223523 Bullies, 4399 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 11 to 20 of 78
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12 3456 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. Judah Maccabee is offline
    Judah Maccabee's Avatar

    Bullshido Wikipedia Delegate

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,325

    Posted On:
    3/20/2005 12:14am

    supporting memberhall of fameBullshido Newbie
     Style: Krav / (Kick)Boxing / BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I'm going to post some interesting statements from psychological professionals to spur some discussion.

    One is a consensus statement supporting the ADHD diagnosis, the other is the Critique of that statement.

    Here's the Consensus Statement:

    We, the undersigned consortium of international scientists, are deeply concerned about the periodic
    inaccurate portrayal of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in media reports. This is a disorder
    with which we are all very familiar and toward which many of us have dedicated scientific studies if not entire careers. We fear that inaccurate stories rendering ADHD as myth, fraud, or benign condition may cause thousands of sufferers not to seek treatment for their disorder. It also leaves the public with a general sense that this disorder is not valid or real or consists of a
    rather trivial affliction.

    We have created this consensus statement on ADHD as a reference on the status of the scientific
    findings concerning this disorder, its validity, and its adverse impact on the lives of those diagnosed with
    the disorder as of this writing (January 2002). Occasional coverage of the disorder casts the
    story in the form of a sporting event with evenly matched competitors. The views of a handful of
    nonexpert doctors that ADHD does not exist are contrasted against mainstream scientific views that it
    does, as if both views had equal merit. Such attempts at balance give the public the impression that there
    is substantial scientific disagreement over whether ADHDis a real medical condition. In fact, there is no
    such disagreement—at least no more so than there is over whether smoking causes cancer, for example, or
    whether a virus causes HIV/AIDS. The U.S. Surgeon General, the American Medical
    Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent
    Psychiatry, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others, all recognize ADHD as a valid disorder. Although some of these organizations have issued guidelines for evaluation and management of the disorder for their membership, this is the first consensus statement issued by an independent consortium of leading scientists concerning the status of the disorder. Among scientists who have devoted years, if not entire careers, to the study of this disorder there is no controversy regarding its existence.

    ADHD and Science
    We cannot overemphasize the point that, as a matter of science, the notion that ADHD does not exist is simply wrong. All of the major medical associations and government health agencies recognize
    ADHD as a genuine disorder because the scientific evidence indicating it is so overwhelming.
    Various approaches have been used to establish whether a condition rises to the level of a valid medical
    or psychiatric disorder. A very useful one stipulates that there must be scientifically established evidence that those suffering the condition have a serious deficiency in or failure of a physical or psychological mechanism that is universal to humans. That is, all humans normally would be expected, regardless of culture, to have developed that mental ability.

    And there must be equally incontrovertible scientific evidence that this serious deficiency leads to harm to the individual. Harm is established through evidence of increased mortality, morbidity, or impairment in the major life activities required of one’s developmental stage in life. Major life ctivities are those domains of functioning such as education, social relationships, family functioning, independence and self-sufficiency, and occupational functioning that all humans of that developmental level are expected to perform.

    As attested to by the numerous scientists signing this document, there is no question among the
    world’s leading clinical researchers that ADHD involves a serious deficiency in a set of psychological
    abilities and that these deficiencies pose serious harm to most individuals possessing the disorder. Current
    evidence indicates that deficits in behavioral inhibition and sustained attention are central to this disorder—facts demonstrated through hundreds of scientific studies. And there is no doubt that ADHD
    leads to impairments in major life activities, including social relations, education, family functioning, occupational functioning, self-sufficiency, and adherence to social rules, norms, and laws. Evidence also indicates that those with ADHD are more prone to physical injury and accidental poisonings. This is why no professional medical, psychological, or scientific organization doubts the existence of ADHD as a legitimate disorder.
    The central psychological deficits in those with ADHD have now been linked through numerous studies using various scientific methods to several specific brain regions (the frontal lobe, its connections to the basal ganglia, and their relationship to the central aspects of the cerebellum). Most neurological studies find that as a group those with ADHD have less brain electrical activity and show less reactivity to stimulation in one or more of these regions. And neuro-imaging studies of groups of those with ADHD also demonstrate relatively smaller areas of brain matter and less metabolic activity of this brain matter than is the case in control groups used in these studies.

