The Federal Aviation Administration has dropped a decades-old ban on four antidepressants and so, as of April 5, as many as 10,000 pilots - some of whom were grounded - will be allowed to take to the air while on Prozac, Pfizer's Zoloft or Forest Lab's Celexa and Lexapro,Bloomberg News reports.
In reaching its decision, the FAA says that drowsiness, which is associated the pills, doesn't pose a safety threat. "We have a better understanding of the drugs,” FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt tells the news service. “We know more about the illness, we know more about how to treat it. We really need to remove the stigma, if you will, of being treated for an illness." UPDATE: Here is the FAA statement.
FAA policy bans pilots from flying if depressed because the condition can be distracting in the cockpit and pose a safety risk, Bloomberg writes, adding that, under the new policy, pilots with depression can seek treatment with one of the four medications and still fly. Those who control depression for one year while taking a med can seek permission to fly, and will be monitored by FAA health specialists.
Pilots who violate the rule by flying without disclosing antidepressant use will have amnesty for six months to step forward, federal air surgeon Fred Tilton tells Bloomberg. Those pilots will be grounded, and could be eligible to fly within a few months if treatment is successful.
photo thx to kossy@finedays flickr
46 Comments
Utterly absurd! Flying the "friendly" skies, courtesy of our pharmaceutical companies and the FAA. A sign of the times. Soon, vitamins and minerals will be completely outlawed, leaving an ever greater playing-field for pharma and their brand of "nutritionals", e.g. "vitamin P". Pre-flight clearances for pilots as they taxi us down the runway will be perfectly innocent "questionaires" as to their mood. Sound familiar? Random urine toxicology screening will assume a completely "new" meaning.
Ah yes, airline pilots - the final frontier...
I wonder how many depressed patients get their Vitamin D levels tested? Probably not many, yet, in a good many cases low levels of Vitamin D can cause depression.
Ah, never mind, same old, same old, much better to tell everyone that everything can be fixed with a magical little pill - take no responsibility for yourself and for goodness sake, don't think. Thinking is not allowed...
How many people who sell these pills actually take them? Probably very few...
I wonder how those meds interact with alcohol.
Of course we know pilots don't drink so it's not an issue.
Amazing – Flying an aircraft is significantly more complicated than a train (rail engineer) or an automobile, yet studies are underway that are showing that patients that are on the down slope of their SSRI dosing miss details. In some cases those missed details cause near accidents, accidents, sometimes catastrophic.
As long as the dosing is strong and recent, the pilot will be able to maintain a high level of detail concentration. However that perfect case will be rare and the gradation off of perfect will at some point cross the threshold of safety to the point of an accident.
Of course in these events investigators will only be able to say ‘the pilot missed xyz condition and that pilot error caused the accident’, however the true cause is clear.
Happy flying and when this happens, thank the good and honest folks over at the FAA.
A bit off label, but Zoloft would be a great name for an airline....
Paxil for a shipping company....
Celexa for a search engine....
With the pilots taking SSRI'S and the passengers taking Nuvigil, it will be just like the Magic Bus in Ken Kesey's "Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test".
The reality is that this is an economic issue for the airlines. A good friend of mine is a flight attendant, who tells me that in any given year up to 10% of pilots fail random breathalyzer tests. This results in cancelled flights and millions of dollars in lost revenue. Some of these pilots probably suffer from depression; so, perhaps the thinking is that if they can get them stabilized on an SSRI that might also take care of the alcohol problem.
How interesting. The FAA is going to allow pilots to take drugs that can cause suicide, homicidal behavior, amongst other distracting side effects. Awesome.
Watch the statistics of plane crashed rise now. This is dangerous and irresponsible.
There is a silver lining to this: Muslim terrorists might be afraid to get on a plane!
I'm sure that Joseph Wesbecker's family will feel comfortable about flying.
http://www.caseplace.org/d.asp?d=792
Here's a link to the United States Air Force Web Page the lists medical restrictions to obtaining flight certification. A careful reading of this document tells me that a Air Force pilot on Prozac would not likely get certified. Therefore, why would a commercial pilot, with many more lives at risk in his aircraft, be allowed to be certified if he/she is on Prozac?
