Lorazepam

Copied from the news section.

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/4112520.htm

Fiona has that article over in Benzos in the News.

 

HORRIBLE drug, IMO. But what benzo isn't??

Fiona has that article over in Benzos in the News.

 

HORRIBLE drug, IMO. But what benzo isn't??

 

Agreed.  It sure mangled my life.

 

-RST

Fiona has that article over in Benzos in the News.

 

HORRIBLE drug, IMO. But what benzo isn't??

 

Agreed.  It sure mangled my life.

 

-RST

 

Agreed. I think people are still vastly underinformed about its dangers. As of today, there are many potential Ativan victims who don't know that this particular tranquilizer even exists yet. And they will cross paths with it someday in the future. Sad.

Copied from the news section.

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/4112520.htm

 

" My name is Michael Behan and I took the benzodiazepine Ativan from 1981-87 on prescription from my GP in the belief that it was a medicine.

 

Upon discovering that Ativan was a drug,..."

 

That pretty seriously calls into question his "qualifications" to submit a tech memorandum about a pharma product!

Copied from the news section.

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/4112520.htm

 

" My name is Michael Behan and I took the benzodiazepine Ativan from 1981-87 on prescription from my GP in the belief that it was a medicine.

 

Upon discovering that Ativan was a drug,..."

 

That pretty seriously calls into question his "qualifications" to submit a tech memorandum about a pharma product!

 

That struck me too.  We are all responsible for what we put in our bodies.  I should have done my own due diligence but didn't. 

 

We all need to maintain a rational mindset, too and it's easy to fall into the trap of "this stuff is poison to everyone".  But, as you've pointed out earlier.  It isn't poison to everyone.  Some take it and never have a problem.  It's just that we are the collection of people who do.

 

Still, there should be a better method for ensuring informed consent exists.  I was foolish and asked if there was anything that could help me get back to a sleep pattern.  Ativan was prescribed and I took it without question.  Now, I don't take anything without looking into it first.  A hard lesson learned, no doubt.

 

-RST

I simply trusted my medical doctor. At that time I had no reason not to. I didn't want to read a bunch of stories about people that I considered 'addicts" or what I called emoters. I've done a complete 180 since that sad day...

 

I must admit that clarification of the term "Upon discovering that Ativan was a drug,..." would have helped. Of course he knew it was a drug. But all in all his testimony should definitely have some clout.

 

What I'm wondering is why doctors dismiss anecdotal evidence in favor of evidence-based work yet continue to go by clinical studies that are skewed, working only in the pharmaceutical companies' favor. It doesn't make sense. Clinical studies might as well be relegated to a lower level than anecdotal evidence!

Copied from the news section.

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/4112520.htm

 

" My name is Michael Behan and I took the benzodiazepine Ativan from 1981-87 on prescription from my GP in the belief that it was a medicine.

 

Upon discovering that Ativan was a drug,..."

 

That pretty seriously calls into question his "qualifications" to submit a tech memorandum about a pharma product!

 

Not sure what Mike means exactly but as someone who was prescribed Nitrazepam in 1975, I knew nothing about it, no patient information leaflet to read, no internet to look up, just something that you accepted from your doctor as being "good" "safe" "beneficial" certainly not as something that would cause an almost immediate paradoxical reaction which would result in me trying to take my own life.  Had no idea it was a benzodiazepine, had no idea it would cause dependence, had no idea I would be shackled to it for decades.  I just took it because my doctor advised me that this was what was needed.  I had never taken pills before, that is what I called it a pill, not a drug, never used that word ....  so why would I be worried?  No one ever suggested I should be worried. Even after the paradoxical reaction, which no one recognised, I did not know I should be worried as all my behaviour was put down to "mental health" issues. After I become unwell, my mother was prescribed valium to help her cope!!! It was 1988 before the prescribing guidelines came in stating short term use only. My mother died in 1985 so dependence was never an issue for her.

 

My current GP says "benzos are poison, I never prescribe them".  Family friend and retired GP says "benzos are poison".

Why do they say this, because they have seen how many lives have been blighted by them.  I doubt many doctors will now prescribe them in the UK beyond short term use thanks to campaigners like Mike. He is still active and battling on our behalf.

 

Benzos were heavily used when the traditional industries collapsed - shipbuilding, mining etc .. whole communities were blighted by unemployment and poverty and the solution was to blight people's health with these drugs.

 

Antidepressants are now used instead, I have just read of a town in Wales where one in three is taking antidepressants .. poverty, unemployment are the reason.

