medicating as far as dose, or withdrawing cold turkey.

Without any of this information, next stop is blaming ā€œBig Pharmaā€ and psychiatrists.

2 Likes

This is a cop out. Not on your behalf but the people pushing this. There is no question of mental illness but going ā€œoh it’s the drugsā€ is nonsense because it turns a complex topic into buzzwords and finger pointing.

It ain’t guns it ain’t just drugs either

Except it doesn’t explain the drop in young people between 1999 and 2019. It also doesn’t explain why the mass shootings no matter how usual they seem are carried out By a tiny portion of the Prozac generation.

This is a blame game. As easy one.

1 Like

Only a tiny fraction of alcohol users are responsible for the drunk driving deaths, but bars are responsible if they allow a drunk person to drive off.

Are bartenders held to a higher standard than doctors?

Yes dram shop acts are more onerous than medical malpractice lawsuits. Here is the slight difference - over serving someone (which is the only time when dram shop acts are involved) are easier to prove than medical failure. Also the standard for medical malpractice is ludicrous but its meant to protect against civil lawsuits for known side effects of procedures. Giving someone visibly drunk a drink is often obviously wrong, causing an infection during surgery because the hospital is not as sterile as people pretend it is, is slightly more complicated. Hope this makes sense

Trust me…smoking dope does not make you want to shoot people.

Precisely the opposite.

SSRIs on the other hand are tricky beasties and withdrawing from them without doctor’s supervision can be dicey.

1 Like

…but…if you were a bag of Doritos…RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!! :sunglasses: :tumbler_glass:

I won’t argue with that…:rofl:

1 Like

The person who dies from a hospital infection is arguably took a known risk in order to receive a benefit from a treatment.

Someone who was killed by a gunman who became violent after treatments with anti-depressants did not have a choice about the treatment. The situation is very similar to that of an innocent bystander getting run down by a drunk leaving a bar. If bartenders are liable, then doctors should be liable.

You are already jumping to conclusions that the anti depressants were the cause. Like i said it’s not a terrible correlation but you are now putting all your eggs in one basket. You cannot prove that a persons failure to take medication or to take it as prescribed caused that person to shoot up a parade. Also more importantly there is no law that prohibits doctors from being sued for improper prescriptions. At least none that i know of. The lawsuit would be subject to the medical malpractice standard and in some states frivolous law suits rules where the plaintiff may wind up paying the doctors legal bills. Thanks tort reform.

uh huh.

But the drugs aren’t CAUSING them to murder people.

I couldn’t say because then I’d be speaking of things I do not know. That said, they very well could be?

How do we know? Are they only thing? Most likely not but over medication of American youth is a problem. A problem that may be a factor in these shootings. A factor not the factor mind you

2 Likes

If only bartenders had an NRA.

Couple things come to mind -

  • You know how many tends of millions of americans use these drugs? 99.9999% don’t murder people at a parade. So we’re going to give credence to Tucky - who doesn’t know ā– ā– ā– ā–  about it either - and pretend they might be the cause here…that’s silly. It just is. You might as well say ā€œYou know, that kid ate cereal for breakfast - maybe that’s what made him do itā€¦ā€

  • You say you don’t know, and won’t speculate. Then you speculate. This is the purpose of the pieces driving this narrative. The seed has been planted, and now you think…maybe. Maybe that’s it… It s disraction.

  • It’s pointless for us to try to figure out why people do these things. The truth is, of course, there are a host of reasons, and not all of them are the same. And there are a host of factors, most of which can not be used predicatively. If you want to stop mass murders, trying to ferret out the killers, Minority Report style is not going to work. The commonality - the gun - could be effectively restricted, but we don’t want to do that. So we won’t.

1 Like

Correlation, not causation.

I’m not speculating as to the percentage of mass shooters that were on these drugs. This is factual. The speculation comes from which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are the drugs enhancing the probability or is it the original, mental condition that is motivating this or…is it the misuse of these drugs that’s motivating this? I do not know and do not have the background to speculate.

The correlation here is that it is a primary cause. There is no evidence for that

But it is a possible factor which makes it a causative relationship.

What is the evidence of this?