• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
hkmaly

Story, Wednesday March 7, 2018

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, hkmaly said:

combined with fact that the previous generations might not live as fine.

My mother suffered from clinical depression as well. No medication was available for her. She dealt with it through alcohol and eventually drank enough to ruin four lives.

My paternal grandfather was somewhat more fortunate. He suffered from bipolar disorder. While his marriage still fell apart, he eventually (in 1960) was fortunate enough that a working medication for his illness was invented. He lived out the remainder of his life far more stable and content.

Still earlier, of course, people with such problems were merely assumed to be malingerers or possibly suffering from lunacy. If they gave trouble enough they tended to be locked up, driven out or simply left to die. I would suggest you look up early asylums or medieval bedlams, but do so only if you feel confident in the strength of your stomach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

This has been true of medicine as long as it has existed. The opinions of those directly involved don't count. I remember reading about how Dr. Semmelweiss became the laughingstock of medical professionals in Austria because he recommended that you start washing your hands before assisting with births. He had learned this from observing midwives deliver babies, noticed that the fatality rate in births they oversaw was much lower and determined that it was the hand washing and clean environment that made the difference. This was clearly ridiculous because he had learned it from women and after all, what do women know about giving birth?

There is the opposite side of the coin today.  The patient sometimes, rightly or wrongly, demands the medication.  Sometimes that's good for exactly the arguments made above.  Other times, not.  If a kid is genuinely affected by ADHD, sure.  But normal healthy kids are active, energetic, and pushing boundaries every minute of every hour or every day.  Sometimes the kid is medicated because the *parent* can't cope...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

It's weird how the consumption of drugs rises; there should be some reason why our generation needs so much of them while the previous lived fine with less, shouldn't it? (In reality, there is likely SEVERAL reasons, combined with fact that the previous generations might not live as fine.)

There you go, you answered your own question.  Just like so many other health problems went untreated until someone figured out they existed and then how to effectively treat them, the same thing is continuing to happen today.  Previous generations of people with those conditions just had to suffer through untreated.  I'm not so egotistical as to think that I happen to live in the exact time when all the conditions and diseases we will ever know have been discovered and all the medications we will ever need to treat them have been invented.  Hopefully, as we come to understand more about them, at least some of them will turn out to be preventable and/or cureable, but I'm not going to insist they go untreated until the causes and preventive measures are worked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Vorlonagent said:

There is the opposite side of the coin today.  The patient sometimes, rightly or wrongly, demands the medication.  Sometimes that's good for exactly the arguments made above.  Other times, not.  If a kid is genuinely affected by ADHD, sure.  But normal healthy kids are active, energetic, and pushing boundaries every minute of every hour or every day.  Sometimes the kid is medicated because the *parent* can't cope...

The medications used to treat ADD/ADHD aren't sedatives, to make an unruly child sit quietly.  They are stimulants, given at a carefully calibrated dose, to compensate for a lack of activity in certain regulatory centers in the brain.  Giving them to a child who does not have ADD/ADHD will not make that child magically behave like a little angel.  If their control centers aren't underactive in the first place, or if the dose isn't adjusted correctly, then a stimulant will more likely do what stimulants are usually expected to do.  That's why this whole idea of drugging kids to make them behave is so crazy, because these drugs just don't work that way!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

Just like so many other health problems went untreated until someone figured out they existed and then how to effectively treat them, the same thing is continuing to happen today.  Previous generations of people with those conditions just had to suffer through untreated.

Due to my own condition not being very well understood I was misdiagnosed at first. I spent seven years on an antipsychotic that did nothing for me save slowing me down and making me gain weight. I finally rebelled against my doctors and stopped using it, which immensely improved my quality of life -- relatively speaking. Unfortunately it also undermined my trust in medical professionals so I refused to take any medication at all after that. It took my wife-to-be four years to persuade me to try again with an antidepressant this time.

Doctors are not perfect and patients are not always reasonable. Nonetheless we have to work with what we have. Superstitions about how mental illnesses affect their sufferers and how medication acts do not make this easier, unfortunately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

The medications used to treat ADD/ADHD aren't sedatives, to make an unruly child sit quietly.  They are stimulants, given at a carefully calibrated dose, to compensate for a lack of activity in certain regulatory centers in the brain.  Giving them to a child who does not have ADD/ADHD will not make that child magically behave like a little angel.  If their control centers aren't underactive in the first place, or if the dose isn't adjusted correctly, then a stimulant will more likely do what stimulants are usually expected to do.  That's why this whole idea of drugging kids to make them behave is so crazy, because these drugs just don't work that way!

I never claimed it was rational, just that ADHD meds were over-prescribed..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vorlonagent said:

I never claimed it was rational, just that ADHD meds were over-prescribed..

And has anything I said given you any second thoughts about that opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

And has anything I said given you any second thoughts about that opinion?

Nope.  :)

We seem to be in agreement here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the school district my kids attended, the percentage of kids that the district got extra state money for, because of diagnosed behavioral disorders, was by some amazing coincidence almost precisely the maximum percentage that the state officially considered believable enough that the money would be forthcoming. And it was stable at that level for five years that I know of.

Then the state raised the allowed percentage. By about half.

It took less than three years for the percentage of kids in the district that had diagnosed behavioral disorders to rise to the new state limit. And it was then stable at that higher level for several years that I know of.

I think it's pretty safe to say that the rate of actual behavioral disorders did not shoot up by 50% in three years. And that either the pre-increase or post-increase rate being such close matches to the state cap, let alone both of them, kind of stretches credulity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

In the school district my kids attended, the percentage of kids that the district got extra state money for, because of diagnosed behavioral disorders, was by some amazing coincidence almost precisely the maximum percentage that the state officially considered believable enough that the money would be forthcoming. And it was stable at that level for five years that I know of.

