Rosie:

The deeper issue here is those patients who are caught up in a court system that care little able medicine induced diminshed capacity or no capacity when an act of violence occurs as a result. While good old Eli could give a care, the courts could care even less. The one issue in the US is that these types of cases are submitted to a jury of your peers when in reality and similar to what Canada does, a committee of doctors should be reviewing the issue.

The courts solution? Guilty but mentally ill and they get the same sentence as if they are guilty and the same as if they ordered up a six-pack of diminished capacity or no capacity at the store after taking prozac. That is the tragedy of flawed meds. Unrelated, similar in reaction, and similar in court is my own son's case. He suffers from complex partial seizures. One can be violent and yet not be cognizant during a seizure. The backwards state disagreed with us and now we are off to federal.

I completely realize from where you are coming. We trust doctors, companies, and drugs expecting all will help us. Why would we think differently as we do not know the illnesses and ailments afflicting us. We place our trust in those companies to produce meds that will cause us no harm. And when a med does cause harm, we expect our afflctions to be understood by those very same companies and not swept under a rug having to bare the full brunt of the law.

I planned various pills at a phamaceutical company. What scraps out for hundreds of dollars and equates to millions of tabs, sells for hunderds of thousands or millions of dollars dependent upon what it is. There is money there to pay off for mistakes.

Dear Bill Lichtenstein,

Here is a link to an article by David Healy:

<link>

If you open up the article, go to Table One and then relisten to your show, I am not sure how you can equate some of the comments by the hosts to the facts, or to the “eloquent” (your word) article at STATS.org. Here is a quote from STATS.org “it is impossible to do clinical trials large enough to determine whether these are more common amongst people taking SSRI medications,” As Healy and others have shown this is simply false. In fact, not only is it possible, it has already been done. In the clinical trials submitted to the FDA, in adults, for virtually every antidepressant studied there is an increase in suicidality, and in contrast to what the guest on your show said, some did commit suicide. As Tom Laughren, from the FDA stated, in 2004, “The data in aggregate indicate an increased risk of suicidality, in pediatric patients.” According to STATS.org, he is apparently wrong or at least has a different definition of “data.”

In regards to your reference to the STATS.org piece which said, “With regard to the Lilly story, I would defer to the STATS.org article, which found that Lenzer's questionable reporting on that story, put "on balance, more lives at stake." This comment by STATS.org is clearly an opinion. And it seems to be the opinion by someone who has made up their mind that there is no link between suicide and the SSRIs. Opinions are fine (we all have them) but the discrepancy in your show was about facts. If you had discussed all the facts correctly on your show and then made an opinion I don’t think anyone would have had a problem with that. Thanks, A frustrated Jon Leo