This article was published in the ICSPP Bulletin and can be read online at the ICSPP Blog.
The International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, Inc. (ICSPP) is a nonprofit organization serving as vast network for professionals and individuals concerned with the impact of mental health theories on public policy, and the effects these theories have on therapeutic practices, individual well-being, personal freedom, and family and community values. Kim Crespi participated in a panel discussion at the ICSPP 2008 Annual Conference.
by Maria Mangicaro
Florida Criminal Defense Attorney John Musca gave this account in his July 22, 2009 criminal defense blog regarding the connection between violent criminal behavior and psychiatric medications:
According to January 1999 national news reports, ten days after Ryan Ehlis, a college student in Bismark, North Dakota, began taking Adderall to control his Attention Deficit Disorder and to help him with his college studies, he slipped into a psychotic fog, shot and killed his infant daughter, then shot himself in the stomach. He said God told him to do it.
The criminal court found Ehlis innocent after testimony by a psychiatrist and by Shire US, Inc., that the “psychotic state” was a very rare side effect of Adderall use. Various doctors testified Ehlis suffered from an “Anphetamine-Induced Psychotic Disorder”. (DSM-IV Code 292.11)
Medical experts and Shire US, Inc., the manufacturer of Adderall, commented that "despite the slaying, Adderall remains a safe and effective drug for controlling AD/HD."
Medical experts and Shire US, Inc., the manufacturer of Adderall, commented that "despite the slaying, Adderall remains a safe and effective drug for controlling AD/HD."
In a later civil court case, the United States Court of Appeals, District Court of North Dakota, affirmed the lower court's decision to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Ehlis against Shire. Ehlis contended Shire knew Adderall could induce psychosis and failed to adequately warn of the associated risks and side effects. The court ruled the “learned intermediary doctrine” barred the claims of failure to warn.
0 comments:
Post a Comment