    These same psychological deficits in inhibition and attention have been found in numerous studies of identical and fraternal twins conducted across various countries (US, Great Britain, Norway, Australia,
    etc.) to be primarily inherited. The genetic contribution to these traits is routinely found to be among the
    highest for any psychiatric disorder (70–95% of trait variation in the population), nearly approaching the
    genetic contribution to human height. One gene has recently been reliably demonstrated to be associated
    with this disorder and the search for more is underway by more than 12 different scientific teams worldwide at this time.

    Numerous studies of twins demonstrate that family environment makes no significant separate contribution
    to these traits. This is not to say that the home environment, parental management abilities, stressful
    life events, or deviant peer relationships are unimportant or have no influence on individuals having this
    disorder, as they certainly do. Genetic tendencies are expressed in interaction with the environment. Also,
    those having ADHD often have other associated disorders and problems, some of which are clearly related
    to their social environments. But it is to say that the underlying psychological deficits that comprise
    ADHD itself are not solely or primarily the result of these environmental factors.

    This is why leading international scientists, such as the signers below, recognize the mounting evidence of neurological and genetic contributions to this disorder. This evidence, coupled with countless studies on the harm posed by the disorder and hundreds of studies on the effectiveness of medication, buttresses the need in many, though by no means all, cases for management of the disorder with multiple therapies. These include medication combined with educational, family, and other social accommodations.

    This is in striking contrast to the wholly unscientific views of some social critics in periodic media accounts that ADHD constitutes a fraud, that medicating those afflicted is questionable if not reprehensible, and that any behavior problems associated with ADHD are merely the result of problems in the home, excessive viewing of TV or playing of video games, diet, lack of love and attention, or teacher/school intolerance.

    ADHD is not a benign disorder. For those it afflicts, ADHD can cause devastating problems. Follow-up studies of clinical samples suggest that sufferers are far more likely than normal people to drop out of school (32–40%), to rarely complete college (5–10%), to have few or no friends (50–70%), to underperform at work (70–80%), to engage in antisocial activities (40–50%), and to use tobacco or illicit drugs more than normal. Moreover, children growing up with ADHD are more likely to experience teen pregnancy (40%) and sexually transmitted diseases (16%), to speed excessively and have multiple car accidents, to experience depression (20–30%) and personality disorders (18–25%) as adults, and in hundreds of other ways mismanage and endanger their lives.

    Yet despite these serious consequences, studies indicate that less than half of those with the disorder are receiving treatment. The media can help substantially to improve these circumstances. It can do so by portraying ADHD and the science about it as accurately and responsibly as possible while not purveying the propaganda of some social critics and fringe doctors whose political agenda would have you and the public believe there is no real disorder here. To publish stories that ADHD is a fictitious disorder or merely a conflict between today’s Huckleberry Finns and their caregivers is tantamount to declaring the earth flat, the laws of gravity debatable, and the periodic table in chemistry a fraud. ADHD should be depicted in the media as realistically and accurately as it is depicted in science—as a valid disorder having varied and substantial adverse impact on those who may suffer from it through no fault of their own or their parents and teachers.
  2. Judah Maccabee is offline
    Judah Maccabee's Avatar

    Bullshido Wikipedia Delegate

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,325

    Posted On:
    3/20/2005 12:16am

    supporting memberhall of fameBullshido Newbie
     Style: Krav / (Kick)Boxing / BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    And now, the critique of that statement. The summary of the critique is that cultural factors and a money-hungry profession are to blame, along with a willful ignorance of serious social issues that therapists choose not to confront.

    A Critique of the International Consensus
    Statement on ADHD
    Sami Timimi1,3 and 33 Coendorsers2
    KEY WORDS: ADHD; international consensus; critique.

    Why did a group of eminent psychiatrists and psychologists produce a consensus statement that seeks
    to forestall debate on the merits of the widespread diagnosis and drug treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Barkley et al., 2002)? If the evidence is already that good then no statement is needed. However, the reality is that claims about ADHD being a genuine medical disorder and
    psychotropics being genuine correctives have been shaken by criticism.

    Not only is it completely counter to the spirit and practice of science to cease questioning the validity
    of ADHD as proposed by the consensus statement, there is an ethical and moral responsibility to do so. History teaches us again and again that one generation’s most cherished therapeutic ideas and
    practices, especially when applied on the powerless, are repudiated by the next, but not without leaving
    countless victims in their wake. Lack of acknowledgement of the subjective nature of our psychiatric practice leaves it wide open to abuse (Kopelman, 1990).
    For these reasons we, another group of academics and practitioners, feel compelled to respond to this statement.

    MERITS OF THE ADHD DIAGNOSIS
    The evidence does not support the conclusion that ADHD identifies a group of children who suffer
    from a common and specific neurobiological disorder. There are no cognitive, metabolic, or neurological
    markers for ADHD and so there is no such thing as a medical test for this diagnosis. There is obvious
    uncertainty about how to define this disorder, with definitions changing over the past 30 years depending
    on what the current favourite theory about underlying aetiology is, and with each revision producing a higher number of potential children deemed to have the disorder (Timimi, 2002). It is hardly surprising that epidemiological studies produce hugely differing prevalence rates from 0.5% to 26% (Green,Wong, Atkins,
    Taylor, & Feinleib, 1999; Taylor & Hemsley, 1995) of all children.

    Despite attempts at standardising criteria, crosscultural studies on the rating of symptoms of ADHD
    show major and significant differences between raters from different countries (Mann et al., 1992), rating
    of children from different cultures (Sonuga-Barke, Minocha, Taylor, & Sandberg, 1993), and even within
    cultures (for example, rates of diagnosis of ADHD have been shown to vary by a factor of 10 from county
    to county within the same state in the United States (Rappley, Gardiner, Jetton, & Howang, 1995)).
    There are high rates of comorbidity between ADHD and conduct, anxiety, depression, and other
    disorders, with about three quarters of children diagnosed with ADHD also fulfilling criteria for another
    psychiatric disorder (Biederman, Newcorn,&Sprich, 1991). Such high rates of comorbidity suggest that the
    concept of ADHD is inadequate to explain clinical reality (Van Praag, 1996).

    Neuroimaging research is often cited as “proof” of a biological deficit in those with ADHD, however,
    after almost 25 years and over 30 studies, researchers have yet to do a simple comparison of unmedicated
    children diagnosed with ADHD with an age matched control group (Leo & Cohen, 2003).
    The studies have shown nonspecific and inconsistent changes in some children in some studies. However,
    sample sizes have been small and in none of the studies were the brains considered clinically abnormal
    (Hynd & Hooper, 1995); nor has any specific abnormality been convincingly demonstrated (Baumeister
    & Hawkins, 2001). Most worryingly, animal studies suggest that any differences observed in these studies
    could well be due to the effects of medication that most children in these studies had taken (Breggin,
    1999, 2001; Moll, Hause, Ruther, Rothenberger, & Huether, 2001; Sproson, Chantrey, Hollis, Marsden,
    & Fonel, 2001). Even a U.S. federal government report on ADHD concluded that there was no compelling
    evidence to support the claim that ADHD was a biochemical brain disorder (National Institutes of
    Health, 1998). Research on possible environmental causes of ADHD type behaviors has largely been ignored, despite mounting evidence that psychosocial factors such as exposure to trauma and abuse can
    cause them (Ford et al., 1999, 2000).
    With regards the claim that ADHD is a genetic condition that is strongly heritable, the evidence is
    open to interpretation (Joseph, 2000). ADHD shares common genetics with conduct disorder and other externalizing behaviors, and so if there is a heritable component it is not specific toADHD(Timimi, 2002).

    EFFICACY OF DRUG TREATMENT The relentless growth in the practice of diagnosis
    of childhood and adolescent psychiatric disorders has also led to a relentless increase in the amount of psychotropic medication being prescribed to children and adolescents. The amount of psychotropic medication prescribed to children in the United States increased
    nearly threefold between 1987 and 1996, with over 6% of boys between the ages of 6 and 14 taking psychostimulants in 1996 (Olfson, Marcus,Weismann, & Jensen, 2002), a figure that is likely to be much higher now. There has also been a large increase in prescriptions of psychostimulants to preschoolers (aged 2– 4 years; Zito et al., 2000). One study in Virginia found that in two school districts, 17% of White boys at primary school were taking psychostimulants (LeFever, Dawson, & Morrow, 1999). Yet in the international consensus statement (Barkley et al., 2002) the authors still believe that less than half of those with ADHD are receiving treatment. Many of the authors of the consensus statement are well-known advocates of drug treatment for children with AHDH and it is notable that in the statement they do not declare their financial interests and/or their links with pharmaceutical companies.

    Despite claims for the miraculous effects of stimulants they are not a specific treatment for ADHD,
    because they are well known to have similar effects on otherwise normal children and other children
    regardless of diagnosis (Breggin, 2002; Rapoport et al., 1978). A recent meta-analysis of randomised
    controlled trials of methylphenidate found that the trials were of poor quality, there was strong evidence of publication bias, short-term effects were inconsistent across different rating scales, side effects
    were frequent and problematic and long-term effects beyond 4 weeks of treatment were not demonstrated
    (Schachter, Pham, King, Langford, & Moher, 2001). The authors of the consensus statement (Barkely
    et al., 2002) claim that untreated ADHD leads to significant impairment and harm for the afflicted individual; not only do the authors conflate a statistical association with cause but other evidence suggests that drug treatment has at best an inconsequential effect on long-term outcome (Joughin & Zwi, 1999; Zwi,
    Ramchandani, & Joughlin, 2000).

    The potential long-term adverse effects of giving psychotropic drugs to children need to cause
    us more concern than the authors of the consensus statement will allow. Stimulants are potentially addictive
    drugs with cardiovascular, nervous, digestive, endocrine, and psychiatric side effects (Breggin, 2001,
    2002). At a psychological level the use of drug treatment scripts a potentially life-long story of disability
    and deficit that physically healthy children may end up believing. Children may view drug treatment as a punishment for naughty behaviour and may be absorbing the message that they are not able to control or learn to control their own behavior. Drug treatment may also distance all concerned from finding more effective, long-lasting strategies (Cohen et al., 2002). The child and their carers may be unnecessarily cultured into the attitude of a “pill for life’s problems.”

    A CULTURAL PERSPECTIVE ON ADHD
    Why has ADHD become so popular now resulting in spiraling rates of diagnosis of ADHD and prescription
    of psychostimulants in the Western world? This question requires us to examine the cultural nature
    of how we construct what we deem to be normal and abnormal childhoods and child rearing methods.
    Although the immaturity of children is a biological fact, the ways in which this immaturity is understood
    and made meaningful is a fact of culture (Prout & James, 1997). Differences between cultures and within
    cultures over time mean that what are considered as desirable practices in one culture are often seen as
    abusive in another. In contemporary, Western society children are viewed as individuals who have rights and need to express their opinions as well as being potentially vulnerable and needing protection by the state when parents are deemed not to be adequate. At the same time there has been a growing debate and belief that childhood in modern, Western society has suffered a strange death (Hendrick, 1997). Many contemporary observers are concerned about the increase in violence, drug and alcohol abuse, depression, and suicide amongst a generation perceived to have been given the best of everything. Some commentators believe we are witnessing the end of the innocence of childhood, for example, through the greater sexualization and commercialization of childhood interests. It is claimed that childhood is disappearing, through media, such as television, as children have near complete access to the world of adult information leading to a collapse of the moral authority of adults (Postman, 1983). Coupled with this fear that the boundary between childhood and adulthood is disappearing is a growing sense that children themselves are a risk with some children coming to be viewed as too dangerous for society and needing to be controlled, reshaped and changed (Stephens, 1995).

    Thus, in the last few decades of the twentieth century in Western culture, the task of child rearing has
    become loaded with anxiety.On the one hand, parents and teachers feeling the pressure from the breakdown
    of adult authority discourse, feel they must act to control unruly children; on the other hand they feel inhibited from doing so for fear of the consequences now that people are aware that families can be ruined
    and careers destroyed should the state decide to intervene. This cultural anxiety has provided the ideal
    social context for growth of popularity of the concept of ADHD (Timimi, 2002). The concept of ADHD
    has helped shift focus away from these social dilemmas and onto the individual child. It has been in the
    best interests of the pharmaceutical industry to facilitate this change in focus. Drug company strategy for
    expanding markets for drug treatment of children is not confined to direct drug promotion but includes
    illness promotion (e.g. funding for parent support groups such as CHADD)and influencing research activities (Breggin, 2001; Jureidini & Mansfield, 2001). Thus the current “epidemic” of ADHD in the West
    can be understood as a symptom of a profound change in our cultural expectations of children coupled
    with an unwitting alliance between drug companies and some doctors, that serves to culturally legitimize
    the practice of dispensing performance enhancing substances in a crude attempt to quell our
    current anxieties about children’s (particularly boys) development (Carey, 2002; DeGrandpre, 1999; Diller,
    1998).

    In their consensus statement (Barkley et al., 2002), the authors are at pains to point out that it is not
    the child’s, the parent’s or the teacher’s fault. However, trying to understand the origins and meaning of
    behaviors labelled, as ADHD does not need to imply blame. What it does require is an attempt to positively
    engage with the interpersonal realities of human life. This can be done through individualized family counseling and educational approaches (Breggin, 2000), as well as using multiple perspectives to empower children, parents, teachers, and others (Timimi, 2002).

    CONCLUSION
    The authors of the consensus statement (Barkley et al., 2002) sell themselves short in stating that questioning the current practice concerning diagnosis and treatment of ADHD is like declaring the earth is flat. It is regrettable that they wish to close down debate prematurely and in a way not becoming of academics. The evidence shows that the debate is far from over.

  3. m4949 is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    681

    Posted On:
    3/21/2005 11:06am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    It is way over diagnosed.
    Also certian drugs are over used to treat it. Ritilan is used so often, yet there are about 6 drugs out there that can treat ADHD. rarely do doctors take the time to diagnose this correctly and when they do they often do not experiment with which drugs are best for the kid in question.
    Last edited by m4949; 3/21/2005 6:22pm at .
  4. Judah Maccabee is offline
    Judah Maccabee's Avatar

    Bullshido Wikipedia Delegate

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,325

    Posted On:
    3/21/2005 5:43pm

    supporting memberhall of fameBullshido Newbie
     Style: Krav / (Kick)Boxing / BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by m4949
    It is way over diagnosed.
    Also certian drugs are over used to treat it. Ritilan is used so often, yet there are about 6 drugs out there that can treat ADHD. rarely do doctoras take the time to diagnose this correctly and when they do they often to experiment with which drugs are best for the kid in question.
    Where is the proof that it is overdiagnosed, or that doctors more often than not misdiagnose children with the condition? Or that children are placed in experimental groups?
  5. m4949 is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    681

    Posted On:
    3/21/2005 6:29pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I don't have any stats to back this up. I can speak from experience.
    I was an ADHD kid. Granted at the time, ADHD treatment was relatively new, but they took a long time in testing me, and when they decided I was ADHD they tried several drugs before deciding what's best for me.

    Now, when I meet parents with "ADHD" kids the common reason for the Diagnosis is "he's bad, He's hyper". When you ask where they get the Meds for the kids, they tell me they just went to a Doctor and asked. And very often, the only drug tried is ritalin.
  6. Feryk is offline

    Boneheaded Optimist

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Keep going North until I say stop
    Posts
    2,109

    Posted On:
    3/22/2005 12:25pm

    supporting member
     Style: Wado Kai

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by samurai_steve
    Where is the proof that it is overdiagnosed, or that doctors more often than not misdiagnose children with the condition? Or that children are placed in experimental groups?
    You really need to read your own posts.

    MERITS OF THE ADHD DIAGNOSIS
    The evidence does not support the conclusion that ADHD identifies a group of children who suffer
    from a common and specific neurobiological disorder. There are no cognitive, metabolic, or neurological
    markers for ADHD and so there is no such thing as a medical test for this diagnosis. There is obvious
    uncertainty about how to define this disorder, with definitions changing over the past 30 years depending
    on what the current favourite theory about underlying aetiology is, and with each revision producing a higher number of potential children deemed to have the disorder (Timimi, 2002). It is hardly surprising that epidemiological studies produce hugely differing prevalence rates from 0.5% to 26% (Green,Wong, Atkins,
    Taylor, & Feinleib, 1999; Taylor & Hemsley, 1995) of all children.
    Overdiagnosed.

    The potential long-term adverse effects of giving psychotropic drugs to children need to cause
    us more concern than the authors of the consensus statement will allow. Stimulants are potentially addictive
    drugs with cardiovascular, nervous, digestive, endocrine, and psychiatric side effects (Breggin, 2001,
    2002). At a psychological level the use of drug treatment scripts a potentially life-long story of disability
    and deficit that physically healthy children may end up believing. Children may view drug treatment as a punishment for naughty behaviour and may be absorbing the message that they are not able to control or learn to control their own behavior. Drug treatment may also distance all concerned from finding more effective, long-lasting strategies (Cohen et al., 2002). The child and their carers may be unnecessarily cultured into the attitude of a “pill for life’s problems.”
    They use too many stimulants in treating these kids. The one most commonly used IS Ritalin, but there are others.

    Steve, did I miss something? You answered your own questions BEFORE you asked them.
  7. Judah Maccabee is offline
    Judah Maccabee's Avatar

    Bullshido Wikipedia Delegate

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,325

    Posted On:
    3/22/2005 4:23pm

    supporting memberhall of fameBullshido Newbie
     Style: Krav / (Kick)Boxing / BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Ahh, there is evidence in that favor. But, where is proof?

    AUTHOR: PETER S. JENSEN; LORI KETTLE; MARGARET T. ROPER; MICHAEL T. SLOAN; MINA K. DULCAN; CHRISTINA HOVEN; HECTOR R. BIRD; JOSE J. BAUERMEISTER; JENNIFER D. PAYNE

    TITLE: Are Stimulants Overprescribed? Treatment of ADHD in Four U.S. Communities

    SOURCE: Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 38 no7 797-804 Jl 1999

    There are, in fact, well-documented increases in the rate of medication treatment for hyperactivity among elementary and secondary school students over the past 18 years (Safer and Krager, 1994).

    --


    Despite the interest in the topic, little is actually known about why these increases are occurring. Skeptics have noted that the amount of methylphenidate prescribed is much higher in the United States than in any other country (Hancock, 1996), and they argue that the increases indicate inappropriate use of stimulants--that they are being used to treat all types of behavioral and academic problems (Schmidt, 1987). Others suggest that these increases are not cause for concern, but simply reflect the heightened professional and public awareness that has increased the level of identification and treatment of the disorder (Swanson et al., 1995). Regardless of the accuracy of either of these positions, under some circumstances physicians' evaluations and assessments of children with suspected ADHD may be inadequate, leading to inappropriate diagnosis and treatment of presumptive ADHD (Hancock, 1996; Jensen et al., 1989), while in other cases, assessment and treatment may be appropriate. In addition, some cases of ADHD might be undiagnosed and/or untreated. So what is actually known about the nature and frequency of various forms of ADHD treatments, as delivered in the community?
    Wolraich and colleagues (1996) conducted a county-wide checklist-based survey of teachers to determine the number of children within the school system who were rated with high levels of hyperactive and inattentive symptoms, and whether they were receiving medication. Findings indicated that despite high levels of ADHD-like symptoms in 11.4% of children, only approximately one fourth of these children had been diagnosed or treated with stimulants for ADHD. While findings from these 2 studies are informative, the extent to which they are more generally applicable to various communities across the United States is unclear. Moreover, the exclusive reliance on behavior checklists in both studies to obtain ADHD-relevant diagnostic information raises concerns about the validity of the ADHD diagnoses.
    It's true that compared to medicine, behavioral/non-medicinal therapy may be seen as far less prescribed or utilized:

    In toto, these studies all suggest that only a minority of ADHD children receive some individual or family-based mental health services, and they often do not receive school-based supports.
    However, the study I cite concludes otherwise:

    Concerns about dramatic levels of overprescribing are not supported by these data--fewer than 1 in 8 children with ADHD were actually taking medications. Of note, however, 8 of the 16 children who were prescribed a stimulant did not meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD This could have been due to the fact that some of these children had treated ADHD and no longer met diagnostic criteria as a function of stimulant treatment, as indicated by our analyses in Table 3.
    A second implication from our findings concerns the types of treatments children with ADHD most frequently receive, compared to public perceptions and media reports. One third of children with ADHD received some form of counseling or mental health services, followed then by school-based services, compared with one eighth of the ADHD children receiving medication. Thus, in spite of the concerns that medication treatments are being substituted for other more appropriate treatments, such does not necessarily appear to be the case. More troubling, many children are not receiving needed services, regardless of whether they meet criteria for ADHD or some other condition.
    The bigger concern described in this study is misdiagnosis vs. overdiagnosis. The point is that ADHD is an extremely complex topic in terms of diagnosis and prevalence in the population. Open and shut conclusions or opinions without substantial reasoning are dangerous propositions, especially when the stakes are high if treatment is inappropriately withheld or given to a kid who needs/doesn't need it.
  8. Cunta Sensei is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    41

    Posted On:
    3/24/2005 2:45pm


     Style: The Stella Fist

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    ADD/ADHD do exist, my younger brother had/has ADHD though he stopped taking Ritalin years ago. However, there can be no doubt that the way ADD/ADHD are treated is WRONG. Pumping YOUNG children full of drugs just to make their parents/teachers lives easier is not the answer. In the old days they didn't have Ritalin etc. yet how much rarer was it to have a disruptive pupil?
    Now whenever there is something wrong people always turn to drugs or counselling or some other crap when at the end of the day they should be adult enough to sort the problem out themselves.
    My brother became a mindless zombie when he was on Ritalin, and he may not have disrupted his class at school anymore, but the Ritalin not only made him calm, it prevented him from learning because it made him so damn apathetic.
  9. Punisher is offline
    Punisher's Avatar

    Seeker of Truth

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    2,943

    Posted On:
    3/24/2005 9:26pm

    supporting member
     Style: Five Animal Fighting

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    While I agreed ADD is probably overdiagnosed in kids, I think it's underdiagnosed in adults. I was 27 before I found out what the **** was wrong with me.

    My drugs do alter my mood. I'm not depressed anymore. I can actually get out of bed and go to work most days and when I'm there be productive most of the time. That's a good thing.

    Like I said I don't take Ritalin. I take Welbutrin which is technically an anti-depressant. I just also happens to help with my form of ADD.

    I didn't just take a pill and magically get better. I say a shrink on a monthly basis, and hired a ADD coach that I say monthly. Doing so really helped get my life in order. Now I see the shrink every three months and have monthly check-ups with the coach.
  10. Judah Maccabee is offline
    Judah Maccabee's Avatar

    Bullshido Wikipedia Delegate

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    5,325

    Posted On:
    3/24/2005 9:40pm

    supporting memberhall of fameBullshido Newbie
     Style: Krav / (Kick)Boxing / BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Now whenever there is something wrong people always turn to drugs or counselling or some other crap when at the end of the day they should be adult enough to sort the problem out themselves.
    Whenever I hear an argument like this, I think of a sadistic gym coach confronted with a kid who has diabetes:

    "INSULIN DEFICIENCY? **** your insulin, you panty-waist mama's boy! You're gonna tough it out! Sort out your own problems and don't come crying to me about your "die-uh-bee-tuhs."

    G-d forbid that when someone has some sort of ailment that they can't solve on their own, they consult an expert to find out advice and guidance for how to overcome the issue. We'd nod approvingly at someone who said "my knee doesn't feel right" and went to an orthopedist, but lord Lord LORD help you if you're feeling depressed and down, you don't know why, and you want to see a mental health professional to see if they can diagnose a problem.
Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 12 3456 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.