![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by tepiaca on January 17, 2006, at 15:00:42
Big Question
I have read that Benzos are dangerous
medicines. Everybody is talking that
if you can , you have to avoid them.
I also have read that there is a difference
between becoming addicted and dependant to a
drug. When you become addicted you need more
dose of the same med to achieve the same relief
And when you are dependant you obtain the same
benefit all the time at the same dose but
you just can stop taking the med.What happen on benzos ? Addiction or Dependance
or what is so dangerous about them?
why leave them , why not taking them foreverHope someone can clarify my mind a little bit
Posted by tallwaters on January 17, 2006, at 15:15:14
In reply to BENZOS....Can you become Addicted or Dependant, posted by tepiaca on January 17, 2006, at 15:00:42
Hi there,
I've been on benzo's and and have come off. coming off was my personal hell. Everyone is different.
sometimes you just can't help but need them. They are addictive or you can become dependent. It all depends on why you are taking them in the first place. I take klonopin now for years and coming off would be hard very hard for me. Just don't rely on the meds do alot of cognitive work if you can to help you and take the lowest dose possible.best wishes,
Tallwaters
Posted by irishcatholic on January 17, 2006, at 15:26:32
In reply to Re: BENZOS....Can you become Addicted or Dependant, posted by tallwaters on January 17, 2006, at 15:15:14
My sister-in-law has been on klono for 20 yrs.
She seems to do OK.
I've been doing Prozac/Xanax for 2yrs.
It's a risk/reward ratio judgement.
For me it is favorable right now.
Benzos are if nothing else well studied for long term safety. Just as prohibition was a dumb idea because some folks abused alcohol, ruling out benzos is equally in error. But you need a competent, caring pDoc with this, and they are tough to find.
Posted by linkadge on January 17, 2006, at 15:33:21
In reply to Re: BENZOS....Can you become Addicted or Dependant, posted by irishcatholic on January 17, 2006, at 15:26:32
The can be addicting and dependance forming but not necessarily.
Some people find benzo's pleasurable and will take more than prescribed.
There is also a tollerance issue. I took clonazepam for a few weeks and beceme completely tollerant to its effects. In addition, coming off of it was very excrutiating.
I think benzos are best use as needed, but they may need to become a sole treatment if others fail.
Linkadge
Posted by Declan on January 17, 2006, at 16:38:53
In reply to Re: BENZOS....Can you become Addicted or Dependant, posted by linkadge on January 17, 2006, at 15:33:21
Tep, I think the difference between addiction and dependance with benzos is just politics ie people very understandably don't like being labelled as addicts. And that's about it.
Declan
Posted by yxibow on January 17, 2006, at 17:08:44
In reply to BENZOS....Can you become Addicted or Dependant, posted by tepiaca on January 17, 2006, at 15:00:42
>
> Big Question
> I have read that Benzos are dangerous
> medicines. Everybody is talking that
> if you can , you have to avoid them.
> I also have read that there is a difference
> between becoming addicted and dependant to a
> drug. When you become addicted you need more
> dose of the same med to achieve the same relief
> And when you are dependant you obtain the same
> benefit all the time at the same dose but
> you just can stop taking the med.
>
> What happen on benzos ? Addiction or Dependance
>
> or what is so dangerous about them?
> why leave them , why not taking them forever
>
> Hope someone can clarify my mind a little bit
Everyone will have their own opinion, I think I posted this a little while ago. Benzodiazepines have been around for 46 years, so they are among the most safest of psychiatric medicines purely by the nature that they have been observed in patient populations.There is a difference between dependence, habituation, and addiction, and it isn't completely political although sometimes the words are used interchangeably.
Habituation and habit-forming describe the potential for a particular drug agent to become less useful over time. For some, benzodiazepines become less useful over time. On the other hand, there are people on low doses of them who've had the same prescription for like 30-40 years, no joke.
When they have become completely "less useful", yet there is difficulty coming off of them without a gradual taper, one may say the patient is dependent on them. But regardless what some may say, eventually over time if you want to discontinue them, you can withdraw and stop with a gradual discontinuation so there is no actual "withdrawal" effect.