Knowing what I know now and given a chance to start over and needed to take a benzodiazepine for whatever reason, I would have much rather taken a 2mg Valium pill than a 0.5mg Ativan pill. The Ativan tolerance is much harder to deal with than Valium Tolerance, and the withdrawal symptoms are much more severe, bizarre and perplexing than with Valium. What would have helped to know is that Ativan is Valium on steroids, basically. And many people today still don't know that. Also, ativan comes in deceptively low doses, and 0.5mg Ativan doesn't sound like much, but it is more than most people think.

 

https://benzo.org.uk/lader2.htm

"When somebody comes into my office and says that they've been trying to stop their lorazepam, my heart sinks because I know I shall have twice as much of a problem as getting them off, say, Valium: the symptoms are more severe, they're more persistent, more bizarre, and people are much more distressed by them... I feel that this compound should not now be prescribed because of the problems which may arise in some patients." Professor Malcolm Lader, member of the Committee on the Review of Medicines, Brass Tacks, BBC2, October 20, 1987.

Knowing what I know now and given a chance to start over and needed to take a benzodiazepine for whatever reason, I would have much rather taken a 2mg Valium pill than a 0.5mg Ativan pill. The Ativan tolerance is much harder to deal with than Valium Tolerance, and the withdrawal symptoms are much more severe, bizarre and perplexing than with Valium. What would have helped to know is that Ativan is Valium on steroids, basically. And many people today still don't know that. Also, ativan comes in deceptively low doses, and 0.5mg Ativan doesn't sound like much, but it is more than most people think.

 

https://benzo.org.uk/lader2.htm

"When somebody comes into my office and says that they've been trying to stop their lorazepam, my heart sinks because I know I shall have twice as much of a problem as getting them off, say, Valium: the symptoms are more severe, they're more persistent, more bizarre, and people are much more distressed by them... I feel that this compound should not now be prescribed because of the problems which may arise in some patients." Professor Malcolm Lader, member of the Committee on the Review of Medicines, Brass Tacks, BBC2, October 20, 1987.

 

I think Lorazepam was the first one they were worried about if I remember correctly and then they realised that all benzodiazepines were hugely problematic for people.

 

Knowing what I know now and given a chance to start over and needed to take a benzodiazepine for whatever reason, I would have much rather taken a 2mg Valium pill than a 0.5mg Ativan pill. The Ativan tolerance is much harder to deal with than Valium Tolerance, and the withdrawal symptoms are much more severe, bizarre and perplexing than with Valium. What would have helped to know is that Ativan is Valium on steroids, basically. And many people today still don't know that. Also, ativan comes in deceptively low doses, and 0.5mg Ativan doesn't sound like much, but it is more than most people think.

 

https://benzo.org.uk/lader2.htm

"When somebody comes into my office and says that they've been trying to stop their lorazepam, my heart sinks because I know I shall have twice as much of a problem as getting them off, say, Valium: the symptoms are more severe, they're more persistent, more bizarre, and people are much more distressed by them... I feel that this compound should not now be prescribed because of the problems which may arise in some patients." Professor Malcolm Lader, member of the Committee on the Review of Medicines, Brass Tacks, BBC2, October 20, 1987.

 

It´s one of the worst. All benzos can be a problem, but not all are equally dangerous.

 

I´m still waiting for a famous doc to state something like this about Rivotril (local brand clonazepam) ... Generalizing, A and K are the worst.

Knowing what I know now and given a chance to start over and needed to take a benzodiazepine for whatever reason, I would have much rather taken a 2mg Valium pill than a 0.5mg Ativan pill. The Ativan tolerance is much harder to deal with than Valium Tolerance, and the withdrawal symptoms are much more severe, bizarre and perplexing than with Valium. What would have helped to know is that Ativan is Valium on steroids, basically. And many people today still don't know that. Also, ativan comes in deceptively low doses, and 0.5mg Ativan doesn't sound like much, but it is more than most people think.

 

https://benzo.org.uk/lader2.htm

"When somebody comes into my office and says that they've been trying to stop their lorazepam, my heart sinks because I know I shall have twice as much of a problem as getting them off, say, Valium: the symptoms are more severe, they're more persistent, more bizarre, and people are much more distressed by them... I feel that this compound should not now be prescribed because of the problems which may arise in some patients." Professor Malcolm Lader, member of the Committee on the Review of Medicines, Brass Tacks, BBC2, October 20, 1987.

