why are we medicating so many of our children?

Post Reply New Topic

We medicate children because ASDs and the associated comorbid psychiatric disorders are all neurobiologically based. Medication helps treat the neurochemical abnormalities thought to cause these disorders. Enough said.

Enough said ? mh nope. Not all associated disorders are psychiatric or "neurobiological" , some are psychological, depression can be caused by internal imbalance OR external factors (psychological, then.)
The AS brain is not naturally chemically imbalanced, it is not proven that "re balancing" the brain by replacing the lacking chemicals is doing more good than bad. What it does is impair the ability of the brain to develop coping mechanism for its differences, accustomizing it to levels of these chemicals that may be imperfect, since apparently the only way to figure out the right dose is to test the reaction of the subject and then adapting the treatment.
I'm not saying I'm against all medication, just that what you said was not "enough said".

There is NO research ANYWHERE to show that ANY diagnosis is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. That was not even propsed by psychiatrists, but by the Pharmacuetical companies themselves trying to sell the drugs to the unsuspecting public. Research has shown that serotonin levels are the SAME in depressed verses normal controls, before they are given any medication. The other reality is that the newest antidepressents have no serotonin in them and are actually melatonin. How do they intend to try and confince the public that everything they have previously said was wrong, and now these are the drugs they need. As for antipsychotics. There are NO antipsychotic properties in them. They were being trailed as anesethics, to put people to sleep for an operation, and like everything else they are all tried on psychaitric patients. They discovered that they did not put them to sleep, but instead created what they termed a chemcical labotomy. They were very clear that they were not treating any illness at all. What they do is to dope the person so that the hallucinations and delusions are not as strong and powerful. It does not stop them, it cannot stop them, it just sedates the person. They were also used on 99% of psychiatric patients for over 15 YEARS BEFORE they began to release any into the community in any numbers. The release was caused by a change in policy that enabled peoeple to get support through the federal government's medicaid program, and social security disability income and the like. It was the US federal government agreeing to pick up the tab for these people, that meant the states released them not some wonder pill. Some of the antidpressents used in the US are bladder control pills in Europe. As for Prozac it took them 20 years to get that on the market. All they had to do was to provide ONE study of 500 people that showed that it was more effective than placebo. Yet it took them over a billion people and 20 years to finally prove that. To me that is the real problem, that people have no idea of the process of getting these drugs to market, and on the sales pitches that are sold. IN many cases the drug companies are prevented from saying things about the drugs, due to the poor research evidence, but they get around that by paying top doctors to say it all for them.

There is no doubt at all that medication can play a role for SOME people. The problem is how they are used, in the doses they are used, the very little real information people are given and the total lack of any alternatives offered to parents. It is very easy to just say they have some other condition and that condition means they need that medication. I do believe that medications can help some people. Good research shows that about 10-15% of people do well on antipsychotics for medium periods of time at excessively low doses. As for antidepressants, there is no doubt that some people benefit from them, but they are not and never will be lifestyle drugs, they cannot make you happy. They can help some people at the extreme levels of profound depression stay alive long enough to have some therapy to help them.

I do and have voluntarily taken medication in the past to help with my Autism or so called related conditions. They did help me and I am not sorry that I took them. What I am sorry about is that I was not really given the help that I needed to work out WHY I was doing what I was doing. Sure I had a million therapies tried on me, but NO ONE looked at WHY I did what I did, and the fact is it all came down to pain to a small degree that was not being addressed and profound sensory issues. Now that I have found an Occupational Therapist, that is an expert in sensory issues I am for the first time able to address those issues and the real causes for my behaviour and am slowly weaning myself from the med's.

I do not think that any parent medicates for no reason and I for one was actually very impressed with the original poster. What she did was the blame the pharacuetical companies and to a lesser degree doctors and for them not providing parents with any information to understand autism and how to support it.

