Do Neuroleptics Hinder Recovery?

I subscribed to a newsgroup alt.support.schizophrenia, and one of the serious topics of discussion was "Do anti-psychotic drugs hinder our recovery from schizophrenia?" There was an article published in USA Today, March 4, 2002 titled "Mind drugs may hinder recovery" by Robert Whitaker that was part of the discussion. In the article Mr. Whitaker noted that in developing countries people with schizophrenia don't have access to medication; however, they got better! Also, he went on to say that John Forbes Nash of recent fame from A Beautiful Mind stopped taking neuroleptic medication in 1970, and he had been getting better ever since.

Adding to this recent flurry of thinking about how neuroleptic medications are bad for people diagnosed with schizophrenia, I found an article at boston.com titled "Group stirs debate over schizophrenia" by Ellen Barry, March 3, 2002. Basically the article showed a group of people who were told that they would probably be on anti-psychotic medications for the rest of their lives to treat their psychosis; however, they went into complete remission, medicine-free. These lucky people that went into complete remission work for a group called the National Empowerment Center. The article stated: "At their Lawrence nonprofit, the National Empowerment Center, they have been spreading a controversial gospel, telling mentally ill people and their families that the psychiatric establishment is lying to them about their condition."

So, what do I think about all these antipsychiatry viewpoints? I remember a statistic from the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) website about schizophrenia: approximately 1/3 get better, 1/3 remain the same, and 1/3 get worse ten years after their first psychotic break. Also, I believe from personal experience that the earlier you catch the schizophrenia with medication, the lower the dose you need to take, in general. What do I think of Robert Whitaker postulating that "Mind drugs may hinder recovery?" One, I think it is a dangerous case to be made. Two, I think it is a misleading argument. Because you don't see people sick with schizophrenia in developing countries, doesn't mean that they get better. I'd like him to check his facts a little more closely so he could cite statistics about the rate of remission of schizophrenia in developing countries, and I'm sure that it would look very much like our country's statistics except it would look more like: 1/3 got better, 1/3 are still chained to things so they won't hurt themselves, and 1/3 died (at least).

What do I think about the National Empowerment Center's message that the psychiatric establishment is lying about the necessity of treatment? I think it is ridiculous and dangerous. There is a large movement on the Internet that tries to tell people that psychiatrists are lying to their patients, and it's best to think for yourselves whether or not you need medication. There are six groups I found on the Internet that espouse that position. Two are named the Antipsychiatry Coalition, and the Lunatics Liberation Front. Doctors have known for a long time that mental illnesses can go into remission all by themselves, but only for the lucky few. Mental health consumers who go along with the antipsychiatry movement will probably learn for themselves the hard way that their doctors are really there to help. I talked to my therapist about this topic in session, and he said that he couldn't believe anyone who was educated in the field would take these antipsychiatry topics seriously. I hope as few mental health consumers as possible take antipsychiatry seriously.