 

I think Lorazepam was the first one they were worried about if I remember correctly and then they realised that all benzodiazepines were hugely problematic for people.

 

Yes, I think that was the case. And even though all benzodiazepines are hugely problematic for people, there is still a lot of perception here in the United States that valium is particularly dangerous and that Ativan or Klonopin are somehow safer. I recall that Gwen Olsen, a former pharma rep, mentioned in one of her videos that valium was getting a very bad reputation in the United States for being highly addictive, and people were starting to be skeptical about it. Then, the pharmaceutical industry coined the term "anxiolytics" for benzodiazepines such as Ativan, Xanax, etc., and these were promoted as safer treatments for anxiety. The main selling point being that they do not stay in the body very long. But there was this lack of understanding by medical profession and patients that short acting benzodiazepines can cause rebound anxiety and tolerance much more quickly than valium could. Apparently, nothing was really solved. There were just more benzodiazepines introduced to the whole family of those drugs. 

Copied from the news section.

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/4112520.htm

 

" My name is Michael Behan and I took the benzodiazepine Ativan from 1981-87 on prescription from my GP in the belief that it was a medicine.

 

Upon discovering that Ativan was a drug,..."

 

That pretty seriously calls into question his "qualifications" to submit a tech memorandum about a pharma product!

 

Not sure what Mike means exactly but as someone who was prescribed Nitrazepam in 1975, I knew nothing about it, no patient information leaflet to read, no internet to look up, just something that you accepted from your doctor as being "good" "safe" "beneficial" certainly not as something that would cause an almost immediate paradoxical reaction which would result in me trying to take my own life.  Had no idea it was a benzodiazepine, had no idea it would cause dependence, had no idea I would be shackled to it for decades.  I just took it because my doctor advised me that this was what was needed.  I had never taken pills before ... why would I be worried?  No one ever suggested I should be worried. Even after the paradoxical reaction, which no one recognised, I did not know I should be worried as all my behaviour was put down to "mental health" issues. After I become unwell, my mother was prescribed valium to help her cope!!! It was 1988 before the prescribing guidelines came in stating short term use only. My mother died in 1985 so dependence was never an issue for her.

 

My current GP says "benzos are poison, I never prescribe them".  Family friend and retired GP says "benzos are poison".

Why do they say this, because they have seen how many lives have been blighted by them.  I doubt many doctors will now prescribe them in the UK beyond short term use thanks to campaigners like Mike. He is still active and battling on our behalf.

 

Benzos were heavily used when the traditional industries collapsed - shipbuilding, mining etc .. whole communities were blighted by unemployment and poverty and the solution was to blight people's health with these drugs.

 

Antidepressants are now used instead, I have just read of a town in Wales where one in three is taking antidepressants .. poverty, unemployment are the reason.

 

I completely sidestepped the dates Michael was on Ativan: My name is Michael Behan and I took the benzodiazepine Ativan from 1981-87 on prescription from my GP in the belief that it was a medicine.

You're right, Fiona. There was no Internet back then. People still trusted their doctors. Someone prescribed something by a doctor would simply follow directions, wouldn't question the rightness or wrongness of it.

Knowing what I know now and given a chance to start over and needed to take a benzodiazepine for whatever reason, I would have much rather taken a 2mg Valium pill than a 0.5mg Ativan pill. The Ativan tolerance is much harder to deal with than Valium Tolerance, and the withdrawal symptoms are much more severe, bizarre and perplexing than with Valium. What would have helped to know is that Ativan is Valium on steroids, basically. And many people today still don't know that. Also, ativan comes in deceptively low doses, and 0.5mg Ativan doesn't sound like much, but it is more than most people think.

 

https://benzo.org.uk/lader2.htm

"When somebody comes into my office and says that they've been trying to stop their lorazepam, my heart sinks because I know I shall have twice as much of a problem as getting them off, say, Valium: the symptoms are more severe, they're more persistent, more bizarre, and people are much more distressed by them... I feel that this compound should not now be prescribed because of the problems which may arise in some patients." Professor Malcolm Lader, member of the Committee on the Review of Medicines, Brass Tacks, BBC2, October 20, 1987.

 

I think Lorazepam was the first one they were worried about if I remember correctly and then they realised that all benzodiazepines were hugely problematic for people.

