Colin Hope's Story

[Guest guest]

http://www.benzo.org.uk/

 

Colin Hope's Story

from the 1995 VOT Newsletter

 

I was prescribed Valium in 1983 as an aid in attempting to stop

smoking cigarettes. I became addicted. I decided to try and get off it

in 1990. I took a 3 month sabbatical from work to do this. I was

advised (by a doctor) to just stop abruptly. I had several attempts at

this, once staying off Valium for 10 weeks, but failed. I have no

family, and had no friends local to me at that time – i.e. no support.

I took myself off to an Anthroposophical 'therapeutic community' in

the West Midlands. This is a general purpose clinic following the

teachings of an Austrian mystic Rudolph Steiner; it is not a

psychiatric clinic, nor is it a drug treatment centre. The people

there are well intentioned and mostly harmless. Unfortunately they

have two medical doctors whose understanding of psychoactive

allopathic drugs is limited.

 

I eventually persuaded them that I needed to withdraw from Valium

slowly. They persuaded me that it would be a good plan to take

Largactil (200mg/day) and Anafranil (a tricyclic antidepressant

150mg/day) to help " ease the pain " and " provide extra inner space "

with which to engage in their artistic therapies (painting, sculpture

and eurhythmy). At no stage had I exhibited any symptoms of psychosis,

nor did they think that I had. They appear to regard these drugs as

innocuous and almost 'herbal'. They assured me that these drugs had

few side effects and no serious ones; they mentioned only 'increased

photosensitivity' and 'difficulty in micturition'. It is well known

amongst experts that these two types of drug should not be mixed as

their side effect profiles are very similar; in any case such

polypharmacy is regarded by many as a very bad plan – the side effects

are worsened and the actual 'therapeutic' effects become more

unpredictable.

 

I ended up paying them a serious amount of money and staying for

18 months. I became too ill to leave. Although I did finally get off

Valium I regard the price as being way too high; I'm scared that I

have been permanently damaged by Largactil. I would not do this again.

Basically I almost died. I started out not being particularly

depressed, certainly not 'clinically'. I ended up profoundly

despairing. I very seriously contemplated suicide. This was a direct

result of the two drugs I was given. I was hardly eating, yet became

two stones overweight and was growing breasts. Once again these are

common and expected side effects of Largactil; the two doctors were

unaware of this connection even the latter is listed in the British

National Formulary as 'gynaecomastia'. I was unaware of this

connection; I trusted them and their 'clinical judgement'. It cost me

dearly.

 

When I finally stopped the last half milligram of Valium these

other drugs were also stopped abruptly. They then packed me off to a

drug rehabilitation unit run by a fundamentalist Christian ex pig

farmer and his family. This caters for opiate and amphetamine addicts,

who have often come straight from prison, and, in the main, have never

had jobs. I was treated, as was everybody, as a cross between a

criminal and a very naughty boy. Their 'treatment strategy' consisted

of manual labour coupled with an attempt to uncover some evidence of

childhood physical or sexual abuse – in every case. Their world view

was not overcomplicated; they believe that every single word in the

Bible is the literal and absolute truth and that anything at variance

with this is probably the work of the devil: yoga, for example, is the

devil's work.

 

Many times I was told with a glare that I was an 'addict'; this

supposedly to explain my situation. I believe that during my time at

the clinic and subsequently at the rehab unit I was in the middle of

complete insanity. I was very frightened and latterly became quite

institutionalised. I don't believe a Monty Python sketch could have

devised a more bizarre scenario. When I began to surface from the

clubbing caused by the drugs and to question the wisdom of what was

happening to me I was told that I was 'arrogant'. The clinic and the

rehab unit were entirely unconnected; they knew nothing in practice

about each others operations. The latter seemed quite unable to

appreciate the possibility that my state of disarray – basically fear

and anxiety – may have been directly and entirely caused by

'medications' given to me by the medical profession and which I took

in good faith: i.e. an 'iatrogenic' problem. After 20 weeks I had

surfaced sufficiently from my drugging to appreciate that I was in a

very inappropriate place and I left; that was the best decision I had

made for quite some time. I have since been recovering.