I do not wish to criticise the decision that any parent has made, but I do question whether you have been given any real support to work out WHY your child is acting the way that they are. I do not and will not believe that a child is voilent just for the sake of it. What I know the most about the spectrum is that nobody understands the sensory issues that are associated with it. They do not understand that I have to get away from loud noises and bright lights, and I cannot handle people being near me, etc, etc. Sensory issues are different for every single person, but I am yet to come across any person on the spectrum who does not have profound sensory issues, nor any so called autism treatment that attempts to deal with them. We are great at doing behaviour modification, great at teaching children to be normal, to do this and do that, but we are terrible and looking at WHY children and/or adults do as they do.

We are also terrible at trying to find real communication methods with these children, many of whom are non verbal. We need to teach them to speak and when they don't at most we give them PECS, that is great if they are visual, but if they are tactile and want to feel everything, we label them as ret*d, instead of finding a tactile method of communication, ie, deaf blind sign language. There is also Makaton a basic sign language and other general sign languages. Yes they are work for the adult, but they can be done. I also know of a parent for whom PECS worked who has created an iphone application, so the child can now give a whole sentence type thing about what they want. They can say, for example that they want brown bread, and not white, toasted, with peanut butter and cut into 4 triangles, not two, etc. All through the use of hundreds of pictures on an iphone, which are grouped in a way that makes sense to that child. One of the primary causes of behavioural problems is an inability to communicate. I can, but I hate speaking and to this day only have the speach of a 4 year old, despite being 37. I also struggle to take in what people say verbally, but put it in writing and I can do anything with it. Finding a way to communicate as for me been the most important thing and came from the most amazing teacher who managed to find a way into my world when I was 14. At that stage I still could not read at all. I now have degrees' and an above average IQ.

I do not want to criticise the decisions parents have made, I don't think any parent makes them ligthly, but I would suggest that if you really want to help you consider a communication method that will work for your child and looking at sensory issues in particular, ie, the reasons WHY the child is doing what they are doing, not what you can do to stop it.

I am yet to come across any long term quality controlled study that shows that medicaiton is good long term. There are cases where it works, but in most cases it only works for short periods of time, and then they are put onto higher and higher doses, etc, etc. I know of one person who has been fine on a low dose antipsychotic long term, ie. 25, years, but I have also just burried a friend who died of medication side effects, after only 6 years on the med, and yes med side effects were blamed in the coroners report and are the cause of death. They were court order med's for a mental illness and that is also what is horrible to me. I also know of two people who are on deaths door due to medication side effects The fact is some of these med's can do really horrrible things, and while I do not blame parents or anyone for using them and would use them again if it proves necessary, in low doses with good medical back up and follow up, I also hate that they are made out to be these harm proof things that are in many cases prescribed by doctors with very little thought as to how they are being prescibed. You cannot asess someone in 15 minutes, and to be honest that is a long psychiatric consultation, most are lucky to be seen for more than 5 minutes. And then they are reviewed once every 6 months or so and this is where the problems lie, at how quickly doctors are to prescribe them and how many people have believed all that the pharmacutical companies have said to them.

I do not envy the position any parent finds themselves in as the fact is they are not given the support and information that they need to truly try to find non medical means for helping their child. Parents would do anything for their child, but they can only do what is out there to do and what professionals can assist them with and that is where the problem lies. I do believe that parents do the best that they can do in incredibly trying times, I just hate that you are not supported to look at what is causing the problems.

One example I know of, an adult who was institutionalised recently for profound self injury, self mutilation and the like, all related to autism. They were medicated, put in a padded room and dressed in padding and helmets and the like. Sure it kept them alive. THEN someone came along and actually looked at the person and what they knew about them. They discovered that they needed to have a newspaper to hold onto at all times, to be allowed to keep all doors closed all the time, to be allowed to prepare their own snacks, no matter how strange. This person is now living in the community and goes to football games and the like. With some really simple things, especailly the newspaper they were able to reduce all self injury, stop all medication, padding and the like. If you look at what the person is trying to say with their behaviour, instead of simply trying to stop it, then you usually come a lot further. I do however recognise that things are not always that simple, just providing some alternative possibilities, etc.

