http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/mental/articles/2003/09/26/drug_implant_offers_hope_spurs_worry This article says that the implant can last up to a year. I am wondering what happens if the medication has side effects and you are stuck with it for a year. People are worried about this implant because they are afraid the the court can force it on you in cases. I know I don't want an implant or the depot injections. I like to be able to switch meds when they have side effects. They already have shots that can last a month. I am just thinking with the side effects and risks, weight gain, diabetes, elevated prolactin levels, akathisia that a year being on a farked up med is a long time. Maybe they can remove the implant. Also, if the person has delusions that there are spy body implants wouldn't a med implant be scary. If the person had insight into their having schizophrenia it would be one thing. I am not trying to talk stupid, I am just saying you get get paranoid ideas about an implant inside you.----Melinda =^..^= Here is another article on it: http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/6896626.htm Implant could help schizophrenics stay medicated, raises ethical concerns BY STACEY BURLING Knight Ridder Newspapers PHILADELPHIA - (KRT) - Do a Google search on the words "implant" and "mind control" and you'll get about 100,000 hits, a virtual primer on conspiracy theories and science-fiction nightmares. So it's no surprise that when the University of Pennsylvania announced that one of its scientists was perfecting an implant that could provide a year's worth of medication for people with severe mental illness, it was met in some quarters with distrust. David Oaks, executive director of Support Coalition International, which questions the dominant view that mental illnesses are biological at base, for example, calls the device "inherently coercive." Aware of the concerns, the university took the unusual step last week of inviting representatives of consumer-advocacy groups to a symposium on the ethical implications of the implants well before they are ready for marketing. Paul Root Wolpe, a Penn ethicist who took part in the meeting, said he saw it as an opportunity for disparate groups to help set the ground rules for how a promising new treatment would be used. "If we agree that this technology has a potential for misuse, and I really think it does, we can build coalitions to prevent that," he said. Researcher Steven Siegel, a psychiatrist and neurobiologist, conceived of the biodegradable implants as a way to solve a problem that has persistently plagued treatment of people with schizophrenia, the most serious of the mental illnesses. A high percentage stop taking their medications and almost inevitably descend into disorganized thinking, hallucinations and delusions that can leave them jobless, friendless and homeless. The implants, he said, have the potential to give people with serious mental illnesses the stability they need to develop long-term friendships and careers. The technology could be used with many drugs, including those for treating other chronic illnesses. Studies show that half the people with all sorts of diseases fail to take their medicines consistently. Siegel's team at Penn so far has tested the implants - quarter-size devices containing polymers made of lactic acid and glycolic acid fused with haloperidol (Haldol) - in mice, rats, rabbits and monkeys. Siegel thinks the Food and Drug Administration will require at least one more round of animal-testing, possibly in dogs, before considering approval, so the implants are probably a year or two away from human-testing. The implants are placed under the skin during a 15-minute surgical procedure and can be removed. Aside from the obvious advantage that patients could not forget to take their medication while using the implant, Siegel said that delivering the drug under the skin makes lower doses possible and may reduce side effects. The biggest concern about the implants is that they would be forced upon patients and that it would be difficult for patients to change their minds. Volpe and patients worried that the criminal-justice system, in particular, would coerce patients to take the drugs. How much choice would people really have, they asked, if they were told that they could either have an implant or go to jail, or that they wouldn't be allowed to leave the hospital until they accepted an implant? Patients and others also worried that managed-care companies might find the implants more attractive than current approaches that require more monitoring. The result could be that patients would see their psychiatrists less often, harming the doctor-patient relationship. With minimal precedent and multiple arenas of concern - pharmacological, legal, sociological - broadly accepted protocols will not happen quickly. Siegel says the implant would only be an option for stable, rational patients who chose to take their medicine this way. "This is a medicine like any other medicine," he said. "We don't give people medicine when they say no." While he made an effort to invite potential critics to last week's meeting, most of his calls and e-mails about the implants have been supportive, he said. "Overwhelmingly, it's, `When can I have this? When can my son have this?' " -- ____________________________________________________ Get your own Hello Kitty email @ www.sanriotown.com Powered by Outblaze ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/xYTolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> New Pacifica Working Group http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica 'Save Our Stations!' To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: NewPacifica-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/