For a number of years (from basically the late 1950s until the early 1980s) the best medications available to treat schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders were neuroleptic drugs (also called phenothiazines) such as thorazine, mellaril, and stelazine.

As good as these medications were, however, they did have some serious drawbacks - most notably, some severe side effects such as Parkinson's Disease-like neuromuscular disorders such as EPS (extrapyramidal syndrome), and a more permanent and potentially fatal disorder called tardive dyskinesia.

Sufferers of psychotic disorders did find that their hallucinations, delusions, and affective symptoms were strongly relieved by these medications, but were replaced by side effects that made them feel and look freakish in some instances. While these side effects could be controlled somewhat by another class of drugs called anticholinergics, they never completely disappeared.

Your question is this: you are a specialist in medical ethics working in the late 1960s, at about the time the long-term side effects of these powerful antipsychotic medications began to become apparent. You are counseling a client, a young schizophrenic woman who has just gone through her first severe psychotic episode. Knowing the side effects she will likely experience, can you recommend that she take the medication? In your opinion, did the risks of permanent and potentially fatal side effects outweigh the potential benefit of ridding the client of torturous auditory hallucinations and delusions of persecution? How would you make the decision yourself if you were that actual patient?