Open Letter in Regards to BBC Panorama “A Prescription for Murder”
Dear BBC and BBC Panorama,
I am struggling to put in to words how angry I am at your decision to commission and air the BBC Panorama programme “A Prescription for Murder”. From an organisation like the BBC whose programming is funded by tax payer’s money, I never expected to see such a sensationalist, misinformed, biased and incredibly damaging piece of “reporting”.
To spend an hour focussing only on the antidepressants taken by a mass murderer and continually mentioning them causing psychosis, harmful thoughts and creating a danger to society is in my, and many other’s, eyes incredibly irresponsible. There already exists enough stigma around anti depressants and mental health issues, without you adding to these and providing those who hold negative views more ammunition for their prejudice.
As someone who takes the very SSRI which was focussed on during the programme, I found it hurtful and it brought doubt into my mind, while I was watching, about the impact that these have had on my own life and attempt to take it. This is not ok. Purely mentioning at the beginning and the end of the programme that many people take anti depressants and find them helpful, with no harmful side effects and a couple of pieces of scrolling text along the screen advising not to stop or change medication without advice is not enough.
If you felt this information warranted an investigation and an hour of prime evening time, then at the very least you should have ensured to include more balanced views from experts in the field. You clearly handpicked the experts you wanted to speak to for their views on SSRIs. The only person providing an opposing view was the prosecutor whose view, although valid, is likely to be biased. You should also have sought the views of those with lived experience of mental health conditions and their families who have been helped by SSRIs.
There is a huge lack of evidence supporting that SSRIs have a causal relationship with murder. Your journalist points out how few extreme cases such as that of James Holmes there were in a year and since the authorisation of the use of sertraline — but this is never at any point, compared to the number of people actually taking it who have absolutely no harmful side effects and find it useful.
All in all, you allowed a poorly informed, biased and harmful programme to be aired, which not only completely ignores the feelings of those of us who are taking SSRIs where often it has taken a lot of bravery to even take the medication, but also does not provide a reasonable opposing view to balance the argument. In the twenty first century, while much of the media is working hard to overcome the stigma associated with mental health conditions, you have succeeded in airing one of the most harmful and sensationalist pieces of journalism i have seen in recent years for those living with mental health conditions. I am sad that my TV licence has helped pay for this.
I beg you to consider the impact of your programming, and issue an apology along with information which shows the overwhelming evidence in support of the use of SSRIs to support recovery.
Emma Goodlad
