[quetzlbazaar]

I'm not aware of any that do not have horrible side effects. That is a value judgement I perhaps arrogantly think most people who have taken or been forced to take them (including myself) would agree with, maybe some people would not regard the side effects as all that bad. Certainly they can serve a good purpose and are a good tradeoff for many people who could not function as they'd like without them.

The issue is as you note in this instance, their use for something otherwise, that is, to force submission to make others' lives easier. It is not just in care homes that they are used for this purpose. Psychiatry as is practised within institutions such as prisons, schools, or care homes, serves as a way to legitimize dealing with difficult people using forced or coerced drugging, something we would not otherwise accept on the face of it. I don't see any good solution to this issue, especially not in the case of a care home where many residents will be deemed by all to not have capacity. Oversight can only do so much and when there are loopholes like the three excepted diagnoses mentioned in the article being exempted from public tallies, incentives will do the rest to close it.

EDIT: I'd like to add I have considered a bit more about other people I know who have taken or are taking antipsychotics (voluntarily), and they have never expressed extreme distress at their side effects. So I should have said 'can have' rather than 'have', my initial wording being influenced by my own experience.

[anon9001]

I've heard seroquel is lovely for sleep and seems to be really well tolerated, but I haven't tried it myself yet.

[heavyset_go]

Seroquel at low doses is hardly an antipsychotic. At higher doses it blocks the receptors that are associated with AP efficacy, and at that point, the negative extrapyramidal side effects start being felt.