Miranda by dreamtrove

http://reliableanswers.com/med/zyprexa_off_label.asp

O brave new world, That has such people in't! - Miranda

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 10, 2011 4:00 PM

Oh. My. Fucking. God.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 10, 2011 7:57 PM

TRAVELER

I got so angry reading this I had to pull away. There is so much wrong here.

http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=28764731
Traveler

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 10, 2011 9:09 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

An old story, but it is still relevent because doctors really need to be more carefull with what they perscribe to whom, and with a kid that young I think the parents should have gotten a few other opinions. But it is true that people just trust doctors without questioning, so they probably thought they didn't need a second opinion. But something like that definitely needs several opinions in my estimations.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 11, 2011 2:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
An old story, but it is still relevent because doctors really need to be more carefull with what they perscribe to whom, and with a kid that young I think the parents should have gotten a few other opinions. But it is true that people just trust doctors without questioning, so they probably thought they didn't need a second opinion. But something like that definitely needs several opinions in my estimations.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

Riona,

The entire family was on the cocktail.

If the parents were medicated first, having been on these drugs, I can tell you, if they had my experience, they would have had no idea what their kids names and ages were.

This points to another hitch in the system: There's no way that such people would be considered competent to stand trial, except that by the time the trial came around, the parents were no longer on the drugs. As a result, the parents are in jail, the doctor had to pay money from her malpractice insurance.

In other words, I think that by this point the parents might have understood "Fire bad, tree pretty" but I wouldn't try to push past that.

I remember being on just this sort of cocktail and being visited by my family in the hospital. I had no idea who they were. I didn't know why the doctor was, or what a doctor was, other than that they were in charge.

This is a vicious circle with mental illness. I checked in because I was having seizures. Those turned out, three years later, to have a physical, and not a mental, cause. But as soon as they check you in, they say "Take one of these, it will stop the seizures." From that moment on, you are mentally ill. Pretty soon, you don't know what happened, or how you got there. It's pretty easy for them to convince you that you were always crazy, and that these pills are the only thing keeping you from shooting up a McDonalds or whatever.

The story is a couple years old but very relevant today. The drugging of children is now around 1 in 3. It's been on an exponential climb, about 2-3% cumulative per year. (It was 12% in 2002, 20% in 2006, and 32% in 2010, you can draw a curve from that.)

Another thing about mental illness and medication, I can tell you from the experience of myself and friends of mine who have had this experience, if you're not mentally ill when you start, you're mentally ill when they're done with you. Of course, most people who *were* mentally ill to start were so because of some other drug that they had taken. Even non-psychotropic pharmaceuticals can have this effect.

On children, I can only think the effect is magnified.

Yes, for a score of kingdoms you should wrangle, And I would call it, fair play - Miranda

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 11, 2011 3:48 AM

Shit, y'all didn't know ?

MOST psychotropics stuffed down the throats of children are "off-label", sure as shit Ritalin was, might still be, technically, but the depth of chicanery there is so abhorrent it's just mindbreaking.
http://www.cchrint.org/

And of course, when a child refused, or was resistant to the drugs, they got sent to the camps...
Most of which are now defunct, thankfully.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 11, 2011 5:12 AM

BYTEMITE

Boy oh boy, I sure like how they're trying to spin this so they can bring back Haldol, Navane, and Risperdal.

Quote:
Dr. Marrero further informed Lilly that, "Two patients had to be hospitalized due to out of control diabetes....We have certainly never seen this with Haldol, Navane, Risperdal and others to this extent."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 11, 2011 5:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Shit, y'all didn't know ?

No, I knew. But it is still shocking to think of one particular case. And to know the details of how the pharm companies actively marketed off-label uses, with 1.4 billion dollars set aside for a settlement fund. Those fucking beancounters.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 11, 2011 7:58 AM

HARDWARE

About the only way to stop this sort of corporate malfeasance is to make each and every corporate office liable in person for the misdeeds of their company.

Corporations are supposed to prevent a lawsuit from wiping a person out. But these people are misusing the law to shield themselves from repercussions of their actions. I agree that innocent actions with unintended consequences should not be used to destroy a person, but to hell with the corporations. But intentional misdeeds need punishment!

