Less neuroleptics better, none at all best?

Hi, I don't like taking medication. Over the past 3 years or so i've fallen into psychosis because I would start having light delusions, consequently quit meds and decompensate, medication withdrawal had a role in this Im sure though.

I've always wanted to reduce medication and maybe even one day function completely without them. Right now my doctor says Im taking the lowest dose possible in injection form so I cant go any lower. Should I be preoccupied with lowering my dosage and possibly function without medication in the future? Be non-compliant and ween myself of medication completely? Or take doctors orders, one who doesn't believe full recovery is possible unless some kind of medical breakthrough happens and a new drug comes out?
I hope I'm posting in the right section of the forum.

Well, doctors have had years of experience dealing with this, involving all types of people so its probably best to listen to their advice.

Are you smoking weed ? That stuff will trigger delusions in alot of people. Do you recognize these light delusions long enough to stop a run-away into psychosis ?

My view is if the syptoms are not always present why should the drug be ? I get run-away insomnia from time to time that leaves me in a bad state "to tired to sleep" and I know when its time to treat it cause "terminal insomnia" (psychosis) sucks.

The less you take, the less withdrawal plays a part in the syptoms. If I drug myself insomnia or not sooner or later rebound insomnia will strike from the drugs proving I 'need' them.

Withdrawal can happen as tolerance goes up and the dose stays the same, dont let the word withdrawal fool you. In 1981 when xanax was approved by the FDA they said it was not addictive .

Neuroleptics are addictive and dangerous, In most cases none is best and less is better but dont expect psychiatry and big pharma to stop handing out samples and free trail offers like tic tacks any time soon.

Last thing, just cause a drug doesnt get you high does not mean its not addictive.

Hey Happy Goluffy,

We really can't give you medical advice via the internet. I'm sure that your struggles with psychosis are complicated as well as what you didn't mention which is what I imagine to be some difficult problems in your life.

Happygoluffy wrote:I hope I'm posting in the right section of the forum.

This is not the right forum for discussions of medication and problems with psychosis. I would suggest "Living with mental illness" or if you have a officiated psychiatric diagnosis you could post in that subforum. However, no person on this forum should give you medical advice.

Here's an example of why:

Copy_Cat wrote:I get run-away insomnia from time to time that leaves me in a bad state "to tired to sleep" and I know when its time to treat it cause "terminal insomnia" (psychosis) sucks.

The less you take, the less withdrawal plays a part in the syptoms. If I drug myself insomnia or not sooner or later rebound insomnia will strike from the drugs proving I 'need' them.

(1) Terminal insomnia is not equatable with psychosis. Psychosis is an ambiguous symptom with many possible causes that is characterized by hallucinations, delusions and disorganized thinking. Whereas terminal insomnia is sleep disorder that is characterized by difficulties staying asleep which may cause psychosis-like symptoms if you are deprived of sleep for a very long time.
(2) Withdrawal is not a problem if you take psychiatric medications consistently and change the dosage gradually. If you want to discontinue your medication do it gradually (I'm not advising this but it will prevent withdrawal effects)

Copy_Cat wrote:Neuroleptics are addictive and dangerous, In most cases none is best and less is better

(3) Antipsychotic medications (neuroleptics) are not addictive. The word "addictive" is ascribed to substances that cause cravings, desires and withdrawal effects. Only the latter (withdrawal effects) is observed when a person takes antipsychotic medication for long periods of time inducing certain neurophysiological changes to accommodate the drug and then suddenly stops. This is incomparable to all other addictive substances including meth amphetamine, cocaine, heroin, etcetera.
(4) Although antipsychotics are bad for your health, the overall benefit for persons suffering from psychosis, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia, including suspending deleterious neurophysiological changes as a result of untreated psychosis, far exceed being untreated (psychosocial treatments are important as well)

Copy_Cat wrote:just cause a drug doesnt get you high does not mean its not addictive.

(5) This is really a repeating the misuse of the word "addiction" that was explained and corrected in (3).

The problem with many of public's complaints about antipsychotic medications is that is argued without any understanding of context or even an introduction of the type of circumstances in which one should or should not take antipsychotic medication. Instead, these critics cite the obvious problems associated with long term use and the many side effects as if this supported en bloc reasons why one should not take antipsychotics. This disregards the fact that it is the only evidence based treatment of psychotic disorders.

The point being: talk to your doctor about your medication and try and be consistent with the medication you take. If your planning discontinuing use of your medication do it gradually (I'm not advising this).

Take care.

Copy_Cat wrote:
just cause a drug doesnt get you high does not mean its not addictive.

The American Society of Addiction Medicine begins their definition of addiction by describing it as "a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

Just cause a drug doesnt get you high does mean its not addictive. yep

Zyprexa withdrawal for me had all the syptoms of xanax and opiate withdrawal combined.
But you get "addicted" by chasing the pleasure from a drug and then get "dependent" on it.
But it is not "addictive". Wrong word.

Copy_Cat wrote:

Copy_Cat wrote:
just cause a drug doesnt get you high does not mean its not addictive.

The American Society of Addiction Medicine begins their definition of addiction by describing it as "a primary, chronic disease of brain reward, motivation, memory and related circuitry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addiction

Just cause a drug doesnt get you high does mean its not addictive. yep

I don't understand what you mean.

To be clear, there are different models or theories of addiction including physical tolerance model, positive reward model, opponent process model, incentive process model, and the good one the biopsychosocial model.

The only model that relies solely on the dependence as the defining feature of addiction is the physical tolerance model which is pretty old and doesn't explain much about addiction like why people start using, why do they relapse years later and why are people addicted to things that don't cause withdrawal.

All I'm saying Copy_Cat is you gotta think of context. For example,

L-Dopa treatments for people with Parkinsons have so many side effects including psychosis!!! However, it can delay the symptoms for about a year and improve health related quality of life. Also, it's the only treatment that exists.

So you can't evaluate things in a empirical vacuum. You gotta be clear about what the problem is and what the solution is. It sounds like in your case there may have been problems with the validity of your diagnosis (I'm speculating).

Take care.

I guess its the words addiction and addictive.

Addiction is dependence ...alot of drugs can cause that.

Addictive drugs can make a person say wow that feels great I am going to drink or take/smoke that again chasing the euphoria till they are dependent on it and need it to function and not be sick in the end.

Neuroleptics cause dependence... Do I sound like a lawyer defending e-lillys zyprexa to any one else ?

your honor, zyprexa is not addictive. I move to have that stricken from the record.

Copy_Cat wrote:I guess its the words addiction and addictive.

Addiction is dependence ...alot of drugs can cause that.

Addictive drugs can make a person say wow that feels great I am going to drink or take/smoke that again chasing the euphoria till they are dependent on it and need it to function and not be sick in the end.

Neuroleptics cause dependence... Do I sound like a lawyer defending e-lillys zyprexa to any one else ?

your honor, zyprexa is not addictive. I move to have that stricken from the record.

No no it's fine. Zyprexa is a serious drug. It's not a toy. Mental health care proffesionals need to be careful when using it. Especially with vulnerable populations (children, adolescents and seniors)

Also, addiction is confusing. We often speak of it as a symptom and sometimes like a disorder. For example:

(1) Jack has drug addiction
(2) Jack is addicted to methamphetamine

And again, there are many different models of addiction. If your talking with a Physical Dependence theorists all addiction is is tolerance and withdrawal. This really ignores the psychological components of addiction like craving and the use of drugs as a coping mechanism to take away distress.

Hope things are becoming clearer.