why are we medicating so many of our children?

Post Reply New Topic

This is in relation to Australia. Without knowing where you are from, I cannot direc tyou to specific sources. Within Australia the government publishes statistics every year on what type of prescriptions go to which age group and the like, who gets what services, including ECT and the like. A search of the Australian government health deparment website would find the stats.

As for Latotomony, well your states own mental health legislation will explain all of that to you. There was an article recently in Australia in which a psychaitrist was complaining that it was discriminatory not to allow people in one state, NSW, not to be able to have psychosurgery, and that since all other states have re bought it back in again they should too.

Potatoes are actually recommended in my Diabetes clinic. It is a complex carbohydrate that will digest slowly and is nutritious (its known best for its potassium; there is more potassium than a banana; better put: 1/2 potatoe=1banana). Now it is how they are prepared that there comes a problem. Fried potatoe? tsk tsk tsk; unless you can count the calorie intake. Mashed potatoe? Better, but I hope I don't see a whole stick of butter in there! Alot of gravy is low calorie. Baked potatoe? Good choice, enjoy your sour cream; just don't make things too calorie-heavy with toppings.

4 servings of mashed potatoes is probably not a huge instant sugar boost. Still enough to be worried. Especially with the bread making things complicated.

I am in the states, which it doesn't matter. Most everything is accessible through the internet, if you could please cite your sources, that would be great. I am curious about this information and would like more. Thanks.

The fact that your friend is eating four extra servings of food is his fault, yes. However, the fact that he's eating starchy foods like potatoes and bread, instead of having extra servings of, say, bacon or fatty hamburger, is the fault of the medical establishment, which has brainwashed people like him into avoiding fats, and especially animal fats. For him, pigging out on animal fats that don't increase blood sugar would be better than pigging out on the starchy foods he's eating.


Here's a perfect example. In fact, for a diabetic, having the butter without the mashed potatoes would be much better than having the mashed potatoes without the butter, since butter doesn't increase blood sugar and potatoes do. However, the medical establishment, in this case the diabetes clinic, is pounding in the one size fits all "fat is bad" mantra, instead of recognizing that people with different medical issues may need different dietary solutions.

Getting back to psychiatry, the same mantra also exacerbates depression, especially since the omega 3 fatty acids that the modern diet is deficient in are mostly found in animal fats, which are particularly reviled by modern medicine. Fortunately psychosis is affected by different balance of essential fatty acids, so current dietary recommendations haven't resulted in a major problem there.

The end-goal is to lose weight. So the butter being fat and the potatoes being sugar is now less important. It is the calorie intake, and sticking to your assigned daily goal. Butter now has 9 calories/gram and Carbohydrates has 4 calories/gram. When thought of that way, it is much easier to get less calories by reducing the fat.

By losing the weight (for the overweight diabetics). Their is less of you for your pancreas to act upon. Less stress on your pancreas and it will last longer. However if you have no more beta-cells in your pancreas; that is a whole other ballpark.
The sugars are fine, as long as you can estimate your insulin injection after/before.

Interesting thread that's gone into many directions...

I've been a nurse for over 20 years and have never met a doctor who did not first give sound diet advice to any diabetic or heart patient at every visit. The simple fact is that yes diet and excercise could not only eliminate the need for meds in some of these patients (could) but also dramatically improve their lives and their future outlooks. They would not have to worry about amputations and all sort of other problems that are a direct bi product of the diabetes itself but if diet advice alone does not work (you cannot force anyone to follow doc. advice) then the use of medication does become needed. I'm reminded of the gal who lives down our street who's diabetes is wayyyy out of control. I've offered to take her to work out and also to help with her diet.. her reaction was "are we still talking about my diabeties" she doesn't see the her weight or diet in any way affects the diabetes dispite insistance from her doctor that she change eating habits or he will drop her as a patient... in her case apparently the mt dew is just way too important.

anyway... psyciatric illness is very similar I think the interesting thing is that they aren't as "obvious" and there isn't a blood test you can give that says yup you've got bi polar take this twice a day and see me in two months.. so the doctor must then rely on the input from the family and the patient if they're old enough and carefully listening to the symptoms, behaviors, ect. they try their best to find the right diagnosis and then the right medication (if needed) to fit that diagnosis for that particular patient.