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforce/l/blflygeneral.htm
Randy Babbit - Randy Rabbit! You couldn't make that name up...! For all uninitiated Americans reading this, randy means 'horny' in the UK.
Alcohol and cocaine tend to be depressants. Most pilots are already driving drunk or stoked. Must be irritating as all hell to pharma to miss out on all that revenue.
Question to the chronic bashers.....how exactly did the pharma industry make the FAA make this call? Please explain this conspiracy.
Don't get it. Who is blaming pharma for the FAA decision?
Transformed and Regular Americans - you make good points. Where's the link between pharma and the FAA's decision? This is where the story within the story lies. Maybe it's just serendipity! Pharma could be completely blameless for the new standard of "normalcy": a citizen, e.g. a pilot, with one or more prescription allopathic pharmaceuticals percolating through their blood at any given time...and a genetically-engineering meal in their stomach. After full imlementation of codex (alimentarius), it will certainly be a Brave New World. Of course, we can depend on pharma, FAA, FDA, FAO, GAVI Alliance, CDC, and WHO, for our continued safety and well-being.
Patrons99, you speak truth....
Odds would have it that most of the people in these positions to make these decisions all eat organic foods and stay away from pharmaceuticals. After all the laws they make are for the serfs.
The serfs job in society is to eat the GMO, take the vaccines, get chronic diseases and become dependent on pharmaceuticals so that massive amounts of people can stay employed, either directly by the pharmaceutical industry or in tangentially related business, i.e. marketing and advertising agencies, event planning, CME organizations, CRO's. These people staying employed means that people will have money to pay salaries, and buy things, that keeps many other people employed.
But,we would all be better served if, we stopped the GMO, and stopped polluting ourselves with un-necessary pharmaceuticals. We could put legions of people to work on the issue of prevention of diseases.
Go back to family/organic farming, clean our air and waterways, exercise more, unplug more and well, take responsibility for ourselves. Getting all of us to do this is big business and I say is money better spent...
So, yeah Pharma has a hand in corrupting the FAA. The message they keep saying is that pill popping is "normal".
Kind of like Alice in Wonderland, Eat this, Drink that, and pouf, instantaneously she is small, or she is tall - ah the magic of chemistry...
I see the use of heroine is on the rise again in our nations youth. Our children have gotten the message too! "Better living through chemistry"...
While I agree with those who believe that the use of pharmaceutical products have become far too pervasive in American society, I also believe that the FAA announcement is a non-story relative to that debate. Under the program a pilot using anti-depressants must adhere to strict guidelines prior to the reinstatement of his or her flying privileges. In stark contrast are the FAA regulations on alcohol. Under current regulations a pilot is deemed "fit to fly" if the pilot has a BAC of .02 or less. While I realize that a BAC of .02 is low, one would think that FAA regulations would demand a "Zero Tolerance" on the use of alcohol prior to being considered fit to fly. A point in fact is even if a pilot fails a drug or alcohol test under existing regulatory guidelines this does not lead to an automatic discharge (see attached link). I raise the point about alcohol only because, it is well documented that the use of alcohol impairs judgment and motor skills. While the efficacy of anti-depressants is open to debate, the individual monitored use of anti-depressants should be allowed unless existing studies demonstrate a correlation between diminished judgment and impaired motor skills and the long-term use of anti-depressants. Under the proposed new regulations a pilot using prescribed anti-depressants will be subject to review by a Medical Review Officer (MRO). This is in line with current regulations whereby individuals who had previously violated drug and alcohol FAA regulations are also subject to increased MRO scrutiny. In conclusion, it seems opponents of the proposed regulation are basing their opposition to the new regulations on their perceived influence of the pharmaceutical industry over the FAA and not on any substantive facts. .
http://www.dot.gov/ost/dapc/NEW_DOCS/subpart_b/40_23_20080625.pdf
JimK, you seem pretty up to speed. I'm astonished that FAA would allow any detectable level of ETOH prior to flying. I refer to the study by Leirer et al (link below), which fould that cannabis impaired flight simulator performance up to 24 hours post dose, after subjective effects had worn off,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1849400
Really well said, Jim K. Thanks.
I have this question for anyone feeling reflective, historical.
If it's true that pharmaceuticals play a more central role in American society and medicine than they once did, how would you describe the periodization? What were the turning points? Has it been incremental or step-wise? Do you think it's peaked-out, or still on the increase?
