If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
There's a fourth possibility to consider as well as the options you listed.
That would be the pilots who do need the medications to counter moderate symptoms but quit or refuse to take them in order to pass/keep their medical. In that case the restrictions actually are a proximate cause of the very hazards they are intended to fight and that too could present a hazard. These days many physicians will prescribe anti-depressants for life situations where in the past they would not have been considered. A day doesn't go by that we don't see television ads for Zoloft and others - indeed I read somewhere recently that Zoloft was the #1 most frequently prescribed drug in North America of any type. Used to be that only someone who markedly dysfunctional and had been evaluated by a psychiatrist would be a candidate for psychotropic medication. Nowadays many people who do not have pronounced clinical symptoms that would justify a psychiatric consultation but feel they might function *better* with some pharmaceutical help, will happily be given a script by their family doctor. Then we have cases of the same drug marketed under different names. Wellbutrin as an anti-depressant and Zyban as a smoking cessation aid is a case in point. Same medication, same dosage, same absorption rates, identical in every respect. I wonder if some of this may not be a beaurocratic attitude esconced in the regs from the days of yore when *all* pilots were somehow expected to have "The Right Stuff" like Billy Mitchell, Chuck Yeager, Jackie Cochran, or the astronauts, and people who exhibited any weaknesses, especially emotional weaknesses, were considered lesser quality individuals that needed to be washed out of the program. "Roger Halstead" wrote in message IF they can verify they are taking meds that do not cause problems AND do not suffer symptoms while taking it, I see no problem with them flying...HOWEVER it's that verification and the percentage that keep quitting the meds that bothers me. It also means the FAA is stuck with the knowledge if they pass some one, that sooner or later some one on the meds might forget, or just quit and the results would leave the reporters having a field day. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve House" wrote in message ... Just something to consider. One of the potential side effects of many anti-depressants is sudden siezures, Let's stick to the facts here. The FAA doesn't ban antidepressents because of the side effects, and none of the current popular ones has such a side effect. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I don't know anything about all the reasons behind the FAA's rational in
banning antidpressants but I know t for certain that siezures as a potential side effect of Wellbutrin/Zyban. But if it's just the underlying psychiatric condition that is the sole reason for the ban, why is the use of Zyban as an aid to quitting smoking also a prohibited drug? As I mentioned before, Zyban and Wellbutrin are the same drug in the same dosage from the same manufacturer - the ONLY difference is in the labeling. Here's one site that details the side effects and the siezure risk for buproprion (Zyban/Wellbutrin) http://www.thememoryhole.org/health/zyban-update.htm and another http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/buprop.htm "Ron Natalie" wrote in message m... "Steve House" wrote in message ... Just something to consider. One of the potential side effects of many anti-depressants is sudden siezures, Let's stick to the facts here. The FAA doesn't ban antidepressents because of the side effects, and none of the current popular ones has such a side effect. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
medical and THEN flying. THAT would be far more potentially dangerous than being on the drug, trust me. "I think" the general population wouldn't understand that last sentence, or what's behind it. Hmmmm..... *I* don't understand your comment. What I meant by my original remark is that (assuming no problem such as seizures), my mental outlook is 10 times better on the drug than without the drug. From a personal standpoint (in other words *ME*) I am safe either way. I've suffered the condition all my life, flew professionally for many years and as mentioned before have never dinged a bird or sickened a passenger. If I were to quit the meds today, in no way would I be dangerous; I've NEVER on my worst day considered suicide. Let me give a couple of example to those who've never suffered depression or one of it's "sub categories" (there are many). Take for example, "road rage". If you've NEVER gotten ****ed off at some damn fool in traffic, then you probably