Skip to comments.
FDA Approves Prozac for Children
FDA ^
| 4 jan 2003
| FDA
Posted on 01/04/2003 11:27:19 AM PST by steplock
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
To: Rudder
"Pure, unadulterated BS!"
You support the use of psychotropic drugs in children?
To: ApesForEvolution
You support the use of psychotropic drugs in children? Very rarely and then only in extreme cases.
In fact I advocate for limited or even drug-free therapy in most adult cases.
But, of course that has little to do with your initial comment and my reply to it.
42
posted on
01/05/2003 6:15:31 PM PST
by
Rudder
To: Domestic Church
The neurons are great at electrical propagation of action potentials and other, related phenomena, but they manufacture and store many neurotransmitters very slowly, so slow, in fact, that many factors can strain the system by depleting neurotransmitter faster than production can maintain. Many illnesses, including those you mentioned, and prolonged/intense psychological stressors can cause such depletion.
43
posted on
01/05/2003 6:21:12 PM PST
by
Rudder
To: Capriole
I'm 38 and still cannot accept my fathers death of a year ago. I can't imagine a child losing a parent and dealing with it. My doctor told me it was abnormal to still be depressed about it after all these months but I don't agree. No drugs for me.
44
posted on
01/05/2003 6:25:17 PM PST
by
angcat
To: angcat
A loss of a loved one takes a minimum of 9 months and it is common for 18 months to pass before grieving is done.
To: Rudder
"But, of course that has little to do with your initial comment and my reply to it."
It has everything to do with it. The positive effects of these psychotropic drugs have been over-sold as a 'child-control-nirvana' and is damaging children. Most people of all ages that are prescribed psychotropins never have their root problems addressed and the drug is the Band-Aid.
To: Rudder
That the brain and its chemicals and their reactions are the cause of consciousness is a mechanistic viewpoint that denies the existence of the soul. If, as many scientists believe, there is no soul, or self which transcends the body, then there is no free will, no love, no eternal self. But, if the actual person is an eternal self, or soul - this soul is the spring of consciousness. This awareness then uses the brain just as we sit down to the computer and use it. But the brain itself is not the source of awareness. That's why "fixing" the brain with chemicals is not a deep solution to depression or anxiety.
That's why prayer and other methods do more to "cure" a person of depression, anger, anxiety or other unhappy conditions. I'm not condemning anyone here who chooses to use such drugs, just presenting a point of view that makes total sense to me and works. And doesn't cost any money, has no bad side effects (just good ones!) and has a long history behind it!
Plus, there's every possibility that if the brains of depressed people have certain characteristics, maybe the chemical imbalance is the result of the depression, not the cause!! Just like increased adrenalin is the result of fear, not the cause.
To: ApesForEvolution
Well, your first post said some to the effect that these drugs were worse than the disease--that's not true.
I agree with everything else you stated, however--especially: Most people of all ages that are prescribed psychotropins never have their root problems addressed and the drug is the Band-Aid.
48
posted on
01/05/2003 8:46:14 PM PST
by
Rudder
To: pram
...maybe the chemical imbalance is the result of the depression, not the cause!! Just like increased adrenalin is the result of fear, not the cause.Right as eversharp!
BTW, have read William James's treatise on this issue? if not, you have captured--on your own-- his point of view quite well.
49
posted on
01/05/2003 8:49:19 PM PST
by
Rudder
To: angcat
I'm 38 and still cannot accept my fathers death of a year ago. I can't imagine a child losing a parent and dealing with it. My doctor told me it was abnormal to still be depressed about it after all these months but I don't agree. No drugs for me.Look, I'm not licensed as a therapist in my state (though I've had quite a bit of clinical training), but I'd say that depends on what you mean by "cannot accept." It's normal to still be grieving after the loss of one of the most important people in your life a year later. Generally the rule of thumb is that it can take two years to put this sort of thing to rest. You deal with it and you heal, but it always leaves a sore spot in your heart, even years later. It can take longer to resolve if you had some issues with a loved one who passes away. I speak as someone who has lost both parents in the past few years.