Addiction is the use of a substance that has little or no medical useful value to a person. It doesn't mean they're bad people, they may have genetic disposition to things like alcoholism and the like. An example would be getting fake prescriptions for substances that would have legitimate value for someone else.
Finally, though benzodiazepines have what is known as a high "LD50", which is a fancy clinical term for how much you can stuff a rat or a monkey before 50% of them are dead (I know, not the most pleasant idea, but thats how drugs are required to be tested), too much of very potent benzodiazepines have the potential of respiratory depression. That is, they relax the muscles of the body so much, that they relax the lung as well. This is not a good situation, so doctors are careful to prescribe not to have this happen.
But in general for the millions of people who have anything from minor phobias to full blown panic attacks, medications like Klonopin can be life savers and allow them to venture out of the house and have a productive life as possible. One just has to get used to the medicine and be sure to allow the reflexes to get used to it while driving.
Hope that clears up, at least from my view
-J
Posted by Phillipa on January 17, 2006, at 19:32:02
In reply to Re: BENZOS....Can you become Addicted or Dependant » tepiaca, posted by yxibow on January 17, 2006, at 17:08:44
Great post!!!!! Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by willyee on January 17, 2006, at 22:36:45
In reply to BENZOS....Can you become Addicted or Dependant, posted by tepiaca on January 17, 2006, at 15:00:42
I think people forget why they used the benzo to begin with,ANXIETY.
So now youre comming off a drug that surpressed this anxiety,and obviously helped at some point,it would only make sense that you ORGINAL anxiety would return,and being surpressed so long its also reasonable that it first return with a strong vengance.Benzos are not curing anxiety,rather treating hopefully enough so a person can function and live normal lives,why one would expect the orignal anxiety not to re-appear with the half of medication im not sure,especialy if its true that anxiety is a pyhsical condition in some people,over active stimulataory nuero,etc.
When stopping a benzo,unless u have a secondary replacement treamtent in place,i dont see why people dont remeber it was anxiety that had them usualy get a benzo,and why dont they think that oringal anxiety is too return.
As for me,i dont crave benzos,i dont look forward to taking them,nor look for ways to make them more powerful etc,traits of drug addiction are the enjoyment of the drug,the literal craving for it,as in my brothers case it becaome his priority in life eventualy and unfrotantly more than his family and business which he lost of it.
If you see urself craving a benzo,runnng short of ur prescription every month,or some other trait of an addict,i personaly would feel conent that although its not a pleaseant idea to be DEPENDANT on a drug,i can also not forget how many drugs DONT work and be grateful although serious,i actualy have a medication that works to a acceptable degree.
There are nutrients u can take at night to counter act any damage u believe benzos cause,many nuero-brain protecting products such as l theanie which increases gaba in the body and brain.
Posted by blueberry on January 19, 2006, at 4:32:44
In reply to BENZOS....Can you become Addicted or Dependant, posted by tepiaca on January 17, 2006, at 15:00:42
Addiction implies drug seeking behavior, hoarding of supplies, seeking euphoric effects, seeking higher doses to get euphoric effects. Dependence is more along the lines of your body being accustomed to the medication where removing the medication causes withdrawal symptoms.
I personally do not understand why the general medical community looks at benzos in this way, since in my own experience all of the psychotropic meds have similar dependence issues.
I've weaned off of so many meds. I let my level of withdrawal discomfort be my guide as to how fast or how slow I weaned off. Paxil took me 3 months to get from 20mg to zero. Prozac, even with its long half life, took me 3 months to get from 20mg to zero. Xanax only took one month to get from 2mg to zero. Zyprexa took me one month to get from 5mg to 2.5mg. Even something simple like St Johns Wort took me 2 months to get from 600mg to zero. My body was dependent on all of them, and the dependence was greatly influenced by how long I had been on them.
The body gets accustomed to the particular medication molecule, whatever it is. That to me is dependence. Whether the molecule is actually helping or not is a different issue...the body has adjusted to where it needs it regardless. Is it addiction? Or is it dependence? I don't think it matters what they call it, it means it is real hard to get off of it. In my own experiences, all meds cause dependence, with paxil, effexor, and antipyschotics being the worst, even worse than benzos for me.
