Friday, February 10, 2006
depression, birth defects, and the FDA
in a pair of studies recently published, it seems that depressed pregnant women are, well, doomed. new research suggests the common belief that pregnancy alleviates depression was just wishful thinking:
so it appears that pregnant women and their unborn are faced with an unpleasant catch-22: ride out pregnancy sans drugs and risk suicide, or take drugs and risk permanent birth defects. however, along with new and old evidence (albeit disputed) that therapy is just as - or more - effective and less prone to relapse than pharmaceuticals, perhaps women should flush that prozac and try therapy.
as a side note, i wonder if brain implants, recently rejected by the FDA, would transfer to the fetus at the same rate? perhaps not, because they may not enter the blood stream at high concentration. and if not, is the FDA banning one of the only methods many women have to prevent depression/suicide without risking their babies?
In all, 43% of the women they followed relapsed into depression during pregnancy, but the rate of relapse was much higher for women who discontinued their medication (68%) than for those who stayed on it (26%).the major concern with taking any drug while pregnant, as we all know, is that it is consumed by the fetus, risking birth defects. it is known that many psychiatric drugs cross over, but new research released last month notes that drugs are also present in the amniotic fluid, which is absorbed by the fetus in a number of ways including "respiration" into the lungs and transcutaneous absorption.
so it appears that pregnant women and their unborn are faced with an unpleasant catch-22: ride out pregnancy sans drugs and risk suicide, or take drugs and risk permanent birth defects. however, along with new and old evidence (albeit disputed) that therapy is just as - or more - effective and less prone to relapse than pharmaceuticals, perhaps women should flush that prozac and try therapy.
as a side note, i wonder if brain implants, recently rejected by the FDA, would transfer to the fetus at the same rate? perhaps not, because they may not enter the blood stream at high concentration. and if not, is the FDA banning one of the only methods many women have to prevent depression/suicide without risking their babies?
Labels: drugs, neuroscience, political
the trackback URL for "depression, birth defects, and the FDA" is: http://haloscan.com/tb/sullifred/113958628698894439
trackbacks for this post temporarily listed here
Nikki, since you are both a good libertarian and a good psychology student, I was curious your stance on suicide. I think it likely you would argue that the individual has ownership over their body/life, so if they freely choose to end it, that is their right. But I also read your commentary regarding depression/suicide, and I wonder if you consider mental illness to be a deprivation of one's ability to "freely choose"? Do you buy the "chemical imbalance" contention? And if so, don't hard drugs (which we might argue ought to be legalized) count as "imbalancing" chemicals in the brain?
By
Fox, at
Fri Feb 10, 11:54:00 AM
-GROAN- that’s a very difficult question that i struggle with, my friend. to me, government issues are clear; the body is one’s property, is not owned or owed to anyone/thing else. although i think all should be treated as such from a governmental perspective, in certain cases people don’t physically have the same ability to make certain ethical calls that others do. this goes for both children and those with some neurological maladies. so what to do? this is a dilemma for me. can someone who has the moral-reasoning areas of their brain removed, for example, be held accountable for her actions? what about a child whose brain is not fully developed? perhaps for utility reasons it makes sense to hold them accountable (for others’ protection in the former case, and for eventual moral development in the latter). however, as far as person-ownership issues are concerned, it’s not clear to me. can someone who has had parts of her brain destroyed – in critical judgement/reasoning/decision-making areas - be allowed to commit suicide? i’m inclined towards “yes” – perhaps for more utilitarian reasons, again - but again it’s not a clear case to me. so, i don’t know. it’s something i think about, and i know this my response is not clear, because the answer is not.
By
ns, at
Fri Feb 10, 02:37:00 PM
Post a Comment