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

...and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 11, 2011 1:39 PM

The key to that is ending the legal fiction of Corporate Personhood - without that dodge in place, they could be held more properly accountable.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 11, 2011 2:26 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

DT, your situation isn't the same as everyone else's, just because those medicines made you very touched and not lucid at all, that doesn't mean that everyone on them ends up more touched or affected than when they started. Most of my colleagues at work have to take medicines like that and it helps them to feel more stable and regular-seeming, as opposed to petrified and in constant agony. I'd rather take medicine and only be in pain part of the time than to not take it and be in agony 24/7, which is what happens if I don't take anything. I understand that you are coming at this from your perspective and that is totally valid. But not everyone has had, or ever will have, the experiences that you seem to have had. Obviously your situation was mishandled and I'm not trying to discredit that. I'm sorry it happened.

Oh, and people still do take halladal and those others you mentioned Byte, it all comes down to deciding what is worse: the side affects or the schizophrenia. I know of a woman who is a nurse practisioner who takes closeral as her primary medicine but also takes halladal. She's totally successful in life and in her career, why? Because she takes medicines that work for her, if she didn't she admits that she would likely have killed herself or possibly (heaven forbid) someone else because she can't think straight without and hears these command voices, etc. So I feel that a good chunk of the time medicines are good things, at least better than not having them.

But people need to do what works best for them, whether that is medicine or natural medicine, whatever it is that gets a person to feeling as safe and content and fulfilled as possible.
.

But I think we all can agree that children shouldn't be given medicine hastily and that there is too much of it going around and that the doctor in this case made a fatal mistake.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 11, 2011 2:45 PM

SOunds down right incompetent and negligent to me. How can you diagnose a 2 year old with bipolar or ADHD for that matter. All 2 year olds have ADHD, that is what it means to be 2!!!!!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 11, 2011 3:30 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Gawd, I hate that this stuff keep happening!

And yes, Riona, you're absolutely right. NO one person can say "x did this to me, it'll do it to you too". Each system is individual. I took Jo to the psych ward here in town once when she was manic and out of control. Over the four or five hours we were there, they kept giving her zyprexa after zyprexa with little effect. Choey, on the other hand, never takes it because it totally knocks her out. For some people it does what they need it to.

All meds can have side effects. All psychotropic meds almost invariably DO have side effects...it's because they can pass through the blood/brain barrier. But beyond that, psychotropics affect people differently, which is why we say to keep working with one's p-doc until one finds the RIGHT "cocktail". Some people take Zyprexa with something else, and yes, it IS used off-label for other mental illness.

I know about that because I used to take Neurontin, which, after the usual testing, they decided they wouldn't accept for bipolarity. But it worked for ME, and some others I knew, as a great mood controller (in other words, to keep my anti-depressant from sending me hypomanic). So it was prescribed to US "off label", and we were glad of it.

But this...this is unconscionable; actuall "ALL these things". Psychotropics can be so tricky...personally, I wouldn't mind seeing ALL p-docs have to take at least one of the strong psychotropics--zyprexa would be perfect--for about thirty days before they go around prescribing stuff. Wouldn't that be fun?

The thing about psychotropics is they can have completely opposite effects for different people. Sedatives can cause some people to get hyper; anti-depressants (which usually speed up the metabolism) can put some people to sleep. You just never know until you try.

And I agree, Magons...I don't see how any child of that young age could be diagnosed with ANY mental illness, much less put on heavy psychotropics like that! Yes, some children have been correctly diagnosed with bipolarity at an early age, but never THAT early that I've heard of. Hope that doesn't mean it's getting worse...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 11, 2011 3:32 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

The key to that is ending the legal fiction of Corporate Personhood - without that dodge in place, they could be held more properly accountable.

-F

I doubt it. American business was not more accountable before the 14th a. than after it. Corporate personhood grants them the rights of individuals, which is what prevents our govt. from having absolute power, but persons are not immune to the law.

Something else is going on here: The companies are completely liable under the law, but no one is holding them accountable, and it's not because of the 14th. I suspect it's because the banks which run the govt. also own large stakes in the drug companies, and are using their control of govt. to stay the long arm of the law.

Anti-14th is a common position among independents, almost a talking point, but I think it's antithetical to an anarchist stance. It would be better, IMHO, to have the least power of govt. interference possible, because if we rely on the govt. to regulate here, they will selectively regulate in favor of drug companies belonging to people in power, and against those which are small, upstarts, or out of power.

Rather, the companies should be directly accountable to the people, and nothing in the 14th is preventing that.

ETA: Zyprexa is hell in a pill, that was my experience. In combination with depakote, it's hard to picture. Probably less of a hell, but certainly more damaging to your health. It would probably rob your system of all adrenal mechanisms until your heart stopped, or your lungs failed.