For some really quality research studies on what the long term outcomes are for these medications, try this link:
http://www.madinamerica.com/madinameric ... ldren.html

I'm a neuroscientist. Thus, it IS enough said. External factors precipitate biological factors. And there is plenty of research evidence that all psychiatric diagnoses, including ASDs, deal with both structural and chemical brain abnormalities. Nothing angers me more than the stigma associated with taking psychiatric medications. Nobody argues against the use of medication to treat diabetes or heart disease or cancer.

bjceleb- As for depressive subjects having the same serotonin levels as controls, this is one study. And if you look at the research on serotonin transporter genes, you will find the many genetic abnormalities that seem to occur in people with depression and other serotonin-related disorders. I agree that serotonin is overemphasized in depression and OCD. Other biological factors are involved. But the reason the serotonin link is overemphasized is the vast amount of research that confirms it. Same with the hyperdopaminergic hypothesis of schizophrenia.

And you are right that anti-psychotics weren't originally designed for the treatment of psychosis. But many effective treatments in medicine were found serendipitously. Look at lithium- we STILL don't know the precise biological reason why it treats mania, and it was found by chance back in 1948. The reason anti-psychotics do what they do is because they act as dopamine antagonists. And the dopamine hypothesis is extremely strong, even stronger than the serotonin hypothesis of depression. Evidence is found outside of psychiatry, as well. Look at how many Parkinson's patients become psychotic if given too much L-Dopa.

And no anti-depressant contains actual serotonin. They work as serotonin agonsists by slowing the reuptake of serotonin by the serotonin transporter after release into the synapse.

That is focusing on the effect without looking at the cause. You can't just "note a chemical abnormality". It's like saying stressed out people have an "abnormal increase in adrenalin" and trying to decrease this imbalance chemically. I am sure it would have the desired effect, but it doesn't take away the fact that removing the cause of stress is worth trying before resorting to medication.
I know that my analogy is simplistic btw, no need to point it out, and I know that for some the only thing that counts is "obtaining the desired effect", and medication is often the shortest way to it. But I wonder why the medications in question only focus on the result of what the brain is producing in the wrong amount, instead of why it is, what is the cause, and how could we encourage the brain to produce these by itself. I guess The research is just not there yet, if I'm wrong feel free to correct me, I have never studied neurobiology as it has never been a special interest (might start becoming one if I keep asking myself questions though...)

No, the research isn't there yet. Right now, research mainly focuses on the structural and chemical differences between controls and psychiatric patients, so as to try and find ways to treat those who are suffering. The most immediate goals are to try to find some sort of common ground in results. For example, autism literature is littered with confounds. For example, one study might find hyperactivity in a specific brain area, another might find hypoactivity in the same area, and still another might find no differences between controls and autistics.

Once we find more common results or some new hypothesis with a strong backing, we can find better treatments with less side effects. Then, we can (hopefully) find a diagnostic test to "prove" that somebody has "x." Once all of this is done, then we can focus on an actual cause to prevent.

Neuroscience in general is still in its infancy. Most fields of science have most of the "big" questions answered and can focus on the details. Neuroscience is still trying to find the "big" question answers. A good comparison of what neuroscience is like now is the beginnings of quantum mechanics/atomic physics. We find all these fascinating results, but unfortunately, we have no clue why they happen yet. We have very basic explanations for things, and we have to stick by the hypotheses that show the most evidence, as that's all we have to go off of.

So, hopefully, someday, we'll be able to make it so everyone is free from mental health issues. But right now, the importance lies with finding how to help those who weren't so lucky to escape. This is one reason I joined the field- I want to help people, and there's so much to find. Plus, I have both AS and OCD, so I know personally what it's like to suffer and go through the seemingly endless search for the right medication. One step at a time...

If you have any specific neuro questions, let me know. I love talking neuro with people.

Well, don't you think it's because the approach is wrong? The brain is not a liver or a kidney, it's not similar to any other organ in the body, it doesn't work in the same way. The chemicals it produces are not produced "automatically", as part of functionning, but mostly in reaction to the environment. When we are in a pleasurable situation, the brain produces dopamine, for instance. Would you say that an increased level of dopamine makes you happy? Or that , since you are happy, you are producing more dopamine?
With the brain, from what I gather, people started with the basic dissection and observation, analysis of the chemicals, connection of the synapses, etc. Now we're up to dedicated zones, am I right? I think this approach works for a liver, but may not work for a brain. I have something so tiny and slippery in my mind, an idea that I cannot put my finger on so to speak. Let alone express it. well, thanks a lot, I'm going to have to research about neurosciences now...I have no time for a special interest, I have 2 kids....

