Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T13:07:54.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparative Hypnotic Efficacy of “Phenaglate”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

M. D. Eilenberg ,
I. Lodge Patch  and
E. H. Hare
M. D. Eilenberg
Affiliation:
Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals
I. Lodge Patch
Affiliation:
Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals
E. H. Hare
Affiliation:
Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospitals
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The widespread use of barbiturates as hypnotics for insomnia has greatly increased the risk of accidental overdosage and the number of suicidal attempts. The size of the problem concerning barbiturates and suicidal attempts is difficult to estimate as only suicidal deaths are recorded by the Registrar General, and his statistics for 1956 (R.G., 1958) reveal that out of a total of 5,282 suicidal deaths, drugs (mainly barbiturates) were second only to domestic coal gas poisoning as the effective agent. Stengel (1958) calculated that six times the number of suicidal deaths gives an approximate estimate of the number of attempted suicides. Locket and Angus (1952) found that of the patients admitted to their Unit, barbiturates were the drug involved in 80 per cent. of the cases and that in 90 per cent. of the cases it had been prescribed for the treatment of insomnia. Locket (1958) also estimated that some 6,000 patients were admitted annually to hospitals in England and Wales for treatment of barbiturate poisoning.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Mental Science , Volume 106 , Issue 443 , April 1960 , pp. 675 - 678
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1960 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gershon, S., and Shaw, F. H., Brit. med. J., 1957, ii, 1509.Google Scholar
Hare, E. H., Brit. J. Prev. Soc. Med., 1955, 9, 140.Google Scholar
Harris, T. A. B., Lancet, 1955, i, 181.Google Scholar
Koppanyi, T., and Fazekas, J. F., Amer. J. med. Sci., 1953, 226, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locket, S., and Angus, J., Lancet, 1952, i, 580.Google Scholar
Lodge-Patch, I., Eilenberg, M. D., and Hare, E. H., 1959. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Maloney, A. H., Quart. J. exper. Physiol., 1935, 25, 155.Google Scholar
Nilsson, E., Acta. med. Scand. Supply 1951, 253.Google Scholar
Registrar-General, Stat. Rev., 1956 (Pt. III Commentary), 1958. H.M.S.O. Google Scholar
Shaw, E. H., Simon, S. E., Cass, N., Shulman, A., Anstee, J. R., and Nelson, E. R., Nature, 1954, 174, 402.Google Scholar
Shulman, A., Shaw, E. H., Cass, N. M., and Whyte, H. M., Brit. med. J., 1955, i, 1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stengel, E., Cook, N. G., and Kreeger, I. S., Attempted Suicide, Maudsley Monograph, Inst. Psych., 1958. London: Chapman & Hall Ltd.Google Scholar
Trautner, E. M., Murray, I. W., and Noack, C. H., Brit. med. J., 1957, ii, 51.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.