Ritalen

[Buffy]

Our children will not be medicated, unless they choose that as adults. That's something we both agree on, and I see no reason to change it. I don't understand parents, or teachers, that think it's ok to medicate kids into submission. I've heard "oh, but you don't know my kids" so many times, and you're right - I don't. I knw mine. And whatever they are, or however they behave, it's up to ME, as a responsible parent, to find ways to direct their energy in constructive ways. End of story.

All I can say is: amen. Being a parent is the hardest thing in the world. ADD is a really tough call. On the other hand, I've got a close friend with a kid who is full-blown bipolar, and without drugs, this kid--and my friend--might not even be alive today. I have strong suspicions that our medical system is all to ready to overmedicate, but at the same time, you have to be very careful before you decide whether *your* kid needs it or not.

 

No easy answers here at all.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

Oh, and Fish... try ditching soccer and going for track. That's a fairly individual sport, so the rest of the team won't suffer if he spaces off. Or get him a skateboard.

Individual sports are horridly underated (OpenMind: you gonna jump in here?). ADD or not, lots of kids (I was one of em) just don't do well in team sports or other situations which depend heavily on coordinated behavior. I personally was turned off by the hierarchy of team "sports" (okay, mine was cheerleading), and whether its not being satisfied being an "athletic supporter" or actually being ridiculed for not being able to keep up, you're better off track, tennis, skateboarding, whatever. The ability to practice concentration and more importantly getting some satisfaction out of accomplishing something is invaluable to any kid.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Aki]

Do not use Ritalin, it's bad for you. I know the FDA thinks it's good, but really it's bad for your body. The FDA is just covering all the negative results so people would buy it, so they could make more money.

[Buffy]

... The FDA is just covering all the negative results so people would buy it, so they could make more money.

Remember you're tarring both the Clinton and Bush administrations on this one, and it may not even be very valid. Not sure, but I think Ritalin is way past its patent date, so no one has much of a financial interest in it. Prolly amazing its even being produced *without* pressure from the FDA and the medical community, since there's "no money in it" according to the conventional wisdom of drug manufacturers and investment analysts...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Queso]

The most widely used ritilin drug is now Aderol...which i don't know what the difference is.

[Biochemist]

He truly is an amazing man, and his brain works in such a unique way that I'd be insane to mess with it.

Nothing is more pleasant to read than praise for a spouse. Love for kids come close.

 

On the use of psychotropics generally, it is alwasy useful to remember that the subjective view of the patient/user is pretty important in the assesment of "value" of a treatment.

 

(Full disclosure: my original degree was a Doctor of Pharmacy.)

 

Patients taking a particular medication will have opposite preferences for a therapeutic endpoint. For example, on methylphenidate (Ritalin), some folks will get more focused and be thrilled. Others will get more focused and be despondent. It is reasonable to regard BOTH of those responses as NORMAL.

 

This is a particularly issue with Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) like Prozac. Folks that stay on Prozac (for example) may report disappointment that it "takes away all of the highs and lows" they used to experience. Others will report that they are elated because it "takes away all of the highs and lows" that they couldn't handle. The preference of the patient is probably as important as the pharmacologic effect of the medication.

 

Hang in IrishEyes. I suspect you do know your kids. And I suspect your husband is a lucky guy.

[IrishEyes]

Nothing is more pleasant to read than praise for a spouse. Love for kids come close...

Hang in IrishEyes. I suspect you do know your kids. And I suspect your husband is a lucky guy.

Not knowing you, you say some incredibly nice things. Thanks!

Also, thanks for the view from the other side of the drug counter. And I can see what you mean about the results being subjective. It's also a bit funny that what one person considers good about them, might not be the same as what another considers to be good, as in my hubby and his parents...

 

All a bit confusing, and up to the parents and the individuals. But I just feel very strongly that medicating a child should be the absolute last resort. If an adult chooses that, they are making a (hopefully) well thought out and informed decision. Children are not capable of making those decisions, and should only have medications forced upon them if there is no other way. Convenience of the parent, or convenience of a teacher are very poor reasons to force a child into drug use, imho.

[Tormod]

Children are not capable of making those decisions, and should only have medications forced upon them if there is no other way. Convenience of the parent, or convenience of a teacher are very poor reasons to force a child into drug use, imho.

 

Agreed. As a person who needed daily medicines to battle asthma and severe sleeping problems during childhood I can only look back and think how lucky I was who got into a program where they studied children with asthma in the early 1970s. Withouth the help from the professionals, my parents would never have been able to choose the right medications, and I might actually not have been alive today (I had *very* severe asthma problems).

 

Now I have two small daughters and it amazes me every single day how they can just live on without the need for medicines. For me it is second nature. I hope it stays that way for both them and me.

[Biochemist]

Not knowing you, you say some incredibly nice things. Thanks!

You are certianly welcome.

 

Children are not capable of making those decisions' date=' and should only have medications forced upon them if there is no other way. Convenience of the parent, or convenience of a teacher are very poor reasons to force a child into drug use, imho.[/quote']

 

I agree with your tendency toward restraint with medications, and the issue should not be parental or educator convenience. But keep in mind that you, as parent, may see that your child is the sort that might PREFER to be medicated. I suspect that no one would understand his/her preferences better than you.

 

Signals might include high frustration with inability to perform, or high withdrawal because of weak social skill. In that case, you might elect to medicate for his/her benefit, just like you might "force" your three year old to eat his vegetables.