The neuroscientific approach would say that the increased dopamine leads to the happiness, not the other way around. This initial dopamine increase will keep you happy if more dopamine keeps being released, in a positive feedback loop. For instance, the reason certain drugs like cocaine lead to a euphoric high is because it stimulates the dopamine receptors. We believe that all emotions are formed from chemical interactions.

Yes, we are now trying to label different brain regions by their function. This is very easy to do based on observing brain injuries and using fMRI on intact brains. The hard part is understanding how electrical impulses and synaptic chemicals can cause such complex phenomena as problem solving, emotions, etc. But saying that "x" brain region does "y" is a good thing, because it helps center which areas to work on for certain problems. There is much evidence that the brain has specialized regions. For instance, the occipital lobe normally does no other task other than interpreting vision. But the brain has plasticity, and regions can take over a lost or otherwise damaged function. So, in the blind, the occipital lobe may devote itself to doing other tasks.

Sorry if I sparked a special interest you don't have time for.

I was medicated quite substantially when I was younger. Given pills as prescribed by a doctor to help with mood and issues experienced by my parents. In my personal opinion I think it was overall helpful, but perhaps with a price - which I won't discuss. But it leaves me to believe that a system built to promote economy and propagation is unsustainable because it doesn't bring happiness. The pills went to me, but the questions only went to the parents. The people with money, the people who say "he's been acting odd", so the doc says "Ok, we'll adjust this.". Perhaps the error of all of this is a belief that changing the body can promote happiness, that changing the emotions of that which doesn't conform is a good thing.

From humanity's beginnings the main goal of life has been to flee from life. Drugs, money, love, everything to simplify our existence into the most simple common denominator possible. This will never change, neither will drugs - and neither will peoples stupidity. It will continue the way it has despite a rant, despite a error by the fda, and despite any love one feels for their own children. Because its easier, convenient, and economically sound.

The research supporting dopamine in schizophrenia is not there, and never will be. There are NO differences found between the brains of normal people and NON medicated schizoprhenics. The differences found are caused by the medications, which kill off whole parts of the brain, and shrink others and they are found specifically in the length of time on the drugs and the dosage that is given. If people are given higher doses, regardless of whether they are needed or not, then they will suffer significanlty more brain damage. And this is not one study, this is all the studies. The simple fact is there is NO research out there showing ANY chemical imbalances in the brain any ANY person labelled as mentally ill or otherwise. Even the National Institute of Mental Health, the American Psychiatric Association and the like now all acknowledge that there are NO chemical imbalances in the brain, and anyone who still goes on about that and claims to be a scientist is a shame on the profession.

Lithium has not necessarily done anything to treat any bipolor disorder. It has shut people up that you do not like, it is as simple as that. We still do not know why ANY of these supposed "treatments" work, and nor will we ever know. The simple fact is that what is considered abnormal in one country is perfectly normal in other. 100 years ago psychiatrists and the like were claiming that near drowning was an evidenced based treatment for psychosis, 200 years ago, putting people in chains and whipping them was an evidence based treatment and they did study after study to confirm it, and then chopped open the brains of the people when they died to try and work out why. Only 50 years ago they were still using an ice pick in the eye sockets of people and claiming that it got rid of all the bad brain tissue and left the good brain tissue intact. And they still claim the ECT gets rid of bed brain cells and leaves good brain cells behind. Since when is electricity going through the brain possiby able to know what is bad and what is good brain cells, and who decides what is bad and what is good. It is your own interpretation that decides what you will and will not like in a person what is normal and what is not normal, etc.

Just a little story: My friend M has full on BP mania, she is seen as constantly unwell by her doctors, exploding with exuberant energy and is highly medicated to control her excitable moods and creativity, she flounders in the MH system and despairs at her inability to ever be 'normal'. Then last month, she moved to Spain with her Bf.

My friend says the urban Spanish lifestyle is the most frenetic and animated she's ever seen, they laugh constantly and cheer when laughing is not enough. Her new family hugs and kisses and dance around the table plied full of food. She is considered completely normal, and has never felt so happy to be who she is, who she always was. And she no longer takes any medication at all.

Any scientist would also know that we ALL have chemicals moving through our brains all the time, and that CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) has also been shown to return brain chemistry to so called normal, simply by changing peoples beliefs. The fact is chemicals exist in all of our brains and they are never perfectly normal. Sure SOME people benefit from medications, but lets not pretend that these are lifestyle drugs, that cure some mystical condition as the fact is they are not. WHY did it take Prozac 20 years and over a million people in trails to finally get ONE study that showed it was more effective than placebo. Sure I do not dispute that it will not help some people but please do not try and tell me that we should be putting prozac into the water supply so that no one is ever unhappy again. The simple fact is we know nothing at all about these drugs, and that is not a bad thing, they do help some people, what is wrong is the lies that are told about them.

Please provide a link to ANY study that shows that people with either Schizoprhenia or Depression have proven chemical imbalnaces in their brains BEFORE they are medicated. The simple fact is that it is not illegal to sit in the libraries of any medical school and you can spend hours upon hours reading all their journals and I can assure you that I am yet to come across ANY such study, whether it be neuroscience or psychiarty or the like. Sure I've read all the studies claiming to show such differences but they ALL on people who are on medication. The FEW studies that exist of people who are not medicated, show a very different story, and if you wanted to do honest reserach and really find what was causing it, then you would be doing that sort of research. And please do not use the excuse that it is unethical to give someone a 5 minute brain scan before you medicate them, because we manage to give people with physical conditions all sorts of tests before we treat them and that is not unethical.

The simple fact is that when it comes to diabetes or asthma or the like, we know exactly what we are treating and we also know what the medications we are giving people are doing to them. The other big difference is that people can CHOOSE to not take those medications, something that is not given to those in the mental health system. Appparently when a brain illness is involved you need a doctor to make every single decision about your whole life, and they even have the right to lock you up, and take away every single right a human being takes for granted, for which they diagnosed you in 5 minutes by sitting 5 feet away from you with a pen and paper and then they want to call themselves "doctors". People have a right to refuse to have a blood transfusion and hence kill themselves and that is all perfectly legal, they have a right to refuse chemotherapy for cancer and that is all legal. And parents have the right to make those decisions about their own children and to kill them as a result and that is all legal, but if a parent says, "I would like to try some non medical based treatments first, I don't think I like the idea of ECT, yet," then a psychaitrist just slaps a compulsory treatment order on them and then the parents have no say at all. In all childrens hospitals parents are allowed to stay with their child 24/7, but when it comes to psychaitric ones, they have to have permission, it can be refused at any time and it is only between certain hours. The simple fact is that the psychaitric community is a law unto themselves and if they want respect it means telling the truth and treating people the same as any other doctor treats them. If people are not capable of giving informed consent we already have laws in every country in the world that allows family to step in and given consent on our behalf and guardianship orders for those who will not be able to make decisions long term, but when it comes to mental health psychitrists do not need those permissions, they make them all themselves, they decide where they will live, what is put into the person's body, etc, etc. And then people wonder why there is so much stigma, the stigma is caused by the simple fact that these doctors are a law unto themselves and there is no science to back up what they are saying. IF people make an INFORMED decision to take these pills then fine, but the fact is 99.9% of the population are not. Tell the truth and we will not mind, that is all we ask, for us to be told the truth and to be given the same rights as anybody else. Yet all people do is to make excuses and the best one is the fact that it is unethical to do a 5 minute brain scan on us, before you medicate us, even if people offer to pay for it themselves!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !

i don't need a study to tell me that when my schizophrenic relative does not take their medication they start to hullucinate and have imaginary people surrounding them and think that pictures on the wall are warning them of danger, that they don't finish their sentances and can't hold a conversation. i also don't need a study to see that when they take their meds as they should the hullucinations stop and they can think clearly again, talk to people and go about their day in a productive manner without worrying that the guy next door is sneaking into their basement to hide bodies down there. it doesn't matter if someone says there is no proof of them having a chemical imbalance before they were medicated. that's because when someone shows problems like that they don't take them and do tests on them and use them as guinea pigs. they give them medication to get the problems sorted out. if the meds are causing problems then the problems are far out weighed by the benefits, especially in cases where the problems are severe. it's obvious that if the medication is working by adjusting the levels of certain chemicals and the effect is what it should be that the chemicals were out of whack to begin with.