 

During this time the crippling dysfunctionality directly caused by

drugs was interpreted variously as some sort of spiritual crisis

and/or as being indicative of characterological deficits: as I became

progressively more debilitated at the clinic the good doctor advised

me that I was 'crippled in thought, word and deed' by my 'acquired

addictive tendencies'; he was never able to explain exactly what this

was supposed to mean. In retrospect it's very clear to me that I was,

in fact, crippled by polypharmacy – Largactil in combination with

Anafranil given to someone who was already addicted to Valium and

trying to stop. Largactil, especially, quite simply disables a person:

that's what it does. There is, of course, no guarantee that simply

because a person is taking such drugs that they do not have a

preceding or entirely separate illness, dysfunction, neurosis,

'emotional problem' or whatever. I would argue strongly that there is

no way of identifying any such problem whilst a person is taking such

drugs; they completely confuse the issue.

 

I am extremely angry at what happened to me. I believe it is a

complete disgrace. If I can help to prevent something similar

happening to even one other person then maybe some good will have come

from my experience. I used to believe that grown men and women, bright

enough to get a medical degree, must have some minimal understanding

of drugs they prescribe, and that they must have sensible level of

'clinical judgement'.

 

Someone who is withdrawing from a benzodiazepine drug may well

find themselves in a very vulnerable position. It can be very tempting

to take the advice of a medical person who represents themselves as an

expert. I used to be reasonably bright. I have a first degree in

Psychology and a Masters degree in Systems Analysis. Also I think that

in some ways I am quite a durable character. These people, however,

fooled me. Don't make the same mistake!

 

If anyone offers you any of these drugs I would suggest that you

check it out for yourself. A good book about how to get off

benzodiazepine drugs is (1); summaries relating to antipsychotic drugs

can be read in (2), (3) and (4) below. These can all be obtained from

a local library (via the inter library loan facility), or the ISDD

(Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence); Breggin's book is

available from 'Mind Publications'.

 

If a medical person suggests to you or a loved one that

antipsychotic or tricyclic antidepressant drugs are safe and would be

good for you I would urge that you show them extracts from (2), (3)

and (4) and ask them to explain to you whether they have had sight of

this information before, and, if they have, precisely why they ignore

it or disagree with it.

 

I am willing to expand on any of the above if it will help someone

faced with making a choice about whether to accept these

'medications'. My address is 3, Ray Lodge, Ray Park Avenue,

Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 8DR

 

I would also be very interested to hear from anyone who has taken

an antipsychotic drug for a significant length of time who feels that

they have recovered. This bit is personal; I'm scared that I've been

permanently damaged and I'm looking for some optimistic feedback.

 

Colin Hope

 

1.

 

Shirley Trickett, 'Coming off Tranquillisers and Sleeping

Pills – a Withdrawal Plan that Really Works', 2nd. Edition, Thorsons,1991.

2.

 

Martindale, 'The Extra Pharmacopoeia',1993, Royal

Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain.

3.

 

Andrew C. Bishop and Garfield Tourney, 'Antipsychotics' –

chapter 7 from " Toxicology of CNS Depressants " , Ed. I.K. Ho, CRC Press

Inc., Boca Raton, Florida.

4.

 

Peter Breggin, 'Toxic Psychiatry', Fontana,1993

 

The use of antipsychotic drugs in attempting to relieve

symptoms of benzodiazepine withdrawal

by Colin Hope

 

HEALTH WARNING! This note is intended as a warning about the dangers

involved in taking antipsychotic drugs. These drugs used to be called

'major tranquillisers'; they are also sometimes referred to as

'neuroleptics'. They have been used by psychiatrists since the 1950s

to control the symptoms of serious mental disturbance, amounting to

insanity. This is termed 'psychosis', the most common manifestation of

which is called 'schizophrenia'.