[IrishEyes]

In that case, you might elect to medicate for his/her benefit, just like you might "force" your three year old to eat his vegetables.

 

Apples and oranges, my friend. Making a child take meds is not quite the same as forcing a child to eat veggies (which I've never had to do, thank you!) I might be quite an extreme case though.

 

I don't take my kids to the pediatrician. We haven't been on over 4 years. A few have been to the ER, for traumas (falling off the trampoline, fish hook in the toe, etc.). Earaches are very rare here, and are treated with steam and ear candles. Colds are given vaporizers. Flu gets a couple of days in bed and some chicken soup. None of them have anything that requires ongoing medication, so I know that I am biased on this. Perhaps, if I had a diabetic, or one with something more severe, my attitude would be much different. I just see so many parents that run their kids in for every little sniffle, and I think of all of the other things that could be done with those co-pays, and that lost time, and those extra germs from the other sickies int he waiting room, and all of those unneccesary antibiotics, and it almost makes me ill.

 

I don't mean to sound condescending, and I hope that nobody takes it that way. It has to be a very painful, and very personal decision. I just hope that the parents consider every alternative before putting their children on some of the available medications, because they are so "easy". Especially when it comes to new drugs that have not been around long enough for 'long-term' studies. How dreadful to put your kid on a new wonder drug and find out 10 years later that it causes brain cancer... Sorry, drugs just aren't for my children.

 

Now if hubby decided to do it, I'd support him. I might even like *some* of the results (like getting an anniversary present on the right day without me or the kids reminding him). But quite frankly, I think some people are just 'made' that way, and it's a real shame to medicate the genius right out of them.

[Biochemist]

Apples and oranges, my friend. Making a child take meds is not quite the same as forcing a child to eat veggies (which I've never had to do, thank you!) I might be quite an extreme case though.

 

I concur, and (by the way) was not the least bit offended by the tone of your response. I think I was trying (poorly) to suggest that there are kids that would do well on the medication, but the main consideration is not convenience, but long-term value to the child.

 

I rarely medicate my kids either. I think your "last resort" model is a generally pretty good one.

[zadojla]

Perhaps, if I had a diabetic, or one with something more severe, my attitude would be much different.

Your attitude would have to be different, or your type 1 diabetic kid would be dead in three days.

[IrishEyes]

Your attitude would have to be different, or your type 1 diabetic kid would be dead in three days.

Which is why I said it would probably be different.

When I became a parent, i was in the Navy. The Navy pediatrician's answer to everything was motrin and amoxicillin. My first child was seen quite a bit. I was a first time mommy, in a semi-foreign coutnry, and long-distance calls home were very expensive. So I took her in quite a bit. By the time I had my third child, I was much more comfortable being a mommy, and was a bit more capable of judging when they should be seen, and when it was ok to give them meds. Still though, I medicated them probably more than what they needed, mainly due to listening to navy docs for so many years.

It wasn't until after my fifth was born that I really began to question why children should be medicated so much. Of course, that was after arguing with a pediatrician that prescribed an antibiotic, when I knew that one wasn't necessary - because the doctor told me it was viral, but prescribed the meds anyway. Sirens and bells went off, and I argued. The doc actually threatened to call the base equivalent of CPS if I refused the medications.

Thankfully, I'm no longer in the navy's healthcare system, and I don't have to deal with that anymore. And thankfully, there are many resources that are readily available to help parents decide if medications are necessary. If I had a child with a medical condition that required daily medications, my child would receive those medications. However, dosing a kid up just so they'll be quiet in class does not seem like it's always just for the best interest of the child.

zad, I understand what you're saying, and I hope that I clarified my position. I'm not trying to give parents that medicate their children a bad rep or anything. I realize that it is sometimes necessary. I'm only saying that before I medicated my child, I would make sure that there were no other alternatives. I don't take the doctor's word on anything anymore. I always ask for second, and sometimes third, opinion, and I do a LOT of research on my own. I think that's part of what responsible parenting as all about.

[Biochemist]

I'm only saying that before I medicated my child, I would make sure that there were no other alternatives. I don't take the doctor's word on anything anymore. I always ask for second, and sometimes third, opinion, and I do a LOT of research on my own. I think that's part of what responsible parenting as all about.

I think sometimes the appropriate solution for the responsible parent is to medicate the responsible parent. I usually opt for bourbon.

[zadojla]

By the time I had my third child, I was much more comfortable being a mommy, and was a bit more capable of judging when they should be seen, and when it was ok to give them meds.

I wish I could remember where I saw it, but when beccareb was a baby, I read that a study showed that a mother with three or more children could diagnose common conditions as well as a pediatrician.

And BTW, it's not unusual for an ordinary pediatrician to fail to diagnose the onset of type 1 diabetes until the child is dangerously ill. I diagnosed beccareb, and insisted that the test be done.

[Biochemist]

I read that a study showed that a mother with three or more children could diagnose common conditions as well as a pediatrician.

Absolutely true. Although I think physicians have improved over the last couple of decades, in that they pay more attention to mothers. Mothers will recognize little bahavior changes that suggest something is wrong. 30 years ago, most physicians didn't listen to this stuff much. Now they tend to. I think part of this is becasue there are so many female pediatricians who recognize the limitations of their own diagnostics, and the value of subjective input from Mom. I think this has significantly improved the practice style of both genders.

[Aki]

just to go this site: http://www.newstarget.com and find articles about ritalin, and FDA if you want to know more.