Posted by Declan on January 19, 2006, at 14:23:17
In reply to Re: BENZOS....Can you become Addicted or Dependant, posted by blueberry on January 19, 2006, at 4:32:44
So Blueberry, your experience is that antipsychotics were harder to withdraw from than benzos? I'm astonished and interested. Do you want to say more about this?
Declan
Posted by blueberry on January 19, 2006, at 17:57:39
In reply to Dependance, Benzoz, APs » blueberry, posted by Declan on January 19, 2006, at 14:23:17
Declan, yeah, zyprexa for me is much harder to withdraw from than xanax. At least with xanax, there are other things to make it easier, such as magnesium, magnesium glycinate, or GabaCalm (glycine, gaba, taurine combo). But I haven't found anything that makes it easier for zyprexa. I mean, xanax is basically only affecting one neurotransmitter system, but zyprexa is all over the map, affecting everything from serotonin to dopamine to histamine to physical metabolism and who knows what else, all in intricate complicated ways. It's like withdrawing from a whole bunch of meds at the same time. But that's just me. I'm sure it is different for other people.
> So Blueberry, your experience is that antipsychotics were harder to withdraw from than benzos? I'm astonished and interested. Do you want to say more about this?
> Declan
Posted by tepiaca on January 19, 2006, at 22:59:55
In reply to Re: Dependance, Benzoz, APs, posted by blueberry on January 19, 2006, at 17:57:39
> Declan, yeah, zyprexa for me is much harder to withdraw from than xanax. At least with xanax, there are other things to make it easier, such as magnesium, magnesium glycinate, or GabaCalm (glycine, gaba, taurine combo). But I haven't found anything that makes it easier for zyprexa. I mean, xanax is basically only affecting one neurotransmitter system, but zyprexa is all over the map, affecting everything from serotonin to dopamine to histamine to physical metabolism and who knows what else, all in intricate complicated ways. It's like withdrawing from a whole bunch of meds at the same time. But that's just me. I'm sure it is different for other people.
>
> > So Blueberry, your experience is that antipsychotics were harder to withdraw from than benzos? I'm astonished and interested. Do you want to say more about this?
> > Declan
>
>Maybe Im a rare case, but I have left all my drugs cold turkey and I haven´t feel something wrong except for Nardil, wich gave me some vivid nigthmares , oh and Seroquel a little bit of insomnia the first days. All the rest , SSRIS , all the atypical AP , tricyclics, SNRis I was fine
right now I left cold turkey remeron
But im afraid of benzons.... yes I am !
Sometimes when I forget the klnopin dose for more than 2 days i feel very bad. I believe that is a withdrawal symptopm , then I take it and I feel good againTep
Posted by notfeelingthebest on January 20, 2006, at 14:22:26
In reply to Re: Dependance, Benzoz, APs, posted by tepiaca on January 19, 2006, at 22:59:55
I think the difference between dependancy and addiction is purely political.
Addiction implies that there is some sort of unhealthy preoccupation with the drug or that it is being used illicity. Addicts are "users" and their "habit" is, like, totally beyond their control (man).
Dependancy is a softer term, and it implies that the "patient" needs some help from his little buddy Alloseroxoracital(XR)in a cold and unforgiving world.
Either way, once you take the dependable/addictive substance away, your body is, like "dude, where's my fix?" Furthermore, quitting an addictive substance cold turkey might result in mild diarreah or nothing at all, while old dependable might throw a temper tantrum or even lead you to terminate.
To ease the doctors' and drug companies' financial and legal concerns and lessen the confusion of patients, why not junk the two terms and use "reliance" - its releatively inoffensive sounding. Then again, heroin reliants might complain that their lives have lost a certain romantic quality. Sigh... can't please everyone.
In the meantime, my GP had no trouble refilling my 2+ years prescription today for a drug upon which I am dependant (at least I assume I am by now), yet was hesitant when I requested a two week trial of another drug because it was known to be "potentially addictive."