Then the state raised the allowed percentage. By about half.

It took less than three years for the percentage of kids in the district that had diagnosed behavioral disorders to rise to the new state limit. And it was then stable at that higher level for several years that I know of.

I think it's pretty safe to say that the rate of actual behavioral disorders did not shoot up by 50% in three years. And that either the pre-increase or post-increase rate being such close matches to the state cap, let alone both of them, kind of stretches credulity.

Just keep in mind that kids with actual, documented disorders have a notoriously difficult time getting them recognized and getting the services they need.  I find it a lot more likely that the district was deliberately obstructive and derelict in their duties to kids with genuine need, in order to avoid having to pay a dime more than the state would cover.  When the state raised the percent they'd cover, there were plenty of needy kids waiting, so of course they were able to meet the new limit -- and if the state hadn't had such a low limit, there were many more kids who should have gotten services who were denied strictly for budgetary reasons.

Honestly, which do you think is more likely -- that there's a vast conspiracy between the school district and hundreds of doctors to convince thousands of parents that their kids have disorders they don't really have, or that the state and the district are too cheap and/or financially strapped to pay for services for every kid who should get them, and simply refuse to acknowledge any more of them than they think they can afford?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Vorlonagent said:

If a kid is genuinely affected by ADHD, sure.  But normal healthy kids are active, energetic, and pushing boundaries every minute of every hour or every day.  Sometimes the kid is medicated because the *parent* can't cope...

I can't imagine kid wanting medication themselves ... teenager maybe, but kid? Luckily, we don't have that kind of advertisement. Yet.

9 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Giving them to a child who does not have ADD/ADHD will not make that child magically behave like a little angel.

Hard to explain that to some parents.

9 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Due to my own condition not being very well understood I was misdiagnosed at first. I spent seven years on an antipsychotic that did nothing for me save slowing me down and making me gain weight. I finally rebelled against my doctors and stopped using it, which immensely improved my quality of life -- relatively speaking. Unfortunately it also undermined my trust in medical professionals so I refused to take any medication at all after that. It took my wife-to-be four years to persuade me to try again with an antidepressant this time.

Doctors are not perfect and patients are not always reasonable. Nonetheless we have to work with what we have. Superstitions about how mental illnesses affect their sufferers and how medication acts do not make this easier, unfortunately.

Yes. Exactly. Also, you provided example of case where antipsychotics are overprescribed. For SEVER YEARS.

I'm sure there are other cases where people are getting antidepressants not just for nothing, but for something which was misdiagnosed and antidepressants doesn't really help with that.

4 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Honestly, which do you think is more likely -- that there's a vast conspiracy between the school district and hundreds of doctors to convince thousands of parents that their kids have disorders they don't really have, or that the state and the district are too cheap and/or financially strapped to pay for services for every kid who should get them, and simply refuse to acknowledge any more of them than they think they can afford?

Hundreds? How many doctors could be in that district? And how many parents thinks their child is somewhat too energetic and maybe little disadvantaged for not having the mental disorder stamp (note that being diagnosed with ADHD doesn't just mean getting meds, but might also change how the teachers are grading the kid) so they jump at the opportunity?

Even better than ADHD are the problems which have no meds for: like, someone being diagnosed as being light dysgraphic is clear advantage for everyone: kid will stop getting bad grades for writing like doctor, school will get money ... doesn't matter if the kid actually IS or ISN'T dysgraphic. Dyscalculia will be even more popular, lot of kids hate math.

Also, again: it's likely both issue are at work here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Honestly, which do you think is more likely -- that there's a vast conspiracy between the school district and hundreds of doctors

Actually, I think a vast conspiracy between the school district and a couple of doctors whom the school district strongly recommends to parents (and may even be school-district employees, or otherwise get paid by the district and thus have incentive to give the results the district wants so they'll continue to be strongly recommended - or if sufficiently corrupt, explicitly get paid under the table for certain results) sounds pretty plausible.

You are correct that I don't have the expertise to positively identify just where the situation I described was messed up. That it's seriously messed up SOMEWHERE seems pretty obvious... and establishes that at least one party, the school district, is not to be trusted. But school districts are central players in a pretty high percentage of behavioral-disorder diagnoses: they "recognize" a "suspicion" that a child has one, recommend a doctor to make an official diagnosis, receive a report from the doctor so they can make "appropriate" adjustments to the child's school experience (and maybe get more money from the state)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Don Edwards said:

Actually, I think a vast conspiracy between the school district and a couple of doctors whom the school district strongly recommends to parents (and may even be school-district employees, or otherwise get paid by the district and thus have incentive to give the results the district wants so they'll continue to be strongly recommended - or if sufficiently corrupt, explicitly get paid under the table for certain results) sounds pretty plausible.

You are correct that I don't have the expertise to positively identify just where the situation I described was messed up. That it's seriously messed up SOMEWHERE seems pretty obvious... and establishes that at least one party, the school district, is not to be trusted. But school districts are central players in a pretty high percentage of behavioral-disorder diagnoses: they "recognize" a "suspicion" that a child has one, recommend a doctor to make an official diagnosis, receive a report from the doctor so they can make "appropriate" adjustments to the child's school experience (and maybe get more money from the state)...

The Moderator: This is getting pretty deep into political territory and I am worried about where it is going. Could you please resolve the rest of the discussion in private messages?

~tOH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now