 

There are a number of antipsychotic drugs; they are very similar in

their actions and their effects. The oldest and most common is called

'chlorpromazine'; its trade name in this country is 'Largactil' and in

America it is called 'Thorazine'. These are the drugs that were given

to Jack Nicholson's character in the film 'One Flew over the Cuckoo's

Nest'; they are the drugs that were used in Russia to 're-educate'

soviet dissidents; this is the 'medication' that a large number of

psychiatric patients seem so unwilling to take. The terms 'chemical

cosh' and 'chemical straight jacket' refer specifically to these drugs.

 

People who are dependent upon a benzodiazepine drug (diazepam,

lorazepam, temazepam etc.), and who are attempting to withdraw, and

who are experiencing difficulties in so doing, are sometimes persuaded

to take an antipsychotic drug by a well intentioned member of the

medical profession in order to ease the pain of withdrawal. This is a

very bad plan.

 

The idea is that these are old drugs – tried and tested; that they

have anxiolytic properties; are 'non addictive', with few problems on

withdrawal, and are safe – with few side effects and no serious ones.

The only truth in this is that they are old drugs. Many people regard

their use over the last 40 years as scandalous and indicative of the

low esteem in which psychiatric patients are held. They are not

'addictive' in the sense that people do not exhibit appetitive

behaviour towards them. Unlike diazepam and temazepam they are not

sold illicitly on the streets; street drug users don't want them

because they make them feel bad rather than good. There is, however, a

significant withdrawal syndrome associated with these drugs.

 

They have multitudinous side effects, many of them serious and some of

which can be fatal. This is not contentious: the pharmaceutical

companies themselves admit this. In the short term they commonly cause

a movement disorder closely resembling Parkinson's disease (this is

usually regarded as reversible). In the medium to long-term they

commonly cause Tardive Dyskinesia (T.D.). This is a profoundly

disfiguring and disabling condition which is regarded as permanent.

The British National Formulary suggests that this occurs 'rarely'; my

reading of independent research (that not sponsored by the

pharmaceutical companies) suggests that more than minimal T.D. occurs

in between 20% to 60% of long-term users of this drug. The definition

of 'short term' varies between 2 weeks and 6 months depending on whom

you read.

 

The idea that they can help ease the pain in withdrawing from a

benzodiazepine drug is very misguided. They are a completely different

class of drug; in principle they cannot do this. The notion of

introducing such a toxic chemical into a nervous system already

compromised by a benzodiazepine is very strange. A very simple

contraindication in this context is that they lower the convulsive

threshold – sometimes actually causing fits. Once again this is not

contentious. It is well known that there is a possibility of epileptic

seizures when withdrawing from benzodiazepines, especially if the

withdrawal is rapid. For this reason alone the prescription of an

antipsychotic drug to someone withdrawing from a benzodiazepine drug

is a dangerous practice. I believe that the only defence for this very

dubious practice is one of ignorance. Some doctors appear not to

understand even the basic facts concerning the drugs they are licensed

to prescribe.

 

There seems to be a broad consensus now amongst people who have been

addicted to benzodiazepines and recovered. Also amongst many

professionals who are specialists in the field of drug addiction and

recovery. Firstly it is that the withdrawal syndrome associated with

benzodiazepines is arguably the worst of any mood altering drug –

including the so called 'hard drugs' such as heroin. This is largely

because of its duration. Secondly that withdrawal must be gradual.

Unlike withdrawal from opiates or alcohol benzodiazepines should not

be discontinued abruptly. They should be tapered off slowly at a pace

that is comfortable for the person concerned; this may take months.

Thirdly that there are measures that can be taken to help ease the

pain: in the overwhelming majority of cases these measures do not

involve using other drugs. Antipsychotic drugs are particularly unhelpful.

 

These drugs do not induce tranquillity, except possibly in the nursing

staff. They often have quite the opposite effect sometimes inducing

profound agitation; once again this is not contentious: the

manufacturers admit this. They are very effective in controlling

disturbed, violent or 'odd' behaviour. They do this by attacking

vitality and, effectively crippling a person. They are very, very

unpleasant drugs.

 

Colin Hope

August, 1995