Its funny that the poor souls that are given ssri's are told that one of the major benefits of these modern wonder drugs is that they "aren't addictive!" But they still make it clear that you should always taper slowly. Odd. Especially odd if you consider that severe alcoholics are encouraged to quit drinking cold turkey - which is a billion times more dangerous than ending a ten year extremely abusive relationship with, say, valium. Cold turkey withdrawal from the dreaded opiates at best (worst) will give you a bad case of the flu. I personally think that opiate withdrawal has such a bad rep because people are aware that they can act like babies thank's to the fact that they're labelled "addicts." Christ, just rent some DVD's and stay in for a couple of weeks. At least you won't be hallucinating or trying to fly from your roof.
I suppose some smarty pants could counter that ssri's have a very low potential for abuse. Considering that I've never heard news report of hoodlums breaking into a pharmacy and stealing Paxil, I'd counter that their potential for abuse is actually zero because they don't do anything (anything useful that is; don't blame me in a couple decades if your eyes suddenly melt, or a generation of babies come out kind of funny).
"We're not exactly sure how they work, and there haven't been any long term studies, but we still recommend them as a first line of treatment for your disorder."
Speaking of things that don't work, if you look at the stats for AA, it doesn't actually work. And since when did "once an addict, always an addict" become fact?
Posted by yxibow on January 21, 2006, at 1:04:18
In reply to Re: Dependance, Benzoz, APs, posted by notfeelingthebest on January 20, 2006, at 14:22:26
> I think the difference between dependancy and addiction is purely political.\
You're entitled to your opinion but it is much more than semantic like I've explained.> Addiction implies that there is some sort of unhealthy preoccupation with the drug or that it is being used illicity. Addicts are "users" and their "habit" is, like, totally beyond their control (man).
That's true. There is something unhealthy about fake prescriptions for barbiturates, smoking crack cocaine, freebasing PCP, and a whole host of other Category I substances with the possible exception of cannabinoids which may actually have more of a medical value than our current government wants to admit, but that is the only political comment I am making here.
> Dependancy is a softer term, and it implies that the "patient" needs some help from his little buddy Alloseroxoracital(XR)in a cold and unforgiving world.Sounds like an anti-medication shill if I ever heard one and is heartless to the people who are affected by panic disorder and social anxiety disorder and somehow get caught up in a loop with their benzodiazepine of choice.
>
> Either way, once you take the dependable/addictive substance away, your body is, like "dude, where's my fix?" Furthermore, quitting an addictive substance cold turkey might result in mild diarreah or nothing at all, while old dependable might throw a temper tantrum or even lead you to terminate.Quitting cocaine.. hmm... how about PCP ? Crack? Alcohol? Methamphetamines ? Yes, just down some loperamide and all will be fine. Oh good golly miss molly.
>
> To ease the doctors' and drug companies' financial and legal concerns and lessen the confusion of patients, why not junk the two terms and use "reliance" - its releatively inoffensive sounding. Then again, heroin reliants might complain that their lives have lost a certain romantic quality. Sigh... can't please everyone.Reliant is yet another word and is misused here also. Type I Diabetics for whom no other treatment has worked, are reliant on insulin. Patients with end stage kidney failure are reliant on dialysis. Heart patients with angina and the like are reliant on pacemakers. Again, a gross disservice to those suffering.
>
> In the meantime, my GP had no trouble refilling my 2+ years prescription today for a drug upon which I am dependant (at least I assume I am by now), yet was hesitant when I requested a two week trial of another drug because it was known to be "potentially addictive."Both drugs are conveniently left out in this diatribe.
>
> Its funny that the poor souls that are given ssri's are told that one of the major benefits of these modern wonder drugs is that they "aren't addictive!" But they still make it clear that you should always taper slowly. Odd. Especially odd if you consider that severe alcoholics are encouraged to quit drinking cold turkey - which is a billion times more dangerous than ending a ten year extremely abusive relationship with, say, valium. Cold turkey withdrawal from the dreaded opiates at best (worst) will give you a bad case of the flu. I personally think that opiate withdrawal has such a bad rep because people are aware that they can act like babies thank's to the fact that they're labelled "addicts." Christ, just rent some DVD's and stay in for a couple of weeks. At least you won't be hallucinating or trying to fly from your roof.Watch Trainspotting. Watch it again. It's not pretty. And go shoot your heroin if you want.