 

Yes, I think that was the case. And even though all benzodiazepines are hugely problematic for people, there is still a lot of perception here in the United States that valium is particularly dangerous and that Ativan or Klonopin are somehow safer. I recall that Gwen Olsen, a former pharma rep, mentioned in one of her videos that valium was getting a very bad reputation in the United States for being highly addictive, and people were starting to be skeptical about it. Then, the pharmaceutical industry coined the term "anxiolytics" for benzodiazepines such as Ativan, Xanax, etc., and these were promoted as safer treatments for anxiety. The main selling point being that they do not stay in the body very long. But there was this lack of understanding by medical profession and patients that short acting benzodiazepines can cause rebound anxiety and tolerance much more quickly than valium could. Apparently, nothing was really solved. There were just more benzodiazepines introduced to the whole family of those drugs.

 

It is interesting to compare the UK and the US .. we don't have Klonopin of course and Ativan I doubt is prescribed very often though of course I don't actually know that.  Going back to the language issue, we never used the word drugs .. for prescribed medication, I think that is what Mike is alluding to .. drugs were illegal drugs, drugs addicts used, not pills from your doctor.

Fiona,

 

Thanks for claryfying that. In Dutch, there is no single word that covers both ´drug´ and ´medicine´. Noting official, anyway.

 

I was just reading a bit. About repeat prescriptions. Here, I got the clonazepam by means of repeat prescriptions and I still do. Years ago, physician assistants actually took care of all that and most likely without direct authorization by a doctor.

 

I got the impression that the UK is more strict, doctors like to avoid ´indirect repeat prescriptions´. Is that true ? As stated somewhere, people who use that would prefer to avoid direct contact with a doctor.

Here it would just be ´the assistant covers that, why would you bother the doctor ?´

 

Copied from the news section.

 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/4112520.htm

 

" My name is Michael Behan and I took the benzodiazepine Ativan from 1981-87 on prescription from my GP in the belief that it was a medicine.

 

Upon discovering that Ativan was a drug,..."

 

That pretty seriously calls into question his "qualifications" to submit a tech memorandum about a pharma product!

 

Not sure what Mike means exactly but as someone who was prescribed Nitrazepam in 1975, I knew nothing about it, no patient information leaflet to read, no internet to look up, just something that you accepted from your doctor as being "good" "safe" "beneficial" certainly not as something that would cause an almost immediate paradoxical reaction which would result in me trying to take my own life.  Had no idea it was a benzodiazepine, had no idea it would cause dependence, had no idea I would be shackled to it for decades.  I just took it because my doctor advised me that this was what was needed.  I had never taken pills before ... why would I be worried?  No one ever suggested I should be worried. Even after the paradoxical reaction, which no one recognised, I did not know I should be worried as all my behaviour was put down to "mental health" issues. After I become unwell, my mother was prescribed valium to help her cope!!! It was 1988 before the prescribing guidelines came in stating short term use only. My mother died in 1985 so dependence was never an issue for her.

 

My current GP says "benzos are poison, I never prescribe them".  Family friend and retired GP says "benzos are poison".

Why do they say this, because they have seen how many lives have been blighted by them.  I doubt many doctors will now prescribe them in the UK beyond short term use thanks to campaigners like Mike. He is still active and battling on our behalf.

 

Benzos were heavily used when the traditional industries collapsed - shipbuilding, mining etc .. whole communities were blighted by unemployment and poverty and the solution was to blight people's health with these drugs.

 

Antidepressants are now used instead, I have just read of a town in Wales where one in three is taking antidepressants .. poverty, unemployment are the reason.

 

I completely sidestepped the dates Michael was on Ativan: My name is Michael Behan and I took the benzodiazepine Ativan from 1981-87 on prescription from my GP in the belief that it was a medicine.

You're right, Fiona. There was no Internet back then. People still trusted their doctors. Someone prescribed something by a doctor would simply follow directions, wouldn't question the rightness or wrongness of it.

 

Yes, it is good to understand the historical context and to understand what happened here in the UK also.  Barry Haslam has campaigned for over 30 years as has Mike Behan and others.  Barry comes from a working class community, it had one of the highest rates of benzo prescribing in England, he has seen what these drugs can do to a community ... in real life .. there was no internet support groups way back then, no internet, with disparate individuals from all over the world. Barry fought tooth and nail to get withdrawal services in Oldham where he lives.

 

It is interesting to compare the UK and the US .. we don't have Klonopin of course and Ativan I doubt is prescribed very often though of course I don't actually know that.  Going back to the language issue, we never used the word drugs .. for prescribed medication, I think that is what Mike is alluding to .. drugs were illegal drugs, drugs addicts used, not pills from your doctor.

