Meds in the Movies: Running with Scissors

Annette Bening's character, Dierdre, is a stay-at-home mom convinced that she's meant to be a very famous poet. Her marriage suffers in the shadow of her delusional convictions and her tenuous grasp on reality slips as she turns to a wacko psychiatrist, Dr Finch whose fixes to Dierdre's problems include psychobable, rage therapy, taking custody of her son, and boatloads of Valium and other psychotropics. Benning's riveting, convincing, sensitive performance as a mentally unstable, completely-zooted pillhead is the very best reason to see this film.

Medicating Adolescence?

With doctors prescribing antipsychotics with the gusto that gym teachers extol the virtues of team spirit, I wonder if I and my siblings would now be medicated for what was considered normal teenage angst: In the Nineties I was depression-riddled, withdrawn, and irritable. My brother was a pain in the ass, booze-swilling megalomaniac, my sister was a control-freak, rage-aholic. Yet we got out of that time in our lives without much psychological intervention, and absolutely no psychiatric medication. I doubt things would be the same for us now as it seems the school nurse's bin has turned into some kind of Brave New World prescription soda fountain. How'd this happen?

According to an article in the The New York Times, pscyhiatrists are falling prey to the marketing ploys of the pharmaceutical industry. Recent analysis shows that where marketing dollars are spent, prescriptions are written: From 2000 to 2005 in Minnesota, while drug manufacturer's spending increased six-fold on psychiatrist's consulting fees, money spent on antipscyhotics for children increased 9-fold. And proving a certain smarmy correlation, those psychiatrists who received the most in consulting fees also prescribed the most antipsychotics to children. (Minnesota is the only state in the country that makes this kind of information public.)

The Times article also points to another party: parents. It seems that Gen Xers are now passing off their quick-fix "Prozac Nation" mentality to their children, apparently viewing adolescent angst as an illness, not a stage.

One child, Anya Bailey at the age of 12, was given the antipsychotic Risperdal for its typically undesirable side effect of weight gain because she had developed an eating disorder. Risperdal is only approved for the use in children for aggression in Autism. It also approved for use in adult schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It is not approved for use in weight gain. But, from what I remember of 7th grade, if you didn't have some problem with your looks or your weight, then you were a slut.

Unfortunately for Anya, who did gain weight (and whose picture was on the front page of the Times) she also developed another side effect that causes serious, painful clinching of her back muscles. Anya's mom now wishes she had waited to see whether counseling would have helped Anya before trying the drugs and also says she had no idea that the drug at the time was not approved for the use in children. Here's a tip to all the Ms Baileys out there: talking to your child about her problems is what you're here for and researching the drugs that you're putting her on is an excellent idea.

Still other parents seemingly have no regrets. The satisfied parent of another child, a 17-year-old boy on Seroquel and Abilify for his intense mood swings, said, "he’s pleasant to be around.”

But are 17-year-olds supposed to be pleasant? Not from what I remember.

LINK (The New York Times)

Drug Dealer to the Stars!

In a riviting tell-all article in the National Enquirer in which a drug dealer devulges his specialized knowledge, it is revealed that besides cocaine and marijuana, Hollywood's drug of choice is OxyContin. The article then calls OxyContin "Hillbilly Heroin" but couldn't it just as aptly be named "Hollywood Heroin"?

It also says that other favorites of the beautiful people are Vicodin, Xanax, Valium and Klonopin and that drug cocktails like Vicodin Martinis are "hot".

Arcade Fire AIDS Effort

Arcade Fire, promoting their new album Neon Bible, played Radio City Music Hall last week to a crowd that seemed on the verge of religious ecstacy. The 9-piece band was astounding, theatrical, energetic, and apocolyptic, and filled the enormous ampitheater with its darkly beautiful songs that warn that the world is heading into harrowing times and beg us all to do something about it.

Their new album, Neon Bible, was described as such by Pitchfork Media: "While the group's us-against-the-world stance occasionally comes off as slightly self-righteous or reactionary, their scathingly critical perspective gives weight and direction to their nervy earnestness."

