One significant reason for the widespread use of Risperdal is that it is very effective at getting difficult patients to “shut up.” The drug manufacturers acknowledge that Risperdal and Invega do not treat the root causes of the mental illnesses they are prescribed for. Rather, they are drugs whose primary effect is that it makes patients sleepy and calm.
Unfortunately, this use of Risperdal makes it a chemical restraint: the equivalent of tying someone down using medicine. The use of chemical restraints has serious ethical implications and is only appropriate in very extreme cases. The FDA has been saying for over two decades that Risperdal may raise “an ethical question regarding the use of an antipsychotic medication for inappropriate behavioral control.” This was one reason that the FDA, to this day, has refused to allow Risperdal to be approved for use in elderly dementia patients.
This is also the same reason Risperdal is frequently prescribed for children with ADHD, bipolar disorder, and other psychiatric illnesses. This use, however, is not approved by the FDA. In fact, there is strong evidence that Johnson and Johnson and other manufacturers created a boom in diagnoses of bipolar disorder in children in order to boost sales of Risperdal and other medication. One way they did this was by paying for the creation of a research institute and installing their paid consultant as its director.
In some schizophrenic patients with uncontrolled behaviors, a doctor may decide after weighing all the pros and cons that that only way to control extremely erratic behaviour is to prescribe a medication like Risperdal. The problem is, if the drug company has not disclosed certain risks, the physician may be unaware of them, and so would not be able to evaluate the comparative benefit. It is against federal law for a drug company to convince physicians to use its medications in a way that the FDA has said is improper.
This is what occurred with Risperdal. The manufacturer failed to disclose the risk that Risperdal could cause breast growth in boys and men, and failed to disclose the dangers of diabetes, stroke and death when used to control the behaviour of elderly dementia patients. Why? Its goal, of course, is to sell more product. The more drugs physicians prescribe, the more money the manufacturer makes.
Because it failed to disclose these risks, the manufacturer of Risperdal will be liable for the harms it caused that could have been avoided, if only physicians and patients had been aware of the potentially disfiguring and life-altering consequences. If you have been damaged by Risperdal or Invega, you may be able to sue the manufacturer to recover these damages. The Dysart Law Firm, P.C. will be happy to evaluate your claim at no charge to determine whether you may have a case.