Sure, when you're talking about the older class of anti-psycotics, like Perphenazine, Haloperidol, etc. Or Mono-Amine Oxidase Inhibitors (anti-depressants) like Nardil. Then yeah, there are serious complications associated with them. But the newer classes of atypical anti-psychotics have fewer dangerous side effects than the older typical ones (with the significant exception of Clozapine). There are dangerous side effects in almost every drug's profile (including penicillin), but in most of the new atypicals, they are reduced or not as lethal under proper dosage regimens. There still are risks, however. Suicidal thoughts and tendencies are a big red flag, but you get those from anti-depressants too. If you discount the suicide and diabetes risks (there is a marginal possibility of a patient developing type II diabetes in a few of the new drugs), the new atypicals are surprisingly effective at treating a difficult and life destroying set of afflictions. Even Tardive Dyskenesia (involuntary movements which are chronic and caused by long term anti-psychotic use) is not the problem that it once was.
There have been patients in my career which have reacted badly to anti-psychotics and were better off without them, yes. However, their illness was left untreated, or untreatable. They were institutionalized for their entire lives. What kind of life is that? Yes, stopping the meds might have saved their lives, but only to live in misery. The families of patients only hear that the patient is reacting badly and pull them off all meds, when something else could be tried. It may be true in your experience that their lives were saved, but don't make it sound like medication is a big boogey-man, and that all psychiatric medications cause suffering and harm, because they don't. There are trade offs, yes, but it isn't necessary to get a mob with pitchforks going about the issue, either.