>
> I suppose some smarty pants could counter that ssri's have a very low potential for abuse. Considering that I've never heard news report of hoodlums breaking into a pharmacy and stealing Paxil, I'd counter that their potential for abuse is actually zero because they don't do anything (anything useful that is; don't blame me in a couple decades if your eyes suddenly melt, or a generation of babies come out kind of funny).
>
> "We're not exactly sure how they work, and there haven't been any long term studies, but we still recommend them as a first line of treatment for your disorder."
Well we're starting to get to the Scientology arguments finally...>
> Speaking of things that don't work, if you look at the stats for AA, it doesn't actually work. And since when did "once an addict, always an addict" become fact?And we've got them, folks. Yes, full blown Scientology.
But, I respect others for their own opinions. Just don't push your notfeelingthebest, which more accurately describes this entire diatribe on others. Because its heartless.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 21, 2006, at 12:06:46
In reply to Re: Dependance, Benzoz, APs » notfeelingthebest, posted by yxibow on January 21, 2006, at 1:04:18
> people are aware that they can act like babies thank's to the fact that they're labelled "addicts." Christ, just rent some DVD's and stay in for a couple of weeks.
>
> they don't do anything
>
> notfeelingthebest> Sounds like an anti-medication shill if I ever heard one and is heartless
>
> a gross disservice to those suffering.
>
> this diatribe.
>
> yxibowI'm sorry if you're not feeling well, but please be sensitive to the feelings of others and don't exaggerate or post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above posts, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by notfeelingthebest on January 21, 2006, at 13:12:09
In reply to Re: Dependance, Benzoz, APs » notfeelingthebest, posted by yxibow on January 21, 2006, at 1:04:18
Whoah, when you say things like "that is the only political comment I am making here," you're not supposed to descend into a bitter studenty pro-cannabinoid rant and end by declaring somebody to be a scientologist. You've completely misinterpreted my post, and you know what? I think you're "projecting." It's not good to go from thread to thread being argumentative cuz Bob doesn't like it and he'll be in here in a flash.
Since this is a forum where people discuss their difficulties, there are bound to be alot of shiny happy people present, but I think its a little odd not to have a sense of humour about modern psychiatry. You don't have to dig too deep into the archives here to find that being cynical about SSRI's is hardly a fringe point of view. People's personal accounts tend to contrast with the spirit of tag-lines like "YOUR LIFE IS WAITING!"
I don't have a problem with the fact that scientists are researching new drugs which could potentially make the lives of many people alot better. But I do think its wrong that the sales pitch of your average SSRI is completely at odds with reality. Its certainly more of a concern to me than what the government doesn't want me to know about cannabinoids. How about:
PAXIL CR -
We don't exactly what it does or how it works. Our research is flawed, which is irrelevant because it hasn't yielded any results which are substantial enough to make any claims one way or another. There is an obvious conflict of interest here, as our company is involved in both the publication of research and sale of this drug. Long term side effects: unknown. Now available in CR, though.
I'll admit that its not very sexy, but since they're peddling brain medicine, it should be as accurate as possible don't you think?
Also, if you want to get an idea of what heroin withdrawal is like, don't watch trainspotting (and certainly not twice). Besides being bad in an artistic sense, movies like that are actually, as you would put it, "a heartless and great disservice to those who suffer from heroin addiction."
Posted by zeugma on January 21, 2006, at 13:32:25
In reply to Re: My heartless scientological diatribe, posted by notfeelingthebest on January 21, 2006, at 13:12:09
There is an obvious conflict of interest here, as our company is involved in both the publication of research and sale of this drug. >>
Too true. And what is worse, many of those who are involved in the neuroscience, as opposed to drug development, end, are paid consultants to many drug developers and angle their research to what their sponsors want to hear.
They are the ones picking out the targets of new drugs. They may not win Nobel laureates for this work, but they will certainly not go unrewarded for finding targets suited to whatever molecules a company can patent. We might call it the 'commercialization of the brain.'
