Posted on 12/03/2001 7:38:54 AM PST by dead
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:02:40 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I'm willing to bet that you're intelligent enough to know that making a generalization based on your personal experience is what is known in rhetorical circles as inductive fallacy.
Did your teen years include a week of inpatient and a week of outpatient because of a manic episode?
Would parental attention alone have been the proper solution for that situation?
One size does not necessarily fit all, and our mileage DOES vary.
And it wasn't the school or the shrink that kept pressing for adding ADD to the diagnosis, it was his psychologist who kept quietly stating "I think that he's also got ADD." And the psychiatrist poo-pooed it. And, we believed the shrink because he had the bigger credentials. And finally the shrink listened to the psychologist.
There's nothing in your recommendations that we haven't already tried, and every night homework would take HOURS.-- And even if the homework was done, frequently it would be lost before it got turned in.
And, as the psychiatrist said when we questioned the bipolar side of the equation after being told that he had ADD as well, was that if he hadn't been bipolar, then his symptoms wouldn't have subsided when he was given Depakote.
Same goes for his ADD: We've seen a dramatic improvement in grades, attitude, temperament and organization after he got put on 15 mg of Adderall once a day.
(And that's for a 120 lb 13 year-old. Those dosages the study mentions seem a bit on the high side, (especially for preschoolers) from what I've read on the subject).
It's not a cure-all, but it's making things more tolerable while we continue to pursue therapy, etc.
I do that sometimes.
The bipolar to some degree delayed recognizing the ADD.
Getting to this point has been a long and painful process, and it has affected every member of the family.
Hell, we'd probably have considered the dunking stool or trephination if somebody had suggested it (just kidding.)
Those who proclaim that Ritalin is always evil and that all ADHD is a hoax remind me of the $camintologists who are just as contemptuous of all psychotherapy and/or psychotropic medications.
Is the diagnosis frequently made in error? Undoubtedly.
Are kids diagnosed for the sake of convenience? Without question.
Is medication dispensed inappropriately. Certainly.
But real cases of ADD and ADHD do exist, and medication is (only) one of the tools for treating these cases.
And patently dismissing pharmacological approaches is like saying 'you can repair this engine but you can't use any screwdrivers.'
Some engine repairs don't require the use of a screwdriver and others are virtually impossible without one.
Regards,
GS
It's not a cure-all, but it's making things more tolerable while we continue to pursue therapy, etc.
Good luck to you and your son.
As I said, I know that there are people who can benefit from the use of Ritalin and similar drugs. I’ve worked with developmentally disabled children (as a volunteer – not a professional) for 20+ years. I’ve seen a number of kids who had very serious behavioral problems that were helped greatly by ritalin.
Unfortunately, for every kid who is on these drugs for legitimate reasons, there are probably 20 kids on it simply because their parents and/or teachers want to have an easier day.
And no preschooler should be on these drugs for any reason.
The US & Canada account for ~95% of global ritalin sales.
Chris Rock had a funny bit where he talked about how America is so well-off that we have to invent diseases:
“We're allergic to food! Allergic to food! Hungry people ain't allergic to sh!t! You think anybody in Rawanda’s got a lactose intolerance?”
FYI
Steven Hyman, M.D., Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, is a preeminent expert on molecular neurobiology and the mechanisms by which psychotropic drugs work. His extensive research has led Dr. Hyman to conclude that repeated exposure to psychiatric drugs--whether abused or prescribed--produces profound, long-lasting, functional alterations in the brain, including changes in the pattern of gene expression. In an important (much cited) 1996 article in the American Journal of Psychiatry [vol. 153:151-162], Dr. Hyman explained that psychotropic drugs--including psychostimulants (such as Ritalin and cocaine), antidepressants (such as Prozac) and antipsychotics (such as Zyprexa)--create "perturbations in neurotransmitter function" and that repeated such perturbations "usurp normal homeostatic mechanisms within neurons, thereby producing adaptations that lead to substantial and long-lasting alterations in neural function." Dr. Hyman concedes that these adaptations may not be beneficial to the organism.
How then, can anyone defend exposing children with no proven illness to high risk experiments? How can anyone defend exposing children whose brain is still in development--to a drug which works by causing "perturbations in neurotransmitter functions?" Can Dr. Hyman, or anyone, give assurance that these children's brain will not be damaged forever before they are given a chance to outgrow their mischievousness?
This NIMH-funded experiment is likely to earn the condemnation of the judiciary, as happened when a Johns Hopkins / Kennedy Krieger Institute lead poisoning experiment was examined by the Maryland Court of Appeals, Aug 16, 2001: http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2001/128a00.pdf
Of course he can't. But that won't stop him and NIMH from wallowing in their scientific and ethical hypocrisy. To do otherwise would be bad for biz....
Thanks for the quote....this quote from Hyman has been used against him elsewhere, including Glenmullen's book on Prozac. Hoisting famous psychiatrists on their own petards is easy to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.