Should Anti-Depressants be banned if they were to blame for the Omaha shooting?

Question

Pharm companies love to pedal their goods, but is it really worth it when we don't really understand the effects of custom made molecules on the human brain?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1935415/posts

Answer 1

The Pharm companies are blocking the testing of using vitamins to treat mental illness, it appears that a vitamin concotion that a hog farmer came up with to treat a bipolar family member and eventually taken to a leading research university works better than all the psych drugs on the market.

And that is just psych.
Every other illness is also effected by vitamins.

The FDA is corrupt

Answer 2

No, they shouldn't. I am on anti-depressants and live in Omaha, and I've never gone to a mall and threatened to kill people or opened fire on anyone else or myself. Nor do I plan to. If he was on meds for that (which I have not watched all of the news yet because they've taken every normal show off and put on news for 4+ hours straight) he should have been monitored more closely and perhaps sought the attention of a psychiatrist to assist him with his obvious mental problems. Drug companies are not at fault for this. We were warned back during columbine about that.

Answer 3

No. Mood swings is a very common side effect of many drugs that treat many important illnesses. The shooter was probably very predisposed to this type of desperate behavior and it is not at all clear that he would have been less of a danger to society without anti-depressants. It is not at all clear that anti-depressants were the cause of the shooting. Finally, this article also does not say whether or not he abused the pills or took something different than the recommended dosage. Medications have varying effects on individual patients and doctors must monitor the individual patient, their dosage, and their reaction to the medication.

Answer 4

Too many things are banned already.

The help antidepressants offer so many people, enabling them to live productive lives, is always so easily overshadowed by one spectacular anomaly. Most of the common drugs we take list horrible side effects on their labels but we take them anyway. We have to weigh the good with the bad, no matter how much press and media hype the anomalous bad events get.

Second point: Making drugs and herbs illegal is a restriction of our liberty due to suspicion of a violation of law without any proof a violation would take place, also restricting the liberty of those who would enjoy the benefits of the drug/herb without violating the law. In legal terms it is called prior restraint and is unconstitutional.

Third point: We must be careful when attributing cause to effect. If the shooter wore blue jeans should we outlaw blue jeans? If he drove a green Buick should we outlaw green Buicks? Granted, these are extreme examples. The point is the same. A better example would be blaming cancer drugs for causing cancer, since statistics reflect a strong relation between those who take them and those who die of cancer.

The fact that antidepressants effect thought makes them an easy scapegoat, but that in itself is not evidence that they caused or contributed to this event. In fact, it may be that the antidepressants caused the shooter to have thoughts of canceling his violent intentions rather than inciting them.

Let's avoid mob-like hysterical reactions that do more harm than good.

Answer 5

NO, I think its was his friends and family not understanding that he had Manic Depression, if they knew or cared they would get that Mr Hawkins mental Illness had cause the loss of his job, the break up of his girlfriend and his family putting him on the streets luckily he had a friend whose parents let him in their home, even they had no idea he was suffering from a mental Illness, that's where people need to be careful with dealing with.

Don't blame the drug companies blame the people closet to Brain Hawkins they could've prevented this shooting from happening.

Answer 6

Drugs aren't perfect, but antidepressants do a lot more good than harm. If we're going to have a national debate, it's on whether we should lock up people with psychiatric problems that possibly could but probably won't result in violence. If we give the benefit of the doubt, we have to accept the consequences. If not, we have to accept a degree of violation of civil rights that borders on the fascist. Pay your money and take your choice.

Answer 7

The Omaha shooting was done with a firearm. One in possession of a young man with an established history of mental health problems. Put the person who got him access to that weapon in prison for being an accessory to murder.
If the drugs you cited are so dangerous, then this young man should not have had access to a firearm.

Answer 8

People who are put onto Anti-Depressants are warned that they may have irrational thinking and that they should seek help immediately.

So no, if they are used responsibly, they should not be banned. People need to learn to pay attention to the warning signs of their own bodies and stop blaming others.

Answer 9

This cat has some major issues that I don't think Anything-depressants have anything to do with maybe pure evil is playing a part in this.People just don't start wasting other peoplefor no reason exept for pure evil.

Answer 10

some years in the past the place I stay, a guy went to our mall and opened hearth the day till now Valentine's Day. He could no longer cope with melancholy and he replaced into for sure bothered with of non-public issues and unrequited love. He opened hearth interior the mall and replaced into finally tackled by ability of a few bystanders and held till the law enforcement officers moved in on him, and the law enforcement officers positioned the mall and motor vehicle parking zone on lockdown for 3 hours - no one would desire to pass into OR go obtainable. i think of the media performs a smaller function in those issues. the main clarification for those issues is the character of human beings, their skill to administration issues, how others take care of them, upbringing, and their ecosystem....human beings do no longer commit those crimes because of the fact they sense enticed by ability of the media. If human beings can no longer cope with their psychological issues and are made to sense and have self assurance they are valueless or unimprtant and ridiculed or mistreated, they're going to have self assurance it, and become violent, sociopathic human beings. human beings write suicide letters boasting of being nicely-enjoyed or rememered only because of the fact they felt unloved and unimportant, and that they determine that even a terrible go out will exchange that. yet you won't be able to supply each and all of the blame to the media. The media isn't something greater advantageous than an outlet. you won't be able to blame the weapons. A weapon isn't as risky because of the fact the shooter. do away with weapons and we nevertheless have bothered, risky people who will discover different ability of killing. the real project is how human beings take care of one yet another and the mentality of a few of people who get stepped on. whilst human beings end treating human beings so callously, we would only have much less of those rampages....considering there is no easily evidence that the media had inspired him to commit the crime, a lawsuit against the media would not be accessible. in case you tried doing that, you will additionally would desire to pass after people who helped to create the killer....Being nicely-enjoyed is probably no longer what those human beings needed - they had to sense enjoyed and needed. whilst they did no longer get that, they tried grabbing at being infamous....I want i'd desire to have talked to him and enable him comprehend his existence replaced into worth something. i think undesirable for him besides as those victims.