Thanks for any thoughts.
From where I stand, pharmaceuticals are playing an ever increasing role in our lives. There is no end in sight. There is no meaningful system of checks and balances. This puts us ALL at risk. It endangers us.
Standards are changing in front of our eyes. What once was considered abnormal, is now called "normal". The new definition of normal will soon include mandated drug treatments. Many vaccinations are already mandated. It's reached the point where a "mistake" could mean the end for our species.
We won't go out the way of the dinosaurs. It will probably be a lab "accident". I'm sure there are many who will say I exagerate. Yet, I strongly believe that we are already fooling around where only God should tread.
If anyone seriously doubts that the pharma/biopharma cartel does not control nearly every aspect of our lives, they are deluding themselves. As but one example, and there are many, Pfizer is now considered by our regulators to be "too big" to suffer a criminal conviction.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/02/pfizer.bextra/?hpt=Sbin
JiM
The following link on the evolution of DTC advertising for prescription medication may help answer your question.
http://www.biojobblog.com/uploads/file/DTC%20Regulation.pdf
Thanks, JimK. Very useful.
Have any of you actually *been* airline pilots? Who had to pass license medicals? Know how that goes?
Thought not. You can cite all the regs you want. Looks good on paper, probably doesn't fly (groan).
@ Riv, Actually, I do know how that goes...
How about you?
JimK - I agree with JiM. Your link is very helpful.
"The United States is somewhat unique in that the government allows DTC advertising of prescription drugs, whereas the rest of the world, with the exception of New Zealand, does not."
DTC advertising should be completely banned in this country. The rest of the world has got it right. The world should be in lock-step on this issue. To continue down the path that we are on, is to invite our ever growing dependency on pharma, debility, and dis-ease.
From a historical perspective, the Bayh-Dole Act, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, and the rise of DTC advertising, have to be considered pivotal, game-changing, events. Is there nothing that can be done to correct the imbalance? How about new legislation?
You've been an airline pilot who had to pass ATR medicals, or you've got some dinky weekend Cessna single-engine highwing driver's licence?
You can revert back to my original post in this thread: most airline pilots are flying high, stoked or coked.
Just when you thought it was safe to fly!!
Check Out SSRI Stories, Pilots on antidepressants= Disaster http://www.ssristories.com
Hmmmm, In the end, it is upto the Airline Companies. According to a Physician, on Fox News, antidepressants have never been tested on individuals at high altitudes. I can read the headlines now, Airline passengers become human guinea pigs,.. no informed consent needed. Plaintiffs' Lawyers can smell the big bucks heading their way.
Lisa - "Plaintiffs’ Lawyers can smell the big bucks heading their way." Excellent point. Who would have jurisdiction over such a legal cause of action? state or federal courts? federal preemption? Sorry for these non-attorney type questions, but I am still curious.
Why shouldn't depressed would-be pilots just consider vocational rehabilitation? Will it be disclosed to the public whether their pilot is on psychotropics? e.g., prior to boarding the flight. Shouldn't the flying public have a right to know whether their pilot is potentially chemically-impaired?
Patrons99,
In regards to the second paragraph,..ABSOLUTELY!! I for one wouldnt want to be on a plane when a pilot becomes suicidal or Psychotic.
More then likely, the pilot and Airlines would be libel,
Patrons, Your second paragraph begs many other questions. On that basis shouldn't a patient visiting their doc be also so warned? Shouldn't someone undergoing surgery have a similar boarding announcement? What about the person consulting his/her accountant before filing taxes, or perhaps before a big transaction?
Where should it end? Who, when, and under what circumstances should individuals disclose details about their legally-received medications? And who on receiving that information is qualified to judge whether that medication being used by that individual represents a threat to their wellbeing?
TMI I fear.
Christopher, I don't have answers for many of the questions you raise. But with this dreadful new policy by FAA, isn't the flying public now obliged to do it's own due diligence before flying.
I wouldn't want to be operated on by a surgeon with a track record of poor outcomes, nor would I wish to be "treated" by anyone with a history of chemical dependencies.
Now that FAA allows it's pilots to be on SSRIs, what will they allow next? Why not allow multiple psychotropics for pilots with major depression? What if they are really misdiagnosed bipolars? What if they start to hallucinate in the cockpit? Will FAA next permit pilots to fly on antipsychotics?
