A perspective on ‘evidence-based’ practice, Important Safety Information: Kris Miner style.

  • Life-threatening skin reactions, including rash, swelling, redness, and peeling of the skin, blisters in the mouth.  Life-threatening swelling of the face, mouth and throat that can cause trouble breathing.
  • Some people have had changes in behavior, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions.
  • Common side effects: nausea, sleep problems, constipation, gas and vomiting.  Also reported: trouble sleeping, vivid, unusual or strange dreams.
  • If you, your family or caregiver notice: agitation, hostility, depression, changes in behavior, thinking, or mood not typical for you, or if you develop suicidal thoughts or actions, anxiety, panic, agression, anger, mania, abnormal sensations, hallucinations, paranoia, or confusion, call your doctor.

What the hell?  Why in the world would you take a medication that could or does all of this to you?  I mean really?  The first time I heard this on tv, I thought, how would you know to call your doctor or stop the medication! 

Another example is the weight loss pill, that you need to bring a change of clothes to work, wear dark pants, cause its likely you will have oily discharge or poop your pants!

Do you have faith in the drug industry and the products they promote?  Does it seem odd that the side effects can be worse than the actually problem you had in the first place? 

Why then is so much faith put into ‘evidence-based’ practice for working with youth?  And where are the disclosures, the ‘Important Safety Information’ that should also be included?  You don’t hear that part.  This angle on evidence-based practice was stirred by my reading of the book Deep Brain Learning.  From the introduction:

“Many popular approaches to education, treatment, and juvenile justice are devoid or any scientific rationale but still have enthusiastic proponents.   . . . People may strongly cling to such approaches, even in the absence of any solid evidence . . .”

The authors go on to explain that evidence-based may mean very little, and that some argue  “effectiveness requires random clinical trails as used by the drug industry – as if this inspires much credibility.”  Thats what got me thinking about the drug companies, and the “safety information”.

The authors go on to explain and support the American Psychological Association definition of Evidence-based.  That definition balances evidence-based practice as a 3 legged-stool: 1)informatin about the individual, 2)practice expertise and 3)research from MULTIPLE perspectives. 

I like this, when I teach about Restorative Justice, I use the APA study that rejects zero tolerance and supports restorative justice.  Fact sheet on Zero Tolerance.

Just something to think about.

Comments are closed.