On the other hand, if by "cannot accept" you mean that you're not functioning well, that you're still crying all the time, that you have a hard time focusing on work or enjoying life, as is normal in the first few months after a death--in that case the doctor may be right. If so, it might be worth thinking about some alternatives, like joining a grief support group or getting some counselling.
In either case I agree with your decision (not that you asked me!) to go without drugs. I wouldn't take them unless I lost one of my children, and when I got divorced seven years ago, despite my very deep grief, I made a decision to endure it without medication. The drugs really can color your perceptions of things.
50
posted on
01/05/2003 8:52:12 PM PST
by
Capriole
To: angcat
...still be depressed about it after all these months...If it's any consolation: this is quite normal---it will take a little more time to heal.
Regular outdoor excercise and good nutrition are essential for a good recovery. The sense of loss will not vanish, but you will someday (and not so very long) be able to develop a much less painful perspective.
51
posted on
01/05/2003 8:56:12 PM PST
by
Rudder
To: Domestic Church
...depleted magnesium and/or B6 levels I am not positive, but I don't think the run-of-the-mill hospital laboratory can perform such screens--It does like a good idea, however.
52
posted on
01/05/2003 9:00:29 PM PST
by
Rudder
To: Rudder
I believe we agree. I didn't go back and look, but I did not intend to say that the effect of the drugs were worse than any symptoms that they are prescribed for. However, that being said, I do believe that the overall downside for the masses that are prescribed pychotropins (which is far, far, far too many) is not good.
To: ApesForEvolution
There are a few exceptions, and phenothiazines being among them. I can remember back to the time (1957 or so) when Thorazine was first implemented. For those who were floridly psychotic ( and you haven't seen any until you've seen a truly florid psychosis--so, so compeletley debilitating and sad) Thorazine was a godsend. And, as time has progressed more and more advancements in anti-psychotics have resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number of severely disabled psychotics.
The use of anxiolytics, however, borders on criminal, especially when given ad libitum by GP's, as they usually are. The same situation prevails with antidepressants, although with only somewhat less problems. My call is that "medical economics" has driven the diagnostic process to a point where Bipolar affective disorder--and it's attendant psychopharmacologic "mangement" will soon overtake the globe. It's a boon to psychiatry (my field) practices for those who are sufficiently unscrupulous to put money ahead of patient welfare and it is shameful.
Yeah, we agree.
54
posted on
01/05/2003 9:51:14 PM PST
by
Rudder
To: Rudder
"medical economics" has driven the diagnostic process to a point where Bipolar affective disorder--and it's attendant psychopharmacologic "mangement" will soon overtake the globe.
I've seen advertisments on the TV already for this new sell on bipolar medicines.
To: Capriole
On the other hand, if by "cannot accept" you mean that you're not functioning well, that you're still crying all the time, that you have a hard time focusing on work or enjoying life, as is normal in the first few months after a death.
The above applies, although I do function well at my job I cannot seem to find the joy of life right now but I do believe it will come back. :)
56
posted on
01/06/2003 11:53:05 AM PST
by
angcat
To: Domestic Church
"Bipolar affective disorder--and it's attendant psychopharmacologic "mangement" will soon overtake the globe. "
I've seen advertisments on the TV already for this new sell on bipolar medicines.
I'm very glad you're aware of this. I wish everyone was.
Keep in touch.
57
posted on
01/07/2003 7:03:27 PM PST
by
Rudder
To: krodriguesdc
With true chemical imbalances, love is not enough for children. I hate giving my child medicine for his OCD but if it elps and he canhave a normal healthy social development, shouldn't we try? And with 99% of families being dysfunctional, loves not cutting it!
58
posted on
10/14/2004 12:55:23 PM PDT
by
destinybeme
(Love isn't enough)
To: steplock
Can you give more information about the approval in regards to treating OCD in children, not just depression.
To: steve50
this is so sad. This is legal drug addiction at it's WORST....!!!!!!!!!
60
posted on
10/14/2004 1:01:11 PM PDT
by
pollywog
(Psalm 121;1 I Lift my eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-62 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson