Debate Over Children and Psychiatric Drugs

topic posted Thu, February 22, 2007 - 6:49 PM by  Unsubscribed
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
I'm fascinated by all the issues surrounding the article linked below. A four (four!) year old girl died last week as the result of the medication she was on for bipolar disorder. She had been treated since she was *two years old* for bipolar disorder and ADHD. WTF?! For one thing, how the hell does a two year old get diagnosed with bipolar or ADHD. For another, how can anyone justify giving a child that age the kinds of (incredibly strong) medications that she was given?

Check it out: (I included the link to boston.com in case the NYtimes won't let you read the article)

www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15...ipolar.html

www.boston.com/news/local...court_told/
posted by:
Unsubscribed
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: Debate Over Children and Psychiatric Drugs

    Fri, February 23, 2007 - 2:09 PM
    There are many, many fatalities associated with appropriate use of prescription medication in the US each year - more than are caused by Schedule I drugs by a wide margin. I've been shocked to learn some of the things that are NOT required for a drug to be marketed with FDA approval, including interactions and possible terratogenic effects - it wouldn't surprise me to learn that requirements for child safety were minimal.

    I've been researching dextromethorphan recently and one thing I have found is that there is no good data on what would constitute a lethal dose, although everyone seems to agree it would be very high. LD50s are derived from animal studies, of course, and the degree to which human-appropriate data on toxicity can be extrapolated from such studies is a big question.

    I can't weigh in on diagnosis of bipolar and ADHD in a 2 year old, other than to say that it sounds insane on its face.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Debate Over Children and Psychiatric Drugs

      Fri, February 23, 2007 - 5:33 PM
      Both bipolar and ADHD are highly controversial diagnoses in adults, and even more so in children. One of the psychiatrists I work for told me yesterday that diagnoses of bipolar disorder in children has risen 700% in the last few years. The pharmaceutical companies say that this is because of better diagnostic tools and more awareness of the illness. His opinion is that it's really just a case of detection bias: if you're looking for something you'll find it. Far too many psychiatrists diagnose based solely on what "symptoms" they see in a patient. E.g. if a child exhibits the necessary number of behaviors that the DSM uses to diagnose bipolar, then the kid has bipolar. Problem is that many of those behaviors are totally normal for children. Total insanity. Psychiatry has been almost completely hijacked by the pharmaceutical industry.

      I deal everyday with patients (mostly adults) who are on the same drugs this little girl was on. Those are hardcore medications. It blows my mind that you can give that stuff to a kid. Especially when underage drinking and any-age pot smoking is frowned upon.

      Argh.


  • Re: Debate Over Children and Psychiatric Drugs

    Sat, February 24, 2007 - 7:58 AM
    It certainly is pretty insane and unethical. I think everyone can agree that the pharmaceutical industry is completely amoral (if not actively evil) in their search for profits. Of course, this is just the logical outcome in a world where profit always trumps ethics and compassion.

    Of course it's hard to know the whole story, and it's just a sad story all the way round really. In a situation where a small child is given this kind of diagnosis, the parents are just as (ir)responsible as the doctor. Even when you factor in their ignorance, it seems that there's a distinct lack of actual innocence. If you read the Boston article it's pretty clear that the father was avoiding treating his own anger and abuse issues. So no doubt he was being angry and violent which means his children would mirror him, as well as suffer from living in an emotionally unhealthy environment which would lead them to act out. He'd obviously prefer to think he has a mental illness which he is helpless to overcome (or that the problem is with his children) than admit to behavioral problems and anger issues and seek appropriate therapy. Obviously the wife is also in denial. Instead of being adults and accepting responsibility for how their own actions were harming their children and seeking help for themselves, and making sheltering and protecting their children a priority, they chose to use drugs to make their children manageable. And, if they weren't docile enough, they just kept giving them more drugs. I'm not saying they didn't love their children but they certainly put their own comfort first if you look at how they administered the drugs.