 

Thanks lookingforward. What I notice these days about terminology is that people will often use the word "drug" to question the effectiveness of something and point to the problems that it could cause. The term "medicine" would point to the beneficial qualities of the compound. In US, a lot of people refer to psychiatric drugs as "medications", which can have a neutral/beneficial context, but can also be used in a perjorative way. Like, "so and so is acting crazy because he forgot to take his medications". I have only seen doctors use the word benzos around me when I was already physically dependent on them. Before that, the terms were varied. Calling it by its brand name, Sedatives, anti-anxiety medications, tranquilizers, anxiolytics, etc. etc.

 

I've also seen the word "pills" being used in derogatory way as in "pills are bad, etc". The trouble in US is that a lot of people will swipe the issue of benzodiazepines and just throw it into this broad category of "pill problems", treating all the "pills" exactly the same, where in reality, they are NOT the same. Some pills are much more dangerous than the others in different way. And then, when going to the Emergency Rooms here, they will often deny emergency benzodiazepine prescriptions these days because they are deemed "narcotics". So now, there are legal classifications that are overriding the medical ones. I was shocked that the ER doctor referred to Ativan as a "narcotic" even though it is a Schedule IV controlled substance and a benzodiazepine, and prescribed to me for daytime anxiety & panic. Most narcotics here are scheduled as Schedule II or Schedule III.

 

But yes. Apparently, everything we were taught about drugs wasn't entirely correct. Who is doing the teaching makes a huge difference. Most doctors and psychiatrists here use the "drug & alcohol terminology" for things that are not psychiatric drugs. However, if talking to a peer, the use of the term "drug" and "medication" can be very interchangeable.

Thanks for that, Lorazepam, it is a hugely complicated issue and when you start looking closely at the language that is used you realise it is a minefield.

 

I had an exchange with the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists on Twitter about dependence / addiction ... she doesn't usually engage very much.  She is very keen to focus on benzos and their addictive properties because she wants to deflect away from the subject of antidepressants. 

 

 

 

Knowing what I know now and given a chance to start over and needed to take a benzodiazepine for whatever reason, I would have much rather taken a 2mg Valium pill than a 0.5mg Ativan pill. The Ativan tolerance is much harder to deal with than Valium Tolerance, and the withdrawal symptoms are much more severe, bizarre and perplexing than with Valium. What would have helped to know is that Ativan is Valium on steroids, basically. And many people today still don't know that. Also, ativan comes in deceptively low doses, and 0.5mg Ativan doesn't sound like much, but it is more than most people think.

 

https://benzo.org.uk/lader2.htm

"When somebody comes into my office and says that they've been trying to stop their lorazepam, my heart sinks because I know I shall have twice as much of a problem as getting them off, say, Valium: the symptoms are more severe, they're more persistent, more bizarre, and people are much more distressed by them... I feel that this compound should not now be prescribed because of the problems which may arise in some patients." Professor Malcolm Lader, member of the Committee on the Review of Medicines, Brass Tacks, BBC2, October 20, 1987.

 

I think Lorazepam was the first one they were worried about if I remember correctly and then they realised that all benzodiazepines were hugely problematic for people.

 

Yes, I think that was the case. And even though all benzodiazepines are hugely problematic for people, there is still a lot of perception here in the United States that valium is particularly dangerous and that Ativan or Klonopin are somehow safer. I recall that Gwen Olsen, a former pharma rep, mentioned in one of her videos that valium was getting a very bad reputation in the United States for being highly addictive, and people were starting to be skeptical about it. Then, the pharmaceutical industry coined the term "anxiolytics" for benzodiazepines such as Ativan, Xanax, etc., and these were promoted as safer treatments for anxiety. The main selling point being that they do not stay in the body very long. But there was this lack of understanding by medical profession and patients that short acting benzodiazepines can cause rebound anxiety and tolerance much more quickly than valium could. Apparently, nothing was really solved. There were just more benzodiazepines introduced to the whole family of those drugs.

 

It is interesting to compare the UK and the US .. we don't have Klonopin of course and Ativan I doubt is prescribed very often though of course I don't actually know that. Going back to the language issue, we never used the word drugs .. for prescribed medication, I think that is what Mike is alluding to .. drugs were illegal drugs, drugs addicts used, not pills from your doctor.

 

Yes, thank you very much for clarifying that, Fiona. Very important information.

 

 

Thanks for that, Lorazepam, it is a hugely complicated issue and when you start looking closely at the language that is used you realise it is a minefield.

