The situation is even worse than most realize. Several states have
sued Pharma over the increasing use of a-typical neuroleptics with
people in state's care (both disabled and elderly). Here's the
kicker - they are NOT concerned with the appropriateness of the
medication, simply the cosdt, because it has been determined that
Risperdal Seroquel, and Abilify are neither more effective nor more
safe that Haldol and other older neuroleptics (meaning Pharma lied
on their FDA patent applications, go figure), but because these
dr*gs cost more than the generic formulas. So it has nothing to do
with the damage being done so that caretakers can have a client
that is "easy to manage", just that the state is paying too much to
do so.

It has recently been determined that mood stabilizers, neuroleptics
and anti-convulsants both cause long-term neurological damage (and
not just tardive dyskinesia, although that is a very obvious one)
and materially shorten the patient's life. Why not simply put
these people down, if you are to be so cavalier about their well-
being?

Dan Burton (R-IN) has been one of our staunchest allies in Congress
in matters such as this, to the point that many on both sides of
the aisle see him as a gadfly and a nutjob. He stated way back
in '99 that unless you had a loved one in this situation, you did
not have a clue about what happens to them. Truer words have
seldom been spoken by any of the prostitutes that frequent the
Capitol.

I think what makes me the maddest about this whole situation is how
crass the Nanny-State is when someone tries to raise issues with
how the state oversees the care of the disabled. Often the full
force of the tax-payer funded legal team comes to bear in defense
of the state, and citizens trying to get justice served find
instead that they will bankrupt themselves both financially and
psychologically long before the state ever admits they were remiss
in their duties.

Perhaps what we need is a paradigm shift in our thinking about what
these people truly need and how best to serve them (did I says
perhaps???). No one will ever care more for them than their own
kin, and despite the stories of people being founf neglecting or
abusing their disabled children or elderly relations, informal
studies have long found that it is at least 3 times worse when
these people go into state's care. So what is wrong with paying
parents or children to care for these people, at say 1/3 the cost
of residential placement? What could possibly be worng with paying
for true respite care in-home or in small settings so that the
primary caregivers can get a much needed break? As an accountant,
I am prepared to state that in this area, cheaper may actually be
better.

The Conservatives don't want to fund serivces of this nature and
the liberals do not want the proported authority of the State
deminished. I say we toss the whole lot of them out and elect a
bunch of people who actually represents their constituants instead
of select special interests and their own politcal careers.

On 11/04/09, Mel wrote:
> "Who will arrest and prosecute the DHHR for their common use
> of chemical restraints?"
>
>
> We just had a restraint/seclusion bill introduced. I'm lobbying
> to have chemical restraints tacked on. Ever since my FIL's
> Alzheimer's progressed to a point, that we can no longer care for
> him at home, we've been having to advocate sternly (read knock
> down, fights) to keep the doc's from chemically restraining him.
> Every time we get rid of one med, they stick him in a chair, he
> can't get out of (rifton?). We get rid of the chair, another med
> shows up... It's a nasty little circle.
>
> So far we've had to eliminate Seroquel, Xanax, Abilify, high
> doses of another Valuim (sp?), high doses of a Ritalin type drug,
> Risperodol, Depakote, and several others. He is not mentally ill,
> and does not have ADHD. He simply can no longer retrieve his
> memories.
>
> We picked this home, eventhough it's two hours away, because they
> were supposed to be against this, have a secure garden and ward
> he could wander in, and are more than fully staffed. I don't
> understand the need to restrain, especially since he is past the
> point of violence (never was anyway), and really can't walk very
> far anyway. I do know he has developed a new, colorful
> vocabulary, but who the heck cares? He's 78 years old, and if he
> wants to swear, let him!
>
> We're looking at new homes, but our next closest option is 5
> hours away. We live in such a rural area, that there just isn't
> any in-home care, that would be adequate, much less appropriate.
> His health is beginning to fail now too.
>
> Alzheimer's is an awful, awful disease.

Share This Post | Report This Post

Next Post >>

Posts on this thread, including this one