With those that I saw suffer: a brave vessel,
Who had, no doubt, some noble creature in her,
Dash'd all to pieces. O, the cry did knock
Against my very heart. Poor souls, they perish'd.
Had I been any god of power, I would
Have sunk the sea within the earth or ere
It should the good ship so have swallow'd and
The fraughting souls within her. - Miranda

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 11, 2011 7:44 PM

Niki, it was my understanding that all mental illnesses such as bipolar and schizophrenia could only be diagnosed as 'emerging' until a person was around 18??? I know there is a lot of controversy around diagnosing young people with anything other than mood disorders etc. Medicating is so fraught with difficulty for pre adult brain that I was hoping it was losing favour. Clearly not.

Geez, when are people going to get a handle on how large a range of behaviours can be normal for a child, including never sitting still, mood swings, and lack of focus. All NORMAL childhood behaviour. Children are not miniture adults. Makes my blood boil.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 12, 2011 12:24 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Magons, in part I agree. But yes, some children have been dx'd earlier, VERY few before their teen years. We have three members of the website I run who were dx'd in their early teens--I question one of them, but the other two are definitely for real. One of the others was the British gal I spoke of before, who is in danger of going manic every Spring...one year she was FIRMLY convinced she was an angel and could help everyone in the world. Meds don't guarantee keeping our moods in check; sometimes they are the best answer, sometimes no answer, sometimes they're not strong enough to keep a depression or mania from happening. As I've said before, medicating bipolarity is like "hitting a moving target"; hence we learn to jiggle our cocktails.

H has long since learned to do so, but back then, being a teenager, she drank, partied and didn't pay close enough attention to her disorder. It got her in quite a bit of trouble. Eventually that Spring they got her meds upped and pretty soon she came out of it (terribly embarrassed, of course).

That's one good thing about mental-health websites; people feel free to talk about what's really happening to them, as opposed to keeping it hidden as best they can to even family (which we all do). H was good friends with Jo; Jo kept talking to her on the phone all during that episode and was able to convince her to tell her parents.

By the way, from poverty and sharing a bedroom with two siblings at her parents' house, she's now in her twenties and living halfway decently on her own. She, like the other two, is amazingly bright and was actually quite mature for her age when younger. She may even be able to keep a job (she has before) as long as she's careful in Spring. It's the most dangerous time for Bipolar Is (and us to a degree), as the increased sunlight after long winter can spike us into hypomania. Me, I'm the reverse; Winter's lack of sunlight CHEERS me, I love the rain, etc. and HATE Summer. But that has nothing to do with sunlight.

But younger than teens?? If I were a p-doc, I'd NEVER do it. The brain is not set yet, it seems to me psychotropics would be terribly dangerous; and the behavioral patterns aren't set yet. Without a scientific method, how can one possibly be sure they are diagnosing properly???

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2011 1:31 AM

Ha! You don't necessarily need to be bipolar - Spring kinda has that effect on MOST people, lol!

I dunno if it's my nature, being a Taurus (as if THAT wasn't so obvious it ought to be written on my forehead!) or just that I love what the season represents - but when Spring rolls around I'm like a race car driver at Talledega who's just found two MORE gears in his gearbox!

Everybody knows it too, the wind has started to turn warm and folks are lookin in my direction with that expecting-the-kablooie face they think I don't see.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2011 3:06 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Ahhh, but you don't look/sound like Charlie Sheen, I'll bet...or believe you're God or Jesus or an angel or something, do 'ya?

Sheen is presently a VERY clear example of mania...I heard it called "hypomania" by one "expert" on TV, but it's more on the borderline between hypomania and mania...and if it gets much worse, psychosis. Biiiiig difference, trust me!

By the way, are you SURE you're still a Taurus? Given recent developments, you might want to check again...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2011 5:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
By the way, are you SURE you're still a Taurus? Given recent developments, you might want to check again...

Here I stand, and here I will stay, they can move all the planets of the universe, they want, and I'll not budge an inch, so fuck em.
*snorts derisively*

I had fun with those developments, mind you, cause even mentioning the notion of me maybe NOT being Taurus to folks I know about reduces them to hysterics - cause I am as stereotypical as they come, a mule stubborn hedonist to the core, in fact.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2011 6:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

*snorts derisively*
-F

You profane the only rule.

Megabucks will fly.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2011 8:23 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

How can someone dx a child so young? Maybe because they rip their faces to shreds? Of come at their sibs with a knife? Or stay awake for 46 hours straight? Or babble nonstop and not be able to focus on anything for more than 3 seconds? Or repeatedly stop in the middle of something to stare at an imaginary being? Or ask for "the voices" to go away?