Has there not been a generalized loosening of standards in society that applies to more than just our pilots?
Is this part of a process to systematically "desensitize" and "brainwash" us into believing that SSRIs specifically, and psychotropics generally, are innocuous as far as safety, and universally effective as far as efficacy, both of which we know to be false?
The margin for error in our pilots is VERY small. Is the FAA now going to allow an ever larger margin for error in our pilots on psychotropics? Pilots routinely have the responsibility for many lives whenever they fly. Should they not be held to a higher standard?
Patrons, my guess is that the FAA consulted their lawyers and concluded that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, they really had no choice but to let the pilots fly while on SSRI'S, or be in legal hot water.
Pharmavet
A regulatory agency derives its authority from Congressional intent. In a lawsuit against a Federal Agency, the Courts grant what is known as "Chevron Deference" for agency regulations. Since the Courts more often then not, defer to agency opinions it is highly unlikely that an ADA suit against a specific agency regulation would survive summary judgment. Simply put, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the agency exceeded their congressional authority when issuing a specific regulation. Therefore, while an individual was undergoing treatment that involved a drug that was not approved by the FAA the employer was shielded from ADA lawsuits. A recent example of where an agency eceeded its congressional authority was Wyeth v Levine, however even in Wyeth v Levine the agency was not a party to the lawsuit. However, the FDA's preemption doctrine did not draw its authority through Congressional intent. On another legal front if an airline finds the individual's disability only precludes them from flying their disability claim will fail. In Sutton v US Air the Supreme Court held that the ADA does not apply unless you are incapable of performing a broad range of jobs. The inability to peform a specific job (e.g. flying) likewise would not survive summary judgment. Since the ban has been lifted it is possible that a pilot may win an ADA case but this would most likely fall under the category of perceived disability, that is the airline made a determination that since you are taking medication to mitigate your depression the company perceives you as being disabled.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0467_0837_ZO.html
@ patrons99 (5:59pm) - while I agree with the gist of your post, I think the end will actually be brought about by Monsanto. look what a great start they've made by almost taking out the honeybees!
or some unnatural collusion between the defense contractors, big pharma, and Monsanto will bring about the Zombie Apocalypse. mark my words...
Thank you, Harpy! You get it! In fact, we seem to be on an accelerating course toward a fate, not unlike the one you describe.
JimK, Who, would be accountable to a downed airliner, due to adverse effects of a psychotropic medication,.. The Physician/Prescriber, the pilot, his family?
Christopher, Do you, and your family fly?, and wouldnt you like to know, whether or not, the Pilot has been medicated with prescription drugs that have serious, psychiatric side effects?
I have personally experienced those side effects in a loved one, and I can assure you, it is frightening. It only takes a split second for a tragedt to occur.
I would be as worried about flight crew being on Lipitor (Zocor etc).
From a former flight surgeon and USAF astronaut who has experienced transient global amnesia while on Lipitor:
http://www.spacedoc.net/asleep_at_wheel.html
The comment period on the new FAA regulations ends on May 5, 2010. The following link provides information for those interested in posting a comment to the FAA on the new regulations.
http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=580384154956+11+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve
First, I am ignorant with regard to the psychotropic drugs, but how many people commit suicide, commit crimes, etc. because they were not medicated and should have been (I know some will say noone should get these drugs, but I respectfully disagree)?
I for one would rather fly with a medicated pilot that was suicidal prior to meds than the potential that they may be by taking the drug, but that's just me.
And how many people are suicidal or homicidal because the drugs are causing it?
I've seen the data.
Salmon
@ Harpy,
True, Monsanto has to get rid of the honeybees so they can sell their GMO honey bee....that can spread viruses and autoimmune diseases....
@Former Pharma Marketing Director,
With biopharma's global vaccine agenda, they've already got the perfect vehicle for spreading viruses, autoimmune diseases, RFID chip implants, and nanotech engines. We need to carefully watch that the gauge (bore) of the needles for our semi-annual flu jabs does not get ever larger. By the way, does anyone know what caused the hemorrhagic pneumonia outbreak in the Ukraine? O.K., sorry, I digress. Let's blame Harpy!