    The psychiatrist should lose her license. Not only for inappropriately prescribing drugs but also for negligence. Even from reading a news article, it's clear that there are psycho-social dimensions to these children's behavioral problems and issues within the home that would cause these sorts of behavioral problems. Of course, this may have been the only option open to both the psychiatrist and the family that would have been covered by health insurance. American health insurers are notoriously pro-medication and anti-talk therapy because it's cheaper and faster to pretend the problem's been dealt with by handing out a prescription. I suspect that this may be a bigger causative factor here than will be reported. The problem is as much one of the system as it is one of parents and doctors who put an emphasis on control and conformity while ignoring dysfunctional psycho-social dynamics and rather basic childhood needs (like enough exercise every day, healthy food not Sugerinos for breakfast, enough really engaging and positive mental and emotional stimulation, love and acceptance, etc).

    Another of the other problems here may be that many psychiatrists (especially in the US) tend to consider all mental and emotional problems to be chemically based and therefore best treated through medication. Drug companies of course love and encourage this, only funding studies that compare different psychoactive drugs for efficiency but not funding studies that compare talk therapies and drug therapy (ever since a study came out that showed talk therapy to be more effective in the long term - with or without drugs as well). This isn't to say that psychoactive drugs can't be very useful tools, it just goes to show that drugs alone can't deal with situations that require learning to change behavior and thought patterns, and psychosocial dynamics.

    Really, this is just an extreme case of what's going on across the US every day (this happens in other countries too obviously but the way medicine functions in the US makes it way more prevalent than in other countries).
  • Re: Debate Over Children and Psychiatric Drugs

    Sat, June 23, 2007 - 10:12 AM
    Hi Kevin,
    If you are looking to understand childhood bi-polar disorders you may look in the direction of food allergies. In my practice of 37 years I have certainly seem my share of manic children. When we get the young people off of milk, wheat, soy, and corn, almost all become symptom free. My question is, "Why doesn't every MD in the country know this?"

    If there really is an issue with ADD/ADHD, regulation of neurotransmitter levels almost always take care of the problem.

    By the way, in all my years of practice, what I have found is that practically all cases of bi-polar disorder are caused by the misuse of prescription medications and the resulting brain damage.

    You raise interesting topics.
    • Re: Debate Over Children and Psychiatric Drugs

      Sat, June 23, 2007 - 10:47 AM
      Ross - What are your professional qualifications? From what I've seen, experienced and heard about alternative medicine can be just as exploitative and profit driven as the pharmaceutical industry (same emperor, different invisible pants...usually made from hemp ;) After all, it's humans being greedy and unethical that is the root problem.

      I'm certainly not saying that nutrition isn't crucial to physical health and wellbeing. Just that charlatans exist in all worlds, particularly in areas where parents don't want to take responsibility for behavioral problems that stem from their own emotional issues and ways of being with their children. Or areas where parents or patients are desperate for a solution.
  • Re: Debate Over Children and Psychiatric Drugs

    Tue, June 26, 2007 - 9:42 AM
    This makes me want to cry. I think I am going to be sick! Psychiatry is a very new science, and has the wrong goals in mind. Handing out SSRI's to everyone serves sinister purposes. They have peppermint flavored Prozac for children now... What child needs Prozac???? No one needs Prozac! In my studies, I have found that many psych meds take away the sense of conscious and alters people to run on a frequency to were they do not cope with anything important in their life. It's as if they sleep through some very important life lessons, survival lessons. We have damaged ourselves enough with environmental toxins, which have been correlated with mental disorder. So what do they do? They offer very unnatural, harmful poisons to obscure our natural thought processes even more! The mental disorder epidemic America is facing is a sign that we need to focus our attention on alternate methods of dealing with our minds. Truth is, the brain is an amazing wonderful tool for healing one's self and knowing what it needs. The resources have been given to us naturally, we just need to tap into them, and stop letting money hungry corporations tell us what we need.
    • Re: Debate Over Children and Psychiatric Drugs

      Wed, June 27, 2007 - 6:48 PM
      My views of SSRIs changed substantially after reading Jonathan Haidt's magnificent book "The Happiness Hypothesis". I can see how they can help many people.
      • Re: Debate Over Children and Psychiatric Drugs

        Wed, June 27, 2007 - 11:30 PM
        SSRIs are blunt and imprecise, and our understanding of the serotonin neurocircuit is in its infancy. they cause a lot of troubles, and they also help folks. the plain truth that exercise and nutrition and being in nature improve mental health massively is just not what modern humans want to hear.
        • Re: Debate Over Children and Psychiatric Drugs

