Severe drowsiness is the symptom of an overdose Adam,apart from that,i cant see the word sedation in any web article.
I stand by my comment #182 on this thread, and will repeat here:
Haloperidol can have sedative side-effects, but there is no evidence that Sheila was sedated. In any case, being sedated does not in itself preclude her involvement in a massacre. It is not the same as being asleep and could mean anything from feeling drowsy and numb through to actual sleep.
Now let me continue in a bit more depth, since I see there is interest in this topic on the thread.
One problem in discussing this is that the terminology is quite confusing and even medical doctors use the terminology incorrectly. From what I can gather, some antipsychotics are tranquilising, others are sedative in their effects. Furthermore, antipsychotics that are tranquilising can have sedative side-effects if taken in high enough doses and/or if other factors are present.
Tranquilisation is not the same as sedation, however most run-of-the-mill medical doctors - GPs, most psychiatrists, etc. - will conflate the two terms and use sedation as a synonym for tranquilise, even though the two things are very different. This is because the distinction isn't necessarily of great practical importance in their day-to-day work, so they forget.
Both tranquilisers and sedatives act to suppress brain activity and can result in drowsiness. The difference is that a tranquiliser is not intended to induce the patient into the sleep spectrum and therefore will not normally be analgesic in its effect (though it can be), whereas a sedative will induce somnolence and is therefore analgesic. This distinction is quite important in the Bamber case, if you think about it.
Now let's consider the pharmacology of Haloperidol.
Haloperidol is a first-generation antipsychotic of the butyrophenone type. This makes it a tranquiliser, not a sedative. The whole point of Haloperidol is to antagonise certain biochemical receptors in the brain in order to suppress neural 'excitement', and thus counteract the typical symptoms of a severe mental illness such as schizophrenia. Haloperidol is a highly effective (but also highly-dangerous) antipsychotic and is perhaps the most commonly-used drug in psychiatric emergencies - typically when somebody goes nuts and needs to be injected and then sectioned. As such, Haloperidol is not optimum for sedation and is never prescribed or used for that purpose, as it would not make much sense. However, it is openly acknowledged that one of the adverse side-effects of Haloperidol can be sedation. This seems to happen when the drug is administered in high doses or where there are contraindications or other factors present.
The presumed lack of analgesic effect of Haloperidol may be of significance to us because, remember, Dr. Vanezis was of the opinion that someone incurring a .22 flesh wound to the neck would experience great pain.
However, two further significant facts need to be considered in Sheila's case:
(i). The toxicology report shows that Sheila was almost-entirely unmedicated by the point of death.
(ii). There were contraindications because Sheila took recreational drugs and the toxicology report confirms that she was taking illicit drugs up to around her death.
What we are left with is a complex picture, which I would sum up in the following way:
1. Haloperidol is not a sedative. Dr. Ferguson uses slovenly terminology in his most important statement of 18th. September 1985, saying it has a tranquilising effect, which is correct, but then using the terms sedation/sedative, which gives an incorrect impression of the drug's effects on Sheila, implying that she was sedated and somnolent. This is unfortunate but does not mean Dr. Ferguson was incompetent. It is common for run-of-the-mill doctors to use the two terms interchangeably.
2. Sheila was tranquilised by Haloperidol, though the toxicology report shows that she was virtually unmedicated by the 6th./7th. August 1985.
3. Even if Sheila was in a tranquilised state at the time in question, this in itself would not preclude her participation in violence and a firearms massacre.
4. It is possible Haloperidol also had a sedative side-effect on Sheila, perhaps due to over-dosing and/or contraindications such as illicit drug-taking. It is furthermore possible that Sheila was in a sedative state during the evening of 6th. August 1985, but there is no evidence for this.
5. Even if Sheila was in a sedative state at the time in question, this in itself would not preclude her participation in violence and a firearms massacre.
6. When a Haloperidol regime is being withdrawn or reduced, it is strongly advised that dosage is reduced gradually. Due to an administrative mix-up between the different doctors involved, Sheila's dosage was cliffed (at Sheila's own request). It is plausible that this could have resulted in a worsening of symptoms and behaviour.
