psych meds for kids: my concerns

Hello,

I need your advice and wisdom.

This post isn't intended to give the
impression that meds are
ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
Let's start with the guess that meds are
somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
deserving of a critical examination.

Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
disorders, and the doctors wanted to give
him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
good idea to treat with meds, and when to
refuse.

If the child were diagnosed with, say, a knee
problem or stomach problem, I wouldn't have
any delay in giving him the medicine. But
with meds for cognitive and emotional problems,
we're talking about tweaking the brain
chemistry.

For one thing, no one has made long-term studies
of many of these meds. We don't know what's
going to happen 30 years from now with someone
who takes certain meds.

The question is stickier when the patient is a
kid. I can decide for myself, and live with
the consequences. But I must also decide for
my kids -- and *they* live with the consequences.

Also, a child's brain is developing in a way
that an adult's brain isn't. Obviously, it
might be more susceptible to mis-tweaking.

Further: Some psych meds are known to have
sexual side effects. What does this mean for
someone who is in puberty while taking such
meds? Are we unwittingly causing some ugly
problems for the future?

I'm *NOT* arguing against the use of meds. I'm
saying that I want to be very cautious.

The best answer to this question I have found
so far is: You have to judge. Is the person
better off with the hazards of the meds, or
with the hazards of the disorders?
But that still leaves a lot of unknowns.

If any of you has some wisdom, I would gladly
read it.

Thank you very much,

Ted Shoemaker

"Ted Shoemaker" wrote
Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
disorders, and the doctors wanted to give
him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
good idea to treat with meds, and when to
refuse.

I suggest first looking at the basis of the diagnosis, and try to
determine the accuracy of it for yourself. Usually those diagnoses
are completely subjective judgment calls based on reading a 2-page
list of guidelines and collecting some limited 2nd-hand info. You can
read those guidelines yourself, and you know your kid better than
anyone.

Second, look at the actual evidence that the meds are safe and
effective. Some of the drugs have never been tested on kids, and
most only appear to be only marginally effective in adults.

Third, you have to assess what isn't known. There you are on your
own, as someone else's guess may be no better than your own.

"Roger Schlafly" alt.support.attn-deficit :

"Ted Shoemaker" wrote
Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
disorders, and the doctors wanted to give
him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
good idea to treat with meds, and when to
refuse.

I suggest first looking at the basis of the diagnosis, and try to
determine the accuracy of it for yourself. Usually those diagnoses
are completely subjective judgment calls based on reading a 2-page
list of guidelines and collecting some limited 2nd-hand info. You can
read those guidelines yourself, and you know your kid better than
anyone.

Second, look at the actual evidence that the meds are safe and
effective. Some of the drugs have never been tested on kids, and
most only appear to be only marginally effective in adults.

Third, you have to assess what isn't known. There you are on your
own, as someone else's guess may be no better than your own.



My dx at the age of 14 was so far off.. my problem was PLMD but I was dx with bipolar and given meds
that make plmd worse.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 17:27:08 -0400, Ted Shoemaker wrote
(in message ) :


For one thing, no one has made long-term studies
of many of these meds. We don't know what's
going to happen 30 years from now with someone
who takes certain meds.

hells bells i took ritalin and dexedrine back in 1969 what do you want to
know?



--
Nessa
http://www.nessa.info

No trumpets sound when the important decisions of our life are made. Destiny
is made known silently. -- Agnes DeMille

On 18 Sep 2003 14:27:08 -0700, (Ted Shoemaker)
wrote:

Hello,

I need your advice and wisdom.

This post isn't intended to give the
impression that meds are
ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
Let's start with the guess that meds are
somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
deserving of a critical examination.

Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
disorders,

That narrows it down a bit but not much.

and the doctors wanted to give
him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
good idea to treat with meds, and when to
refuse.

If the child were diagnosed with, say, a knee
problem or stomach problem, I wouldn't have
any delay in giving him the medicine. But
with meds for cognitive and emotional problems,
we're talking about tweaking the brain
chemistry.

You also included neuro problems. What type of neuro work up has been
done?


For one thing, no one has made long-term studies
of many of these meds. We don't know what's
going to happen 30 years from now with someone
who takes certain meds.

As a blanket statement, that's not true. Some meds have been
researched better than others.


The question is stickier when the patient is a
kid. I can decide for myself, and live with
the consequences. But I must also decide for
my kids -- and *they* live with the consequences.

One thing to factor in is the consequences of not taking the medicine.
I think that this is often a factor neglected in the process.


Also, a child's brain is developing in a way
that an adult's brain isn't. Obviously, it
might be more susceptible to mis-tweaking.

Further: Some psych meds are known to have
sexual side effects. What does this mean for
someone who is in puberty while taking such
meds? Are we unwittingly causing some ugly
problems for the future?

I've treated more than a few adolescents who have had sexual side
effects. For some reason, they don't like discussing it with their
physician. Switching meds usually eliminates those side effects.


I'm *NOT* arguing against the use of meds. I'm
saying that I want to be very cautious.

The best answer to this question I have found
so far is: You have to judge. Is the person
better off with the hazards of the meds, or
with the hazards of the disorders?
But that still leaves a lot of unknowns.

aint that the truth?


If any of you has some wisdom, I would gladly
read it.

Thank you very much,

Ted Shoemaker

Roger Schlafly uttered his usual blather:

"Ted Shoemaker" wrote
Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
disorders, and the doctors wanted to give
him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
good idea to treat with meds, and when to
refuse.

