Comments on: Alzheimer's Drugs Double Death Risk

Experts Say Anti-Dementia Drugs Are Dangerous, Overused

[confusionn]

An anti-psychotic drug to reat Alzheimer''s disease could doublt the dying rate of a patient, which adds to Concern on this related problem. There''re other side-effect on this disease includes respiratory problem. The drug regimen needs to be personalized

[wardoglrs]

Ill just stay with the 420 crowed much safer

[lf1952]

That is an excellent point. Most Alzheimer''s patients cannot give an informed consent or refusal (i.e. not capable of understanding risk/benefit explanations). That means that the health care practitioner taking care of them must work with their family and caregivers to attempt to provide them them the best quality of life. That is NOT a good position to be in, for anyone.

However, keeping a pulse present is NOT life if YOU are the patient. Yes, this is a value judgment; after 29 years of medical practice and talking with a LOT of patients (and researchers AFTER they become patients - who want to ignore their own "quantity" vs "quality" of life studies).

An excellent example is end stage heart failure. We used to send patients home with continuous IV infusions of medications that made their heart beat more strongly (at rather high $$ expense). Then we figured out that they died sooner, so we stopped. That left many with constant inability to function beyond sit in a chair all day, but less incidence of sudden death - they got to spend more time slowly suffocating while having no quality of life. I remain skeptical that we did them a favor, and I KNOW patients who would have said we relegated them to a torturous death.

[lf1952]

That is an excellent point. Most Alzheimer''s patients cannot give an informed consent or refusal (i.e. not capable of understanding risk/benefit explanations). That means that the health care practitioner taking care of them must work with their family and caregivers to attempt to provide them them the best quality of life. That is NOT a good position to be in, for anyone.

However, keeping a pulse present is NOT life if YOU are the patient. Yes, this is a value judgment; after 29 years of medical practice and talking with a LOT of patients (and researchers AFTER they become patients - who want to ignore their own "quantity" vs "quality" of life studies).

An excellent example is end stage heart failure. We used to send patients home with continuous IV infusions of medications that made their heart beat more strongly (at rather high $$ expense). Then we figured out that they died sooner, so we stopped. That left many with constant inability to function beyond sit in a chair all day, but less incidence of sudden death - they got to spend more time slowly suffocating while having no quality of life. I remain skeptical that we did them a favor, and I KNOW patients who would have said we relegated them to a torturous death.

[lf1952]

The numbers of patients used here are almost insignificant, so the validity of the information from the studies is very limited. They need to be at least 10 TIMES larger groups.

The editorials suggest that the pontificators has never actually cared for a patient with hallucinations or who attacks their caretakers.

Any study that looks at "QUANTITY of life" and fails to look at "QUALITY of life" is fatally flawed anyway. The valid questions are: (1) Were the patients less agitated and happier on medication or off? (2) Were the caretakers safer with the patient on medication, or off? (3) Who, when all governments are rationing health care, will PAY for the "environmental or behavioral therapies"?

It sounds as if these "studies" (of ludicrously low numbers of patients) are intended to either avoid paying for medications, or simply don''t care about either patients or caretakers, only getting their name published.

I have never had a patient come in when sick and say "make me live longer, I don''t care how I feel". They say "make me feel better". Unless a patient says otherwise, QUALITY of life always comes first. (For the record, I DO ask them that question if appropriate.)

Only a Fool would take these synthetic poisons for Alzheimer''s. There are many proven natural products that can pass thru the blood brain barrier with excellent results. The marketing scam of Big Pharma is in full gear.

[davido01]

Alzheimer''s deaths can be slow and painful. If I am ever diagnosed with Alzheimer''s, I would welcome a drug that made me less prone to attacking my caretakers, even if it shorten the painful time I had left.

[rhs648]

correction

We know so little about many things and science is anything but perfect. Although scientists are constantly discovering new things, we have a long way to go. Much of today''s conventional wisdom will be tomorrow''s myths. Aids, once almost a death sentence, is now less of a death threat with better treatments and medications. It is not fair to failt government and scientists. It may take hundreds of years before we understand many of today''s mysteries. During the Civil war, wounded soldiers were often given arsenic which made them sick and often resulted in death. That was the state of science and medicine in the 1860''s. There was a time when barbers removed tonsils. Just don''''t expect too many miracles in our own lifetime.

[rhs648]

We know so little about many things and science is anything but perfect. Although scientists are constantly discovery new things, we have a long way to go. Much of today''s conventional wisdom will be tomorrow''s myths. Aids, once almost a death sentence, is now less of a death threat with better treatments and medications. It is not fair to failt government and scientists. It may take hundreds of years before we understand many of today''s mysteries. During the Civil war, wounded soldiers were often given arsenic which made them sick and often resulted in death. That was the state of science and medicine in the 1860''s. There was a time when barbers removed tonsils. Just don''t expect too many miracles in our own lifetime.