Abstract
This article presents two clinical scenarios based on antidepressant-induced deaths, which make clear that there are a number of intervening processes in between the valuable data Read and colleagues1present and the verdicts that come out of inquests. The manner in which inquests and court cases are structured means that it is very rare for even clearly-proven prescription drug induced deaths to result in a verdict that the drug has caused the death. Instead, a growing number of drug-induced deaths fuel perceptions of a need for more and better drugs.Central to this situation is a question about how to determine causality in drug-induced injury cases. The idea that randomized controlled trials are the way to establish causality needs to be revisited. Unless there is reform, people caught in situations like the two described here would be better placed holding their own inquests, and finding ways to promulgate the resulting verdicts, rather than “trusting” in a process that is biased against them.
Publisher
Springer Publishing Company
Subject
Psychiatry and Mental health,Clinical Psychology
Reference9 articles.
1. When I use a word . . . . Too little healthcare—coroners’ concerns
2. Fluoxetine and suicide: a meta-analysis of controlled trials of treatment for depression.
3. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary Ref. (2022). Prevention of Future Death Reports: Samuel Morgan, 2020-0276.
4. Federal Judicial Center. (1994). Reference manual on scientific evidence (pp. 160–161). The National Academies Press.
5. Healy, D. (2004). Let them eat prozac . New York University Press.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献