Because there are so many medications in different catagories sometimes it's a matter of trial and error to find the one that will work the best and then a matter of dose adjustments to find the right one.

course there are always some terrible doctors you can find them anywhere but you can also find some really superb doc's, psychiatrist ect. who yes would give their children the same medications if it was needed and who also will in most cases suggest a handful of things not just medications.

My son has been on risperdal since the age of 3 the reason for the med was his agression. A parent has to make a choice based on the protection of their child and the other people around that child for safty reasons.. for us it was his 1 yr old sister. ..(in our case somthing amazing took place... not only did he stop abusing the baby but he also came out of the autistic world and into ours. he started to answer and to interact, he started to play with toys and to talk) The amt of med was tiny but the benifit was huge in his case.....

He also was given adderral for ADHD at the age of 5. In this case we did not simply weight the pro's and con's we spoke to my cousin who as a child was not medicated for his ADHD. He was finally medicated in the 9th grade. What he said surprised me in that he wished they had given him meds earlier. Prior to medication he was failing in most classes and had zero friends (impulse related) but after medication he was top of his class and began finding that friends were great to have. Once we did give ours this med he learned the alphabet in 1 day where prior to meds he was not able to get past D.

I dont think medication is right for every child or every adult for that matter but i do think it's a personal choice that's made between a doctor and the parents for the better of the child. This same child can choose for themselves when they are old enough and can also voice any issues they are having as a result of the meds as they get older. We that medicate dont love our children any less than the ones who dont.

There are no quick fixes not even with medications so the idea that parents drug their kids for an easy fix is rediculous and yes insulting to any one of us who has medicated our children because nothing was fixed but perhaps life for the child and the family was dramatically improved because of it. Also as a side note altho you may find some docs who would drug them to drewling this is NOT the case with most:)

For those able to manage without medication or where other therapies have worked this is fantastic! I do think it's just important for everyone to remember there are no 2 kids who are the same and what works for one may not for another.

~~~ you guys are so funny with the cats and dogs lol
~~~ tracker great example with the car example

There are plenty of diabetics that are not fat, you know. Diabetes and obesity, while related, are not the same problem.

yes i do realize this in fact I would say the majority with type 2 are not overweight! My point was that altho diet is stressed and could in a lot of cases reduce or eliminate the need for meds there is often non compliance in which case the meds become needed to protect these same patients from things like ketoacidosis that could kill them

In her particular case weight loss was not the end-goal but because of her weight the body has many more fat cells than muscle cells and the overall effectiveness of absorbing glucose into cells is decreased, resulting in high circulating glucose blood levels. If the fat cells themselves are replaced by muscle cells the reverse is true and the glucose is more easily absorbed. Losing weight could also potentially reverse her diabetic neuropathy. Thing is I could talk to her for hours about the mt. dew and the chocolate and the processed high carbohydrate foods she's eating but it falls on deaf ears... so as I said above in some cases (her's is just one) medication becomes needed

oops and now i just realized that post wasn't ment for me but since i typed it out i'll hit submit anyway

hehe <3

Being in Australia I cannot coment on the diabetes issues that occur in the US, but I can say that you would struggle to find anyone with type 2 diabetes in Australia who is not overweight. And sure I know of doctors who give plenty of diet advice, but advice is not enough. People need help and support to make full life style changes and that is not going to happen in a 15 minute consultation with a doctor. Telling people what they should doing is not looking at why they do what they do, supporting them to make changes that are achievable to them, etc. At my request my GP recently referred me to a dietition. With her help I am learning to find ways that I can change my diet that is acheivable for me, that does not simply say do not do this, stop eating every single food you enjoy, etc. The fact is many many people can make very small changes that will help them to be more healthy. I am beginning to take more short walks, I am with the help of a volunteer going to the local pool at a time when it is totally empty and I can have a lane to myself and to swim. Simply telling me to exercise and telling me I should do this or do that was not going to help me. I should add that while I am overweight I am also incredibly healthy and it is more important for me to be healthy at any weight than to be thin. There are thin people out there who are incredibly unhealthy. But with help and advice I am changin my lifestyle in ways that make sense to me and are achieveable. I did not need any lecture given in the guise of advice. I know what I should do, but it is not that simple. I should also add that at the same time I am getting help to cook meals and psychological support/treatment to deal with some of my issues associated with food.