I know there are kids who play hard and are really active... or perhaps they're thoughtful and observant... or shy... or boisterous... or defiant... and sometimes the parents really just want to tweak a kid's personality due to a personality mismatch. BAD use of meds!

But there really ARE kids with disorders that frighten everyone around them. Not saying that is the case in THIS instance, but it does happen as you can see here.

http://braintalkcommunities.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=115

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 13, 2011 10:14 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"... Jim Gottstein, in his legal battle with Eli Lilly over his role in providing secret company documents obtained in litigation ..."

Gottstein good. Assange bad. Egyptian public sector workers overthrowing the government to get more public sector jobs with better conditions and more pay good. Public sector bargaining in the US bad.

Not gonna post what I think about people who think this.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 1:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How can someone dx a child so young? Maybe because they rip their faces to shreds? Of come at their sibs with a knife? Or stay awake for 46 hours straight? Or babble nonstop and not be able to focus on anything for more than 3 seconds? Or repeatedly stop in the middle of something to stare at an imaginary being? Or ask for "the voices" to go away?

I know there are kids who play hard and are really active... or perhaps they're thoughtful and observant... or shy... or boisterous... or defiant... and sometimes the parents really just want to tweak a kid's personality due to a personality mismatch. BAD use of meds!

But there really ARE kids with disorders that frighten everyone around them. Not saying that is the case in THIS instance, but it does happen as you can see here.

http://braintalkcommunities.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=115

The children cited in the initial post were very, very young. Young enough to be called infants. A 2 year old and a 4 year old. While children this young can certainly suffer from behavioural issues, it would certainly be extremely risky to diagnose with a mental illness, and utterly ridiculous to use medication to control it, especially medication designed for an adult brain.

I know that a lot of parents feel desperate to help their children, especially if it means their household is in upheavel and other family members suffer. I've seen families like this. I know that the cause of behavioural issues are complex, and can include factors as diverse as parenting styles through to genetic factors through to brain damage and/or developmental delay. Parents require a lot of support to deal with this stuff, support that is too often lacking in todays society, where having an extended family is kind of a distant ideal for most people and having two parents around to manage and help each other out is increasingly rare.

My understanding (in this country at least) is that a child that young would NOT be diagnosed with bi polar at that early an age and frankly I really struggle to see how anyone would make that diagnosis in a 2 year old, no matter how extreme the behaviour. Two year olds behave like adults do when they suffer from mental illness. They have mood swings, sleeplessness, periods of mania, they can be withdrawn or have delusions of grandeur, they have little or no self control and seek pleasure unabashadly without thought of consequence. They don't think about consequence. They often have invisible friends, see things that don't exist, can have trouble determining the difference between fantasy and reality. They tick all the boxes for classic mental health symptoms, but that is because they are infants and those are all developmentally appropriate when one is two. They may be symptoms of mental illness if you still experience them in your adult life, but prior to that its a risky assessment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 1:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How can someone dx a child so young? Maybe because they rip their faces to shreds? Of come at their sibs with a knife? Or stay awake for 46 hours straight? Or babble nonstop and not be able to focus on anything for more than 3 seconds? Or repeatedly stop in the middle of something to stare at an imaginary being? Or ask for "the voices" to go away?

I know there are kids who play hard and are really active... or perhaps they're thoughtful and observant... or shy... or boisterous... or defiant... and sometimes the parents really just want to tweak a kid's personality due to a personality mismatch. BAD use of meds!

But there really ARE kids with disorders that frighten everyone around them. Not saying that is the case in THIS instance, but it does happen as you can see here.

http://braintalkcommunities.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=115

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 1:50 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
How can someone dx a child so young? Maybe because they rip their faces to shreds? Of come at their sibs with a knife? Or stay awake for 46 hours straight? Or babble nonstop and not be able to focus on anything for more than 3 seconds? Or repeatedly stop in the middle of something to stare at an imaginary being? Or ask for "the voices" to go away?

I know there are kids who play hard and are really active... or perhaps they're thoughtful and observant... or shy... or boisterous... or defiant... and sometimes the parents really just want to tweak a kid's personality due to a personality mismatch. BAD use of meds!

But there really ARE kids with disorders that frighten everyone around them. Not saying that is the case in THIS instance, but it does happen as you can see here.

http://braintalkcommunities.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=115

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 5:24 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Magon, it is an all-too-common experience of parents (not necessarily THESE parents) of children with serious neurological/ developmental/ behavioral illness to be told

"S/he'll grow out