first, do NO harm

this is rather like the wiccan creede; an' it harm none, do as you will

HOWEVER,

someone IS doing some harming or so it would appear

Yale-Lilly Experiment: Adolescents Rx Toxic Drug for Presumed Mental Illness They Do Not Have

When the Times refers to an experiment as "bold and controversial" the reporter is sanitizing the fact that the experiment is UNETHICAL—it violates medicine's cardinal rule "First, do no harm."The New York Times reports: "In recent years, psychiatric researchers have been experimenting with a bold and controversial treatment strategy: they are prescribing drugs to young people at risk for schizophrenia who have not yet developed the full-blown disorder."The article goes on to describe an experiment reported in the American Journal of Psychiatry (AJP) in which adolescents were treated with a toxic drug for a mental disorder that they did not actually have. [1] This experiment is akin to performing mastectomies on women who are at risk of—but do not have—breast cancer. Because the treatment involves risk, great care must be taken to ensure the risk of the disease exceeds the risk of treatment. The risk of breast cancer in women has been quantified, and patients are able to weigh this risk against the risks and benefits of surgery. Despite the fact that antipsychotic drugs entail serious risks of irreversible harm, no such assessment is offered for this trial. The experiment, sponsored by Eli Lilly, was conducted at Yale University (and 3 added sites, 1997-2003). Sixty adolescents who did not meet any criteria for a diagnosis of mental illness, were prescribed the antipsychotic drug, Zyprexa (olanzapine), raising serious ethical concerns. The speculative premise underlying this experiment is not supported by ANY scientific evidence. The principle investigators, led by Dr. Thomas McGlashan of Yale, speculated—without evidence and without a validated tool for detecting schizophrenia in unsymptomatic individuals--that Zyprexa would be effective in delaying or preventing presumed psychosis and symptoms of schizophrenia. Indeed, the authors of this belated report obliquely acknowledge this limitation:“the study addressed an essentially new clinical entity, which required designing new “prodromal” assessment instruments and a new definition of psychosis onset.” [1, p.797] .....

how frightening is this?