-z
Posted by yxibow on January 21, 2006, at 14:24:15
In reply to Re: My heartless scientological diatribe, posted by notfeelingthebest on January 21, 2006, at 13:12:09
> Whoah, when you say things like "that is the only political comment I am making here," you're not supposed to descend into a bitter studenty pro-cannabinoid rant and end by declaring somebody to be a scientologist.
Actually I have no pro-cannobinoid stance. I just dont have an anti-stance. Its more of a if you want to do something that has yet to be proved more than marginally harmless, go ahead. I've never engaged in any illegal drugs.
>You've completely misinterpreted my post, and you know what? I think you're "projecting." It's not good to go from thread to thread being argumentative cuz Bob doesn't like it and he'll be in here in a flash.
And my post has been at least partially misinterpreted also. Online doesn't hold a candle to things and sometimes we try to one up things. Speaking of which I did try to respond to your posting question later on in this board a civil manner, as it seemed like a civil posting.
Yes, he's here, as I figured... I went off a little bit more than usual on a subject that has been touched time and again, and I'm not projecting, I'm merely offering my viewpoint on what did not seem to be a completely sarcasm free view on the other side."> Dependancy is a softer term, and it implies that the "patient" needs some help from his little buddy Alloseroxoracital(XR)in a cold and unforgiving world."
Is that sarcasm free, why am I the one being slapped ? This is where I started getting a little irked.
>
> Since this is a forum where people discuss their difficulties, there are bound to be alot of shiny happy people present, but I think its a little odd not to have a sense of humour about modern psychiatry. You don't have to dig too deep into the archives here to find that being cynical about SSRI's is hardly a fringe point of view. People's personal accounts tend to contrast with the spirit of tag-lines like "YOUR LIFE IS WAITING!"I never said that "your life is waiting"... it just rang true of the whole SSRI debate, one, which I will admit saved my life twice. But everyone is entitled to their own view.
>
> I don't have a problem with the fact that scientists are researching new drugs which could potentially make the lives of many people alot better. But I do think its wrong that the sales pitch of your average SSRI is completely at odds with reality. Its certainly more of a concern to me than what the government doesn't want me to know about cannabinoids. How about:
>
> PAXIL CR -It's a patent extender, I don't believe in patent extending drugs that really serve no purpose.
>
> We don't exactly what it does or how it works. Our research is flawed, which is irrelevant because it hasn't yielded any results which are substantial enough to make any claims one way or another. There is an obvious conflict of interest here, as our company is involved in both the publication of research and sale of this drug. Long term side effects: unknown. Now available in CR, though.They have to say that. Its available on every drug including ibuprofen before it became OTC. I agree, it ranges from mildly amusing to ridiculous. It protects them from drug suits, with all sorts of lawyers.
>
> I'll admit that its not very sexy, but since they're peddling brain medicine, it should be as accurate as possible don't you think?Brain chemistry is in its infancy. If we knew what could be tailored for someone's condition I would be ecstatic. But that requires [political comment coming up] things like stem cell research, etc.
>
> Also, if you want to get an idea of what heroin withdrawal is like, don't watch trainspotting (and certainly not twice). Besides being bad in an artistic sense.....Again, a personal view, and also entitled to it.
I was afraid this would be interpreted in a different fashion and I'm sorry I offended you. I'm just tired of this addiction debate on benzodiazepines I guess. Everyone will have their own views on things. But as for the scientology debate [political warning], they are well versed in discontinuing all medication, as are a host of people on Quackwatch, Breggin included, etc.Things said online tend to be taken out of their context, but I believe I may have been a little acerbic towards the end. As I noted, your previous comments were not acerbic free either.
So lets call it tomato tomatoe and leave it there.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 23, 2006, at 3:26:25
In reply to Re: My heartless scientological diatribe, posted by notfeelingthebest on January 21, 2006, at 13:12:09
> a bitter studenty pro-cannabinoid rant
> I think you're "projecting."Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. Sorry, but I asked you to be civil, so now I'm going to block you from posting for a week.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: Please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person. And I don't want anything bad to happen to you. In a crisis, please also get help in person. You may also wish to check out a listing compiled by a poster of helpful web pages on coping with crisis at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/psycho-babble-tips/links/Coping_with_crisis_001012507973
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.