We had a person on one eposide of Australia's Biggest Loser who was so overweight and that unhealthy that they were one of the worst diabetics ever seen in the country and also had a serious heart condition. They were not allowed to do any exercise other than walking, that was at a moderate pace and that was limited. But by being involved with the show, he lost so much weight and became so fit that within 3 months he was no longer diabetic at all, by 6 months he was so healthy you would never have known that he had ever had diabetes and his heart was also in much better shape. He was now able to do other exercise, etc, etc. The point is type 2 diabetes can be cured, even once they are on insulin, etc. BUT people do need help and support to do that and much of what doctors offer is advice which comes across more as lectures than advice. It would be interesting to know what happened to him after the show ended, but one can only hope that he did continue on the path that he was on, once that help and support was gone.

The same can be said for mental illnesses. We often do not look at anything other than a pill fix it and the fact is there are many and varied ways to help people, but they require work and people have to put in that work. It is an individual decision but people need to be given the full options for themselves and unforunately they are not. It is also much more cost effective to help people to make real lifestyle changes than to have them on medication for life.

This is fantastic!! I actually worked for a nurse practitioner years ago who would do just that it's too bad it's not the standard! Also is a shame that it's not covered by some insurance companies because it makes the most logical sense!! Swimming also fantastic advice as it's one of the things people can do that puts very little stress on the joints.. this was the excercise i had talked about with my friend.. they have water aerobics here at the local Y. Walking also great cause it's freeeee~~~ weeeee.

Some of the biggest loosers over here also were diabetic and now diabeties free it's kindof amazing when you watch that show and the dramatic life change that takes place for them isn't it.... one guy on the last season had a death date in the next few years but after the show had pushed it back by 20 years.. soo cool. I also relate to the overweight but healthy i just pointed that same thing out to my mother on her last visit!! ! The world would be boring if there were nothing but barbies walking around


I can't really agree here.. there are some that truely do require medication...(bi polar, schitzophrenia, depression as examples) no amt of talking it out or diet changes will equalize chemical imbalances in the brain unfortunately. I do think as an adjunct to medication things like therapy should be added when possible. With our son a program was started that included a behavioralist and your right it was and remains very hard work that is mentally and physically exhausting. Also it's not somthing that is available to most families or somthing most could afford which is sad!! (ours was a program thru the state of michigan and he only qualified because of his extreme agression)..

anyway just my 2 cents... WTG for you tho!! ! it's not easy to make huge changes but your on the right track and it truely is baby steps you know you take one then another eventually you will get there!! also if you can find someone else to do it along with you it helps sooo much because you can motivate each other.. maybe you dont say 'oh i'll go tomorrow' cause you know someone is relying on you to be there

I certainly agree with this part. Diabetes can be treated with diet, but most people do need support to make dietary changes. I still think it's a better solution than drug dependency, and probably not more expensive overall. Plus, of course, there does need to be some constructive underlying change that is being supported - moral support without making changes isn't very useful.


To the contrary, depression at least is significantly affected by diet. For example, one study tracking 5689 people from birth to the age of 31 showed that "among females the risk of developing depression increased up to 2.6-fold (95%CI 1.4–5.1) among rare fish eaters when compared with regular eaters", for example (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2004.02.002). I suspect diet also affects bipolar and schizophrenia as well; we just don't know all the details yet.

In regards to insurance one thing I can say that I like is that the Australian government is finally funding such things are dieticians under our public health systems for those who need it and on a referral from a GP. Those with type 2 diabetes can get deitician and also exercise physioligists, as well as some group programs, etc. Those with other chronic conditions like myself can get up to 5 sessions per calander year, pathetic, but it is a step in the right direction.

I would hate to dissapoint you in relation to mental illness, but there is not, never has been and nor will there ever be ANY chemical imbalances in the brain. It was something that was dreamed up by drug companies and it never ceases to amaze me how much the community buys it. Antipsycotics do not have and nor will they ever have any antipsychotic properties in them. At most they offer sympomatic relief, by reducing the intensity of the hallucations, etc. Psychosis is something that comes and goes in phases and will naturally pass in about 4-6 without intervention and in the same period of time with intervention. For those that are acutely distressed it can help to reduce to the intensity of the symptoms, but it cannot stop them. People do not relapse when going off medications they suffer withdrawl effects and these are different to the symptoms of the illness itself. They will not suffer withdrawl effects if they are tapered off them at incredibly low rates, but even when people are tapered that does not happen. No you cannot talk someone out of a psychosis but given time it will abate, and people rarely if ever have a psychosis that does not have some meaning to them. There is some amazing work being done in Western Lapland in Finland in which only 30% of people are ever placed on antipsychotics, less than 15% are on them for more than a year and they are doing some very creative open diagoloue therapies, along with social and vocational rehabiliation and the like. They have recovery rates that devy anything anywhere else and the lowest relapse rates around. The World Health Organisation has also found that those countries that have people maintained on medication have lower rates of recovery and higher rates of disability than in those that do not. The National Institute of Mental Health, American Psychiatric Assocation and the like will all admit that there is NO chemical imbalance in the brain.

I question the real role of a behaviourist. It is all well and fine to say that behaviour needs to change, but unless you look at the underlying cause then nothing can change. I do not and nor will I ever believe that people are violent just for the sake of being voilent, that they have some chemical in their brains that makes them voilent and the like. It is in regards to children with Autism usually the result of frustration coming from sensory and communication issues, but we look at controlling the behaviours, rather than eliminating the cause.

I also take issue with the idea presented by some that children on medication can make friends. A true friend is one who accepts you for who you are, warts and all, not one that insists on you being in a zoombie state for a person to be around. That is not to say that all children on medication are in a zoombie state, in fact most are not, but the fact is a true friend would like them for who they are, as they are naturally and yet the school yard is based on a child having to meet a specific norm and when they meet that norm and are more acceptable to peers, we then call that a success, when in fact we should be educationing all children to accommodate difference and all schoools to accommodate difference. Accepting voilence is not on, but allowing a child to be different and to learn in different ways is important. Not all children learn by sitting at desks and filling in worksheets and nor does the whole world want to work at desks all day. Why are we needing to change the underlying nature of people just ot make them more socially acceptable.

I am not saying medication is wrong, just that we really do need to question what it is that we are expecting this medication to do, and why we so believe what pharmacuetical companies tell us as pure marketing.

The role of the behavioralist is to look at which behaviors are inhibiting the childs ability to function within their surroundings and come up with constructive idea's to modify that behavior.. for instance our son beating the hell out of his little sister or us isn't acceptable and the idea was not to ignore the underlying issues he might be experiencing... brushing and joint compressions was and remains part of his behavior plan to address alot of the sensory issues as well as a daily sensory diet..(games like the hotdog blanket bit, swings, trampoline) then actual behavior interventions based on each type of behavior that isn't acceptable like refusal to do homework, physical aggression toward others or self, Surprisingly behavior therapists in this case a psycologist isn't about some crazy method of changing a child lol it's more or less the same parenting styles anyone might use but just honed in and specific to this particular child and the behaviors that are seen. Maybe too it's important to mention they work in conjunction with an OT, PT if needed, SLP and then they have actualy workers that come to the home and follow the plan along with the family.


