Antipsychotics: between treatment and suspicion of social control

Antipsychotics: treatment or tool of social control?

A suspicion runs through certain corners of health analysis: neuroleptics do not cure, they sedate, they cut life expectancy short and they hide side effects that the industry prefers to blame on other causes. The first generation shows visible symptoms: lip smacking, trembling hands, a shuffling gait, akathisia. The second, marketed since 1990, would be even more harmful, but its consequences — sensual dysfunction, diabetes — are easier to disguise.

The effects nobody wants to see

Criticism of psychiatry has pedigree: ten professionals cited as leading figures, from Franco Basaglia to Thomas Szasz, including Michel Foucault, argue that chemical confinement replaced the asylum. The most unsettling theory suggests that first-generation antipsychotics could contribute to prion diseases, the same abnormal proteins associated with "mad cow disease". If confirmed for the second generation, the outlook would be even worse. Olanzapine, launched in 1996, is not free of suspicion either.

The lesser evil that actually works

On the other side stands everyday clinical experience. There are patients with schizophrenia who, thanks to aripiprazole, stopped having hallucinations and regained a normal social life; when they stop taking it, the relapses return. For them, the conspiracy debate is a luxury they cannot afford. While some see "covert eugenics", others point out that the drug, with all its risks, is the lesser evil. The mass prescription of the second generation will keep fuelling suspicion until official science clarifies which weighs more.