Sure there are people who benefit from these med's but they are just that individual people. Not all people are helped by them. The simple fact is that if we knew what the problems were we would be able to find treatments to help everyone. As for the assumption that they stop voices and hallucations, well that is in the eye of the beholder. I have a friend who has been helped by med's and swears by them. I have another one and the two of them are best friends and totally respects were the other is coming from, that does not and never has been helped by ANY of them.

The who is not helped by them, sees bunnies, he knows they are not real, but he feels more comfortable if he walks around them. He has NEVER told of anyone else for walking on top of them and nor has he ever hurt himself. He just prefers to not walk in a straight line and to make room for bunnies that he cannot see. He was locked up and put on one medication after another, and after another, and all at excessively high doses. NONE of them did anything at all to stop ANY of what he saw. He was finally released on a court order that forces him to take medication that is not taking away any of the bunnies at all. What is does is to make him drool and to wobble and to barely be able to stand up. As a result of that, it makes him walk over the bunnies and causes him acute distress, to the point that he wants to hurt himself. The doctors argued that him being able to walk around the bunnies was not good for him as it was reinforcing the belief that they are still there!! If you can honestly tell me that this is ethical treatment, then please say how.

As for the side effects not being that bad and being worth it, I guess you better explain that to the parents of a close friend who lost their daughter to forced medication side effects last month, and to the other two currently on life support in hospital. I can assure you that they and there families do not think the benefits outweigh the negatives.

You cannot possibly know what goes on inside the person and the fact is there are people who die from these medications. Sure there are people who die from chemotherapy, but they make that decision. At an absolute minimum we should be giving people a safe place to stay where they can not take med's if that is there choice. If these med's and their side effects are so humane then perhaps you should start taking them.

And NO I do not want and nor does anyone else I want, want some fancy experiments being carried out on us, in the name of science, but how the hell do you think they got these medications, by carrying out research on the mentally ill as they do with anything else. So to you it is perfectly ethical to chop our brains open and take part of it away in the guise of research, but it is unethical to do a brain scan,?? Exactly how is it that it is ethical to do anything at all to the mentally ill, because you think it might help them and yet when they ask for a brain scan you say that is unethical. Exactly what is unethical about doing an MRI scan on someone. I would have thought that putting any uknown chemicals into their bodies was unethical, I would have thought that putting an ice pick through their eye sockets was unethical, and putting electricity through their brain was unethical, but to you that is all OK as it MAY make your life easier, but trying to find out what the actual problems are, and doing an MRI scan, that is unethical.

As for ethics, please explain why it was that psychiarty with government funding was until 1998 given psychiatric patients methamedipine, LSD and the like, all with the specific aim of making them psychotic, or making their psychosis worse, in the guise of trying to understand the biology of psychosis. That was all approved by human rights ethics committees only 15 years ago, as perfectly ethical and yet giving us an MRI scan is unethical.

As for ethics why has the US government had to ban the use of antipsychotics as a form of torture on prisoners of war. If the side effects are not that bad, then why were they being used to torture prisoners of war, at doses LOWER than those given at psychiatric hospitals. This is all legally known in the governments own records, and not a figment of my or anyone else's imagination.

If you hate your relative that much why don't you just put them down, becasue I can tell you that I would rather be killed than take psychiatric medications and you do not know and cannot possibly know what they do to the person and/or how they make them feel. If they made them feel so brilliant they would not stop taking them, and if they alleviated the distress they would not stop taking them, but it is much easier to buy what the pharacuetical companies tell you than to consider the human rights of the situations.

