From: spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Drugs in the Classroom  (Was - Re: Re: Creed.)
Date: 7 Oct 92 02:37:43 GMT
Organization: University of Calif., San Diego/Microscopy and Imaging Resource
NNTP-Posting-Host: pitstop.ucsd.edu

In article <1992Oct6.202042.7985@ac.dal.ca> 06zonker@ac.dal.ca writes:
>  I'm not a believer in any sort of organized religion either, but I do strongly
>object to sensationalistic tactics to support an overblown argument.  

Sigh.  I really, really, really will unsubscribe from this group.  I
really, really, really will.

But... I again have to clarify my position, lest some folks get the
impression that I am somehow against the careful and well considered
use of medicines, including drugs, in order to cure disease and/or
make life more pleasant for the afflicted.

However, I am leery of the routine prescription of any drug or
medicine without careful consideration of other effects (commonly
called "side effects" but a "side effect" is simply a less desired
effect of a drug or medicine -- nothing more, nothing less).

My examples (the FSU, etc.) were drawn to caution against the dangers
of over-prescription and the political/social uses of psychoactive
substances and psychiatric therapies.  There are dangers.  To profess
otherwise is to ignore human nature and human frailty, something we do
at our peril.

Do I believe we ought to stop using therapies that are proven to work
simply because they involve drugs?  Of course not.  Do I suggest
caution.  Yes.

Where is the sensationalism in that?  If my posting was interpreted as
sensationalist, then I can only apologize for my lack of skill with
the written word in getting my point across.

>                                       ... The abuses in the Soviet Union or
>over-drugging by physicians are of course real.  They are, however, not
>representative of the overall health professions any more than the Spanish
>Inquisition or the Jonestown Massacre describe religious experience.

Goodness.  If my remarks were read as a top-to-bottom indictment of
the health profession, I'd better go back and study Strunk and White
and learn how to write all over again.

I meant to make no such suggestion.

However, is it not prudent to keep the possibility of abuse in mind
when making public health policy decisions?  Prudent, mind you, not
paranoid.  There's a difference, and if I'm unsuccessful in making
that distinction clear, then I'll just hang it up right now.

>   I would not diminish the painstaking efforts of those who dedicate their
>lives to research so that the lives of millions of people can be saved and
>improved;  doctors aren't as careless with, say, barbiturates or sedatives as
>they used to be in the past -- ethics are a big part of any reputable's
>school curriculum nowadays, and the former Soviet Union is not anyone's
>paragon of medical behaviour as far as I know.  I am aware of drug abuse at
>every level of our society, including our "healers", but I wouldn't go as far
>as condemning a whole field of study based on conspicuously aberrant 
>misuses.

Nor would I.  But, again, we ignore the possibility of abuse at our
peril.  To blithely assume that "it can't happen here" is to invite it
to do so.

Look at my .signature carefully.  I work in the research facility of a
medical school (although readers are cautioned that I am not a
physician and my knowledge of specifics in medicine or psychiatry is
arrived at by a process of osmosis, not through training.).  I
wouldn't work here if I believed that what is being done here is
somehow wrong.

>  I don't know... perhaps it's my personal experience....after malaria,
>pneumonia, strep throat and pleurisy I'm damn grateful for all those drugs
>they saw fit to pump into my circulatory system....

Again, I applaud the use of medicines and I'm delighted to know that
you recovered from your illnesses.

However, the medicines that are used to cure malaria, pheumonia, strep
throat, and pleurisy are not, by and large, psychoactive drugs.  They
are not intended to alter one's behavior.  The drugs we were
discussing in this thread are.

Altering the behavior of a child is not necessarily the same as curing
that same child of malaria.  Using a rather powerful and not well
understood drug to suppress "hyperactivity" is not something that one
should approach lightly.  This is not to say that there are no cases
where stimulants are not warranted in treatment of a symptom.
However, if I were a parent faced with such a decision, I'd be darned
certain that drugging my child were an absolute last resort and I'd be
asking a lot of questions about recognized alternative therapies and,
perhaps, inquiring into the motivations of those making the
prescription.  Is the teacher competent?  Is the psychiatrist?  Doing
any less, IMHO, would be a dereliction of parental responsibility.

>  If you want to speak about absurd medical malpractice, though, consider
>the needless plastic surgery, ...
>                 ... all far more dangerous, far-reaching and insidious than
>your pet peeve Ritalin.

No disagreement there.  But we weren't talking about other things, were we?
There's a hole in the ozone layer, too.  Probably one of the greatest
public health problems around.  I suppose we can toss that in for good
measure.

Ritalin isn't my pet peeve.  It did, however, come up in the course of
the thread and I looked it up in the Physician's Desk Reference, a
standard reference volume.

Sure, there are a lot of things prescribed that are more dangerous
than Ritalin.  No question.  But because there are greater dangers,
must we restrict ourselves to only them?

>  'Nuff said.

We're in total agreement here.  If you care to discuss this via email,
you know where to find me.  Otherwise, best regards.

							spl

-- 
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"If you don't think people are this crazy, you need to move to LA!"
                                     - Gary Stollman