 

I had an exchange with the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists on Twitter about dependence / addiction ... she doesn't usually engage very much.  She is very keen to focus on benzos and their addictive properties because she wants to deflect away from the subject of antidepressants. 

 

 

Sadly, that reminds me of discussions with my psychiatrist where he'll just proclaim that benzos are addictive. End of discussion. Conversation closed. No talk about side effects. No talk about adverse effects or long term effects. No sound tapering advice. Nothing of the sort. The psychologist I've been seeing also just shuts down the discussion with 'benzos are addictive". End of story. You would think they would want to learn from their patients, but sadly, that is not the case.

Thanks for that, Lorazepam, it is a hugely complicated issue and when you start looking closely at the language that is used you realise it is a minefield.

 

I had an exchange with the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists on Twitter about dependence / addiction ... she doesn't usually engage very much.  She is very keen to focus on benzos and their addictive properties because she wants to deflect away from the subject of antidepressants. 

 

 

Sadly, that reminds me of discussions with my psychiatrist where he'll just proclaim that benzos are addictive. End of discussion. Conversation closed. No talk about side effects. No talk about adverse effects or long term effects. No sound tapering advice. Nothing of the sort. The psychologist I've been seeing also just shuts down the discussion with 'benzos are addictive". End of story. You would think they would want to learn from their patients, but sadly, that is not the case.

 

Yes, that quickly shuts down all conversation pertaining to benzos anytime any doctor mentions addiction. They seem focused on only that, and it seems their minds are closed to the subject. That's probably one of the major reasons they are so terribly clueless about benzos today, almost 6 DECADES later, very sadly.

Thanks for that, Lorazepam, it is a hugely complicated issue and when you start looking closely at the language that is used you realise it is a minefield.

 

I had an exchange with the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists on Twitter about dependence / addiction ... she doesn't usually engage very much.  She is very keen to focus on benzos and their addictive properties because she wants to deflect away from the subject of antidepressants. 

 

 

Sadly, that reminds me of discussions with my psychiatrist where he'll just proclaim that benzos are addictive. End of discussion. Conversation closed. No talk about side effects. No talk about adverse effects or long term effects. No sound tapering advice. Nothing of the sort. The psychologist I've been seeing also just shuts down the discussion with 'benzos are addictive". End of story. You would think they would want to learn from their patients, but sadly, that is not the case.

 

Doctors do not learn from their patients, only from other doctors. With rare exceptions.

I took them before the internet. Boy was I shocked when it became popular and I looked it up. By then it was too late and my original provider took a powder. Thank you Dr.

I looked along the internet before I was polydrugged. It did not help. I was in a condition I could not find a solution and the "only solution" was to be put on meds. I even asked my doctors about the side effects but either they told me this would not happen to me OR that there just is no other option.

 

I dont agree that patients have to inform theirselves and its their fault to end up on benzos.

I am very intelligent, I had access to internet and other sources and I have always been able to stand up for my rights somehow. I cannot imagine how weaker personalities should ever defend themselves or people how are not able to understand chemical processes and so on - how should they find a safe treatment - its not possible!!!

People have to be protected by the system and by doctors. Its all about the money and keeping people functioning and quiet.

 

"My name is Michael Behan and I took the benzodiazepine Ativan from 1981-87 on prescription from my GP in the belief that it was a medicine. Upon discovering that Ativan was a drug, I withdrew to a zero dose over six months. I suffered side-effects whilst ingesting Ativan and severe withdrawal symptoms during the tapering period."

 

Putting this statement into the context of the time (2004) in which he wrote it, I don't have difficulty understanding what he meant.  My perceptions were the same as his, and I could have easily written the same sentence.  He was given Ativan by his doctor to treat a diagnosed condition or illness.  In other words, "okay, I'm sick with something, and this will help."  But after seven years of use, he realized that he was not longer just "sick with something."  He realized that he was taking the "medicine" simply because he was taking the "medicine."  He realized that the term "medicine" was no longer accurate and that the more apt term for what he was compelled by his body to take every 6 to 8 hours was "drug."

 

Today, we've become much more sensitive and nit-picky about language. "Drug?  Drug, you say?  Hmmm, (raising an eyebrow with that classic Larry David judgmental gaze). Just what do you mean by that, boy?"

 

P.S.  In this memorandum, Behan also froths at the mouth, as it were, with the terms "addict" and "addiction."  Again, this is circa 2004, before enlightenment happened.  Forgive him...for he knew not what he was doing.