          Thu, June 28, 2007 - 6:15 AM
          blue-i - Very true on all accounts. We're still working on understanding the brain and *many* drugs are somewhat crude and blunt. More poblematic than this is pharmaceutical companies and the medicine for profit model. Things such as pushing GPs who often have no psych training and minor understanding of neurobiology to prescribe ssris when ultimately thery're not even really trained to diagnose clinical depression, or to prescribe oxycontin when they have very little understanding of chronic pain. Throw in the restrictions of most medical insurance which tie even psychiatrists hands more often than not, and there's little room for the simple and more time consuming/hands on therapies that don't reap a profit for drug companies. (I'd be interested to know if pharmaceutical companies and medical insurance companies share owners, has anyone looked into this?)

          However ssris and other drugs used to treat depressiona and mental illness also really help some people, more often than not when used in conjunction with some form of talk or cognitive therapy. Quite a lot of people would rather take a pill to "cure" mental health issues, diabetes, obesity or any other range of problems than change their diet and start exercising regularly, or going into the process of talk therapy which requires taking personal responsibility. I don't think this is a particularly modern phenomenon - snake oil and the desire for magic bullets seems to have been around as long as humans ;) And, of course, there are people who also believe alternative therapies to be magic bullets and doctors to be evil because they don't like their diagnosis. Alternative medicine is equally full of misinformed healers (as well as well educated ones with open minds) and people pushing magic potions for profit.

          So really, it's the intersection of the public/patient's desire to absolve themselves of even basic personal responsibility for their own health *and* drug companies' greed and lack of ethics *and* doctors who are constrained by insurance and poorly trained and treating in areas that they're really not well educated enough in (which is why there are GPs *and* specialists).
          • Re: Debate Over Children and Psychiatric Drugs

            Fri, June 29, 2007 - 12:37 PM
            yes, fifi, and this kind of fast-food mental health approach borders on disastrous. also, if we were to contextualize mental health concerns and really be honest about the kinds of institutions and cultural practices that are likely to lead to mental disorders, the interconnectedness of the politics of pharma and health with socioeconomics becomes rather dystopian. soma, anyone?

            of course i am no ideologue and recognize that some people suffer regardless of the socioeconomic situation they find themselves in, and they need relief. but we need to simultaneously address the way that fragmented community, poor nutrition, undervaluing of nature, over-specialization in commerce, hypersaturated media and other facets of modern life basically make us crazy apes.
            • blue-i - "if we were to contextualize mental health concerns and really be honest about the kinds of institutions and cultural practices that are likely to lead to mental disorders, the interconnectedness of the politics of pharma and health with socioeconomics becomes rather dystopian."

              This is certainly true but we're all responsible for this via the choices we make and the responsibilities for ourselves, those around us and the society and world at large that we embrace or avoid for our own personal reasons.
              • Re: Debate Over Children and Psychiatric Drugs

                Mon, July 2, 2007 - 11:43 PM
                "This is certainly true but we're all responsible for this via the choices we make"

                and i respectfully submit that this rendition of free will isn't supported by current neurobiology. what determines which people break free more of their milieu? hehe, variation in freedom is... determined! not only biologically, but by a plethora of vectors that converge to form our lives.
                • blue-i - My understand is that this is still debated within neurobiology though, you're quite right, that there is more and more evidence that a majority of our "choices" (especially regarding actions) are reactions. This isn't quite the same thing as "destiny" though in my understanding, more of a bias towards certain reactions. Just as one may have a genetic predisposition towards depression but how one is nurtured and other environmental aspects will impact how this is expressed.

                  Whichever way you want to slice it, we're still responsible for the society we've constructed (it is the consequence of our actions and reactions). Our choices may be a consequence of nature driven actions and desires so not governed by free will in the way we like to think but they're still choices. Nothing exists within a vacuum, outside of context. And our nature effects the environment just as the environment effects the expression of our nature (and potentially nature itself since brain plasticity allows for this).

Recent topics in "Neurophysiology and Neurobiology"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
does neuroreplete actually work? aliza 30 November 21, 2009
my pet theory Toby 14 October 15, 2009
Future Opiates 0 October 15, 2009
Who says a woman can't be Einstein? Unsubscribed 11 October 15, 2009