I dunno about cats and dogs, I dunno about psychiatry or neurology or any of that stuff. Maybe I'm just weird but I don't really believe in either far end of the ideological debate of medicate everything/never medicate. Use whatever you find works. Figure out if you need to keep using that or if you can do something else as well/in place of - and make sure your fixes don't need their own major fixing. Accept not every solution will work for every person. Yeah it's frustrating to work out what does and doesn't but the alternative isn't terribly nice once you stop to consider the kind of people who claim to know the absolute truth. There's a reason I don't bother listening to extremists, they're never very good for your health because it's never about your health, it's about winning their ideological war. I'll be damned if I'm gonna martyr myself to another person's pet cause. Use what works, leave the rest - maybe someone else can use what you couldn't.

I could not agree with you more. People need to be ALLOWED to use what works for them. What is wrong is when this is not allowed, when people have only one option presented to them, and in the case of mental health, where it is court ordered onto people and can infact result in people dying. I have taken psychiatric medications in the past and I would use them again if I felt the need to, but I had a choice and I have had other options presented to me. I hate this thing that people simply need this pill or this therapy of this or that. The fact is we know very little about these conditions and we need to start working with people instead of against them. Sure some things might help some people but not all, nothing is that black and white.

As for cats and dogs. Well I live next door to a person who has become a good friend and has a cat that has until 2 years ago lived for 4 years with other cats. I have a dog who has always lived with other dogs. They are both now 6 and have spent the first 4 years of their lives with their own species. They have spent at least an hour every single day for the last 2 years trying to get the other one to play with them. The cat does want to play and does do all the cat play mannerisims and thinks the dog is ret*d because it cannot speak cat. The dog spends the whole time doing dog play mannerisims and cannot for the life of it work our why the cat cannot and will not play with it. They do not haunt or tease each other, they do not chase each other. The dog does play poses and the cat does cat play poses, and it is absolutely haliariaas to watch. One would have expected them to have worked it out by now, to have at least given up, but neither of them are, and this is just as funny to watch. At least it keeps us entertained!! But the fact is cat's think like cat's and dog's think like dog's, just as human's think like human's. The reality is that we know very little about dog and cat behaviour and anything we do know or rather believe is simply our interpretation of it. For me psychaitry is pretty much the same. They are deciding what they think is normal, what is allowed and what is not allowed, etc. Homosexuality was a mental illness until 1982. Regardless of what a person may think of it, I question anyone who can say it is a mental illness??

I'd like to say hello. I actually joined this forum because of this thread. I have been anit-meds for my son for a long time. I have tried not to judge those parents who medicate their kids (some of them are my very close friends), but I have to admit that this has been difficult for me. I have seen my friends struggle not to give the meds, but then give into them out of desperation. I have also seen some of them reach for meds in what appeared to be a very knee-jerk reaction.

My son has had anger issues for many years now. I started out wanting to try meds, but my husband wouldn't hear of it. I have tried a whole lot of natural and holistic practices along with diet and brain exercises. There have been some very positive changes, but with regards to this anger issue, it has been very tough. I will say that my son has a problem that is leaps and bounds worse than those of my friend's kids....who are medicated.

I will say that I have now realized that I was wrong to be anti medication. I believe it has its place.....for a very small minority who really need it. Yes, there are drawbacks and side effects, but if it prevents them from hurting themselves or others in a major way (a way that can be life altering or life ending), then there is an absolute need.

My son has recently been suspended from his dream school. He may even be expelled. I still won't give him meds. I'll probably homeschool him if they expel him. I will try my best to postpone the meds for as long as possible, but I do think there's a chance that eventually, he will need it so that he can lead an independent life as part of society.

The unfortunate thing is that no parent should have to make these choices. It absolutely sucks that we have to come face to face with our beliefs and to realize that it doesn't matter what we believe when it comes to keeping our kids safe, happy and healthy. Sometimes we have to throw our beliefs out the effing window because we love our kids enough to just do what is right for them at that time. And now, I refuse to judge what others do with their kids. No matter what I think, I'm not in their shoes so I won't judge them. My heart goes out to those parents who give meds and struggle to do so. Of course there are those parents who just do it to make their lives easier and they trust doctors implicitly, without doing their own research. But as a whole, I think most parents struggle with this decision and I have nothing but compassion for them and their kids.

you realise we were never talking about actual cats and dogs right?
Cats=AS
Dogs=NT