Apparently putting some money where his muic is, singer Win Butler announced at Radio City that a dollar for every ticket sold on this year's tour goes toward fighting AIDS in Haiti, the country most devastated by the disease in this hemisphere. More than 6% of adults in Haiti are HIV positive.

Arcade Fire's donation is going to Partners in Health, a global, community-based, pioneering force in the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, the world's top 3 most deadliest infectious diseases. Partners in Health provides medical training, education, and free antiretroviral drugs to AIDS patients.

Régine Chassagne, Arcade Fire's co-founding member and wife to Butler, is from a family of Haitian refugees who escaped to Canada during the reign of Baby Doc Duvalier.


LINK (Partners in Health)

LINK (Haiti Innovations)

Chipotle vs Big Pharma

In an effort to promote their apparent committment to using naturally raised pork, chicken, and beef, Chipotle has taken a big shot at Big Pharma. One billboard near my office says "MEAT FROM FARMS, NOT BIG PHARM."

Another billboard on their website says (in that tiresome Chipotle font) "WE'RE ANTI-ANTIBIOTICS (BUT PRO-CHICKEN)"

It makes sense that a huge supplier of organic positions itself against factory farming, but this campaign is the only one I know of that makes a direct link to the pharmaceutical industry.

But back to the pork. It really is incredibly tasty. Incidentally it is the only meat Chipotle serves that is, in fact, 100% antibiotic free. According to the Chipotle website, 40% of their chicken and 60% of their beef is sourced from factory farms, where antibiotics are used.

LINK (Chipotle)

Celebrities and their Drugs

The lawyer of Paris Hilton recently demanded that blogs Dlisted and Gallery of the Absurd take down postings about an artwork satirizing the pill-popping princesses. The work shows the "Simple Life" stars sitting beside cases of herpes medication Valtrex and the opiate Vicoden. The lawyer proclaimed "This poster clearly implies Ms. Hilton has loathsome diseases and also implies Ms. Hilton uses Vicodin. The inferences . . . are false and defamatory." False and defamatory? Really?

A prescription of Valtrex for Hilton was found in a storage facility that she abandoned, and Richie admitted to cops she'd taken Vicoden after she was stopped for driving the wrong way on an LA highway.

But I'm suprised the pharma lawyers haven't written their own letters. Afterall, doesn't the artwork imply that loathsome people are taking these drugs?

LINK (Gallery of the Absurd)

LINK (DListed)

No Free Lunch

Who wouldn't be happy to go to the doctor and receive a free sample of medication? On the surface, a drug sample seems like a present gift-wrapped in blister pack: A sample saves a trip to the pharmacy, it can be taken right away, and, did I mention? It's free. Samples save the insured a co-pay, and for the uninsured, (horror of horrors!) a sample can save a significant wad of cash.

But as an article in The Times reveals, there is no free lunch, even if what's for lunch is just a pill.

Samples come with a hitch. Pharma company sales reps give doctors samples of only the newest, therefore most expensive, drugs on the market. And, because many of these drugs are intended for a lifetime of use, patients have to fork over more money for them in the long run than if they had been prescribed an older, cheaper medication in the first place.

And doctors do hand out samples before prescribing older, cheaper, and even recommended medications. A study published in 2002 found that when doctors treated high blood pressure, their prescribing of "first line" drugs recommended by national guidelines was low until free samples were removed from the office. My hunch is that doctors feel that giving out samples ingratiates themselves to their patients. Afterall, what better way to get friends than to hand out free drugs?

Anyway, next time you're given a sample, you might want to find out what else is on the market for treating the same problem. For example, if you're given a sample of Clarinex for allergies, a tiny bit of research would reveal that it's predecessor, Claritin, is virtually the same drug as Clarinex but because the patent protection was lost on Claritin it's now available cheaply as prescription generic or OTC. Clarinex samples may be free, but Claritin is cheaper in the long run.

Sound like a rip-off? It is. Some healthcare organizations, in Philadelphia, Maine, and California are starting to refuse free samples altogether, or are accepting them only for their, ahem, free clinics.

LINK (The New York Times)