interesting.. i'd love to see the studies but it really doesn't matter i never said any med will stop anything they do however help to balance these imbalances (that we disagree on lol) basically my point is that they help sometimes to elleviate the different things.. examples... my mother after the death of her boyfriend and a diagnosis of MS was dealing with depression/stress you can imagine but it wasn't untill she went on prozac that she started to be able to deal with the stress.. it did not and could not ever change the actual situation she was experiencing but in her own words "the stress was still there but it didn't matter as much" within 20 minutes of taking her pill she still had the stress but it wasn't so overwhelming that she felt it was caving in on her. Now your right she could have continued in the state where it was overwhelming but if there was somthing able to eliviate that feeling why wouldn't she take it. cooincidentaly it wasn't somthing for "life" as you said before she took the meds for about 6 months it seems at which time she weaned off and was fine. ex husband who was a prison guard, father to an autistic child, married to me lol jk... anyway i believe probably bi polar but anyway he was given zoloft to deal with his imbalance at the time and it took him from being a daily verbally abusive jerk who would constantly make comments that everything sucked to a man who was joyful and able to function really well (it also at the time saved our marriage) each time he was on it was simply when these episodes would arise and would last about 4 months at which time he'd again go off and be fine for months somtimes years.

my point is that your absolutely right no pill will cure anything, fix a problem your dealing with or illminate the need for other interventions but if the meds help a person to function in the meantime then i'm not really sure where the harm is??? What happens when a bi polar patient goes into a mania and decides to kill themselves ( a real issue with my ex's nephew) well the meds keep him from considering this and they keep him on an even keel. What happens if a scizophrenic has hallucinations during this 4 week period you talk about that tells him to kill his sister? should he wait it out and hope that no harm is done in the meantime..... should he be locked up in a nut house because he's talking to people who arn't there about doing real harm to someone?...should he seek out a magic diet or talk to someone (keeping in mind that he's paranoid this person is against him bla bla you get my point.. so there is in a lot of cases very real benifit for medication .. it does not mean it FIXES anything!!. afterall they're pills not fairy dust i sure would like some fairy dust tho:)


this you took out of context... i suppose you'd have to understand the impulse control issues a person with severe ADHD has and the fact that kids are not stupid they see the impact the impulsivity has , they see another student get hit by you or a teacher, they see you fly off the handle for what appears to be no reason bla bla anyway .... once on the ADHD meds you have better control of those impulses and thus the kids are no longer afraid of you... maybe that makes more sense.. the kids would have liked him all along if he had any kind of control over impulses but he didn't untill he was on medication.. he also wasn't able to concentrate long enough to complete an assignment or test, learn the info being given to him and once meds were given again all this was under control and he was able to accel (he had the potential within him the entire time) he just had no control over it. He wasn't a bad kid causing problem he simply had absolutely no control over it. The meds did not fix his ADHD but it did allow him to have more control over himself and his actions and in the long run made a huge positive impact on his life. So yes being on the meds allowed this particular child to have friends because without them the kids were afraid of him and why wouldn't they be he was a loose cannon.. the suggestion that the other children should understand that he has problems and allow him to attack them and still like him is kinda silly dont you think?



would be interesting to see if this study included the fact that genetics hold a higher key to understanding depression than diets or if it was exclusive to one population as compared to another.. I do know that dopamine as well as addrenalin and endorphines can give a person euphoria and help with depression:)...I do think there are so many things that aren't understood and details that are often overlooked. Perhaps preservatives and processed foods....amt of sunlight.. dyes...so many things to consider but in the end it all comes down to a persons choice to either take that medication that may help them through or try that diet that might also help them.. again just a choice made between a doctor and a patient and I honestly dont think i'd judge someone who doesn't want the pills as i also wouldn't judge someone who wanted to them:) I would just be happy for the positive impacts either person was seeing in their life or in the life of their child.

That paper addresses diet, providing a relative risk of 2.6 for not eating fish, a dietary factor. However, other papers address genetics and heritability. From what I've found, they actually indicate that genetics, while possibly a factor, is less important than diet. The relative risk of depression for first order relatives "is around 2 to 3" (http://depressiongenetics.stanford.edu/ ... ession.pdf), about the same as for the single dietary factor of eating fish. Since first order relatives share environmental factors as well as genetic factors, that indicates that genetics is actually less important than diet with respect to depression.