have no depressive symptoms at all. When I don't take the drug, I can sometimes get into situations where I'd *like* to kick someones tail, but I'd NEVER do it. With the drug, when some jerk does a real stupid thing, even if it potentially endangers me, I have no such feelings. I just sort of "laugh it off". I figure *HE'S* got bigger problems than I. Another example.... Without the drug I have much better days when the sun is shining that I do on dreary days. This is the SAD (seasionally affected disorder) sub-category of depression. Using the drug, I rarely even notice if it's sunny or cloudy.... In other words I'm just as happy either way. Third example.... Without the drug, I'd have visciously blasted those one or two individuals who (even though my original post said I didn't wanna hear of their opinionated crap) posted chiding types of messages anyhow. I'd have ripped them a new one (verbally). With the drug, I just ignore them; in fact, more than likely THEY could benefit greatly from the same meds I take. Does the cliche "Wound too tight" seem appropriate?? It should, 'cause that's another sympton of depression. Hopefully, this will shed a little further light on me. I am NOT a troll an the origination of this whole thread was sincere. Obviously my real name is NOT Don Martin. I am old enough (and experienced enough, having been a federal employee for several years) to understand federal government bureaucracy and how some damn fool in a high place can make an arbitrary (but stupid) decision that negatively affects the lives of thousands for no real ligit reason at all. Oh, to the person who suggested getting the wife a rating.... She can't hold a medical either and has been that way all her life. Once again, my thanks to all who've commented, especially those with the fine thoughts/ideas. D M |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message news:4adc3484d24aec339332655478c79820@TeraNews.. .
"Roger Halstead" wrote in message ... Pilots themselves tend to be highly polarized on this issue and many of them don't understand (or have the wrong understanding) the reasoning the FAA uses for disqualifying an individual taking those drugs. Take a look at the pilot "reasoning" in the initial post... Presuming this is a real post and not a troll, do you think the FAA is far off the mark? So Richard...... What's wrong with my "reasoning"?? Also, you mentioned (don't have the quote exactly) something about "they're working on this hot potato"..... Yeah, right.... They've been working on if for YEARS. Since I'm now 60 and would probably not fly much past 70, then if the bureaucrats just drag their feet for 10 more years (a few seconds in fed govt time) then it'll all be a moot point anyhow. See, contrary to the couple that think I'm such a jerk because of my attitude, *I* will be smart enough to know when I'm no longer safe and will "hang it up" without having to be told by the FAA. I won't drive(fly?) thru a crowd like that idiot in CA. Oh yeah, I thought of one more example for those that think the the Feds always "know best". Anyone remember the oil crisis of the early 70's??? 55 MPH, right?? Oil crisis definitely over with by what, 1977, 1978??? And 55 MPH limit stayed around until when??? Sometime in the early to mid 90's??? Yet how many folks religiously drove that speed on the interstate highway for all those years??? And how many bought radar detectors and said "screw the 55 HP limit"?? Hmmmm? The only difference is that I'm honest enough to admit I don't mind breaking the law, especially STUPID laws. BTW Richard, don't take this post as a personal slam. Your posts in this thread have been quite imformative and thoughtful. I *DO* wonder what you meant by the quoted comment, though. You think I'm a "nut case"?? 8-) Regards D M |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Personally, I would rather that the pilots
who are depressed take their medications. Wouldn't you? The aviation medical examiner people must be dinosaurs if they still attach a stigma to depression. Didn't it take a big fight to get them to let HIV+ people fly? My conjecture is that their reluctance was likely caused by prejudice. I'm certain that the insurance company would use the anti-depressant issue to get out of paying any claim that resulted from an accident. Ted Don Martin wrote: Greetings: I take an anti-depresant (LexaPro) and I know that FAA won't allow it. Personally, I have no problem saying "FO" to the FAA (damn bureaucrats). Anyhow, can anyone tell me if current 3rd class exams do a drug test of any kind (blood, unrine)? If they don't I have no problem falsifying the form, after all one of our presidents lied under oath and nobody cared, right?? Secondly, if