I suggest first looking at the basis of the diagnosis, and try to
determine the accuracy of it for yourself. Usually those diagnoses
are completely subjective judgment calls based on reading a 2-page
list of guidelines and collecting some limited 2nd-hand info. You can
read those guidelines yourself, and you know your kid better than
anyone.

Of course, you are, as usual, idly speculating. At least try to get your
specualation into first gear.

Proper diagnosis is made by examining behavior in two or more settings. A
clinician would review the parents and school reports and watch the child in
their office to ascertain whether those reports jive with their own
observations.

Second, look at the actual evidence that the meds are safe and
effective. Some of the drugs have never been tested on kids, and
most only appear to be only marginally effective in adults.

Again, more idle speculation and half-truths. Can you cite real evidence of
long term harmful effects of methylphenidate treatment? The recent articles
cearly show the long term harmful effects of non-treatment.

Third, you have to assess what isn't known.

Nah, he can read your posts and find out what is not known.

There you are on your
own, as someone else's guess may be no better than your own.

Wrong.

"Ted Shoemaker" wrote in message
om...
Hello,

I need your advice and wisdom.

This post isn't intended to give the
impression that meds are
ALWAYS GOOD or ALWAYS BAD.
Let's start with the guess that meds are
somewhere in between: both good and bad, and
deserving of a critical examination.

I disagree with your premise entirely. Medications are neither good or bad,
but useful or non-useful.

Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
disorders, and the doctors wanted to give
him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
good idea to treat with meds, and when to
refuse.

If you went to a professional for diagnosis, why do you question their
recommendations. Forget about going in the first place.

If the child were diagnosed with, say, a knee
problem or stomach problem, I wouldn't have
any delay in giving him the medicine. But
with meds for cognitive and emotional problems,
we're talking about tweaking the brain
chemistry.

With ALL meds you are tweaking body chemistry.

For one thing, no one has made long-term studies
of many of these meds. We don't know what's
going to happen 30 years from now with someone
who takes certain meds.

My son is half-way there. Let's see...he is in a prestigious school of art
and desgn on full scholarship and doing well, works part time as a junior
project manager for a well known publisher (after starting as a gopher just
three years ago) earns a respectable salary even though he is part-time,
gets several very responsible assignments a month, pays his own way when he
travels, etc., ...hmmm...in another 15 years he may want to retire...and be
able to do so....

The question is stickier when the patient is a
kid. I can decide for myself, and live with
the consequences. But I must also decide for
my kids -- and *they* live with the consequences.

Yes, they live with the consequences. That is why proper treatment is so
important. Recent studues show that proper treatment for ADHD, for example,
reduces the threat of drug abuse by a 6:1 factor. Not bad in my book.

Also, a child's brain is developing in a way
that an adult's brain isn't. Obviously, it
might be more susceptible to mis-tweaking.

Not necessarily. Ask and expert for the correct answer.

Further: Some psych meds are known to have
sexual side effects. What does this mean for
someone who is in puberty while taking such
meds? Are we unwittingly causing some ugly
problems for the future?

Or prevent such problems for the future.

I'm *NOT* arguing against the use of meds. I'm
saying that I want to be very cautious.

Caution is good. Over-caution my not be.

The best answer to this question I have found
so far is: You have to judge. Is the person
better off with the hazards of the meds, or
with the hazards of the disorders?
But that still leaves a lot of unknowns.

First, determine if the "hazards of the meds" are real hazards. Many are
urban legends.

If any of you has some wisdom, I would gladly
read it.

You ask for wisdom, and Roger answered. Chuckle.

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:12:54 GMT, "Roger Schlafly"
wrote:

"Ted Shoemaker" wrote
Consider a child who is diagnosed with a
cluster of neurological and/or psychiatric
disorders, and the doctors wanted to give
him/her some meds. I don't know when it's a
good idea to treat with meds, and when to
refuse.

I suggest first looking at the basis of the diagnosis, and try to
determine the accuracy of it for yourself. Usually those diagnoses
are completely subjective judgment calls based on reading a 2-page
list of guidelines and collecting some limited 2nd-hand info. You can
read those guidelines yourself, and you know your kid better than
anyone.

Roger is a complete moron who claims to be a mathematician yet
demonstrates a laughably poor grasp of simple concepts of basic logic.
He has no experience whatsoever in the diagnosis and treatment of
neuropsychiatric disorders in children. He is simply a parrot for his
mother, a loudmouth know-it-all, yet at least his mother can give you
an arrogant grin and reply to challenges to her bizarre ideas with a
vacuous explanation that sounds, on the surface, reasonable, whereas
Roger simply "answers" such challenges on the Usenet by either subtly
changing what he said, saying things by inference only so he can deny
he meant what you conclude he meant, or by disappearing from the
thread entirely.

Second, look at the actual evidence that the meds are safe and
effective. Some of the drugs have never been tested on kids, and
most only appear to be only marginally effective in adults.

Most? Give some examples of drugs that are only marginally effective
in adults, with citations. It should be easy, if, as you say, most
psychoactive drugs fall into this category.

PF

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 05:03:42 GMT, (PF Riley)
wrote:

complete moron


laughably

simply a parrot

a loudmouth

know-it-all,

arrogant grin

bizarre ideas


vacuous explanation


hmmm

"PF Riley" wrote
[usual ad hominem attack snipped]
Second, look at the actual evidence that the meds are safe and
effective. Some of the drugs have never been tested on kids, and
most only appear to be only marginally effective in adults.
Most? Give some examples of drugs that are only marginally effective
in adults, with citations. ...

Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft. Even under studies that were cooked to favor
the drugs, they only performed marginally better than placebos.
Eg, see this study from last year.
http://www.journals.apa.org/preventi...e0050023a.html