Now I do agree that the symptoms of depression can often be treated with SSRIs, but I'd note that SSRIs do have side effects - for example, a statistically significant increase in suicidal tendencies with Paxil. The risks are even higher and the benefits lower with other psychiatric drugs. I also agree with the concerns of other posters that the drugs may change the personality enough in some cases that it's really not the same person. Psychiatric drugs are two edged swords.

Psychiatric drugs are a two edge sword, but more so are the assumptions that they will actually work. The fact is it took prozac 20 years and more than a billion people in trails to finally get ONE study of over 500 people, of 6 weeks duration in which those on the drug actually did better than those of placebo.

Sure there are people that do well on med's and we are great at showcasing those cases, but what about those that do not. The other reality is that the newest antidepressents are not based on serotonin at all, but rather melatonin, How do you account for the theory that it is serotonin that is low when they no longer advertise them as the patents are over and now they are advertising melatonin that have nothing at all to do with serotonin.

It took me 10 different anti depressents before anyone of them made the slightest difference to me. Does that mean that I am somehow defective, etc. Because it is very much made out to be that way. That I did something wrong, because the medication would not work for me. I know people who have been on every single antipsychotic at the most excessive doses and combinations of them all, and they have not gained anything at all from any of them.

What annoys me the most is that these drugs are made out to be lifestyle drugs and people seem to think they go through excessive testing to be placed on the market. Not at all. All they have to do to be approved by the US FDA is to provide ONE study that shows it is more effective than placebo and does not matter how long it takes them to produce that study!! ! If you take a antiboitic it will if given the right drug treat a bacterial infection. If you take viagra it will give you an erection. The same cannot be said for ANY psychotropic medication. IT MAY help and it MAY NOT help as well. And it is not the person that causes that to happen it is just pure luck. Any decent research shows that only about 30% of people are actually assisted by these medications. That does not mean they are wrong, should not be used, etc. I am incredibly grateful for the antidepressent that I found to assist me, but the fact is it took years and a bloody difficult time to find one. The other reality is that in many cases the side effects are so severe as to defeat the purpose of being on the medication. The only person who can know if a medication is worth taking is the person actually on it. If the medications are as brilliant as they are made out in the media then people would keep taking them without any issues at all. Believe it or not people do not choose to be in highly distressed states. They help some people and that is great for those people, but do not demonise those for whom they do not help. Chemotherapy for cancer helps some people and not others. We do not blame those for whom the drugs do not work for it not working, we just say, sorry, nothing we can do. But when it comes to psychotropic drugs, that have much less support behind them other than bloody brillinat PR campaigns, we blame the people for not taking the medication's as prescribed, etc. My two closest friends both have schizophrenia. One has thrived on medication and the other has gained nothing from it at all, and has in spite of all the obstacles found other ways to live with the condition and to hold down a job and the like. They both have the utmost respect for the position that the other is in. They both respect that what worked for them is not the answer for the other and vice versa. Respect those who choose not to take med's as much as you expect people to respect your choice to choose to take them.

This page can give you study after study to show that people can and do recover from schizophrenia without medication, infact the FIRST ever study conducted over the long term found that those who were never medicated had better rates of recovery and lower rates of relapse.
http://www.madinamerica.com/madinameric ... renia.html

This is simply the easist way to post links to research for you. There is no law against sitting in medical school libraries and reading all the medical journals that do exist, and I for one do actually do that with my time. Yes, I am a strange person, it is what puts me on the spectrum!!

The other reality that you do not want to hear is that 99% of patients with schizophrenia were medicated for over 15 years before ANY began to be released into the community. It is not and never will be medication that allowed them to be released and every single medical journal in the world can tell you that. It was a change in government funding that caused the relasee in the US. It was when the federal government took responsibility for medicaid, nursing homes and SSDI, that allowed these people to be released. They were on the whole not released to the community, over half were placed straight into federally funded nursing homes, making them them the federal governments problem and not the states. The others could be made a problem of the federal government by disability payments, drugs the federal government would pay for and the like. When they can become someone else's problem then anything is possible!! ! But hey, the drug companies made a fortune out of it, so how bad can it be. Some people became millionaires and others simply went from one type of istitution to the next!! !