I succeed in getting a 3rd Class under such "false pretenses", what happens to my insurance in case of an "incident" of some sort? Can my insurance carrier refuse to honor a claim because my med cert wasn't really legal?? Would it make a difference if it's determined afterward that my taking the drug in no way contributed to the cause? (like the landing gear won't extend, I belly the sucker in and the insurer tries to deny coverage). I welcome answers from all, but am especially interested in those familar with the laws (attorneys??), doctors who perform FAA exams or perhaps someone who is already doing what I've mentioned above (NO I *ain't* the FAA). I especially DON'T want to hear from those wishing to "scold", lecture or "preach" to me, or tell me what a jerk I am for considering such a thing. I've been a pilot for 40 years, have never so much as scratched an airplane or made a passenger sick, and to some degree *I* know what's best for me. So, to those few with the holier-than-thou attitudes please keep your responses to yourself; I won't even bother to read them. Of course I want to have the ticker and blood pressure, eyesight and everthing else that's REALLY important checked properly by a qualified medical examiner, in order to be as safe as I can for myself and everyone else. But I can tell you that it'd be FAR better for me to be flying around USING the drugs, than going off them to get the medical and THEN flying. THAT would be far more potentially dangerous than being on the drug, trust me. Private EMail response welcomed at Regards D M CP-ASMEL I |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Ted:
Thanks for your comments. I find it "interesting" how quickly this thread has "died" as soon as most readers figured out 1. I am serious, and 2. will not be intimidated by the FAA "rule mongers". Quite frankly it's an IDIOTIC rule and breaking it is of no consequence to me whatsoever. None of my original points have ever been addressed, except by your reply. I fear you are correct, the ins comp will look for ANY reason to disallow ANY claim, no matter how much of a "stretch" it is. That is my biggest worry with the whole thing. Regards D M Ted Huffmire wrote in message ... Personally, I would rather that the pilots who are depressed take their medications. Wouldn't you? The aviation medical examiner people must be dinosaurs if they still attach a stigma to depression. Didn't it take a big fight to get them to let HIV+ people fly? My conjecture is that their reluctance was likely caused by prejudice. I'm certain that the insurance company would use the anti-depressant issue to get out of paying any claim that resulted from an accident. Ted Don Martin wrote: Greetings: I take an anti-depresant (LexaPro) and I know that FAA won't allow it. Personally, I have no problem saying "FO" to the FAA (damn bureaucrats). Anyhow, can anyone tell me if current 3rd class exams do a drug test of any kind (blood, unrine)? If they don't I have no problem falsifying the form, after all one of our presidents lied under oath and nobody cared, right?? Secondly, if I succeed in getting a 3rd Class under such "false pretenses", what happens to my insurance in case of an "incident" of some sort? Can my insurance carrier refuse to honor a claim because my med cert wasn't really legal?? Would it make a difference if it's determined afterward that my taking the drug in no way contributed to the cause? (like the landing gear won't extend, I belly the sucker in and the insurer tries to deny coverage). I welcome answers from all, but am especially interested in those familar with the laws (attorneys??), doctors who perform FAA exams or perhaps someone who is already doing what I've mentioned above (NO I *ain't* the FAA). I especially DON'T want to hear from those wishing to "scold", lecture or "preach" to me, or tell me what a jerk I am for considering such a thing. I've been a pilot for 40 years, have never so much as scratched an airplane or made a passenger sick, and to some degree *I* know what's best for me. So, to those few with the holier-than-thou attitudes please keep your responses to yourself; I won't even bother to read them. Of course I want to have the ticker and blood pressure, eyesight and everthing else that's REALLY important checked properly by a qualified medical examiner, in order to be as safe as I can for myself and everyone else. But I can tell you that it'd be FAR better for me to be flying around USING the drugs, than going off them to get the medical and THEN flying. THAT would be far more potentially dangerous than being on the drug, trust me. Private EMail response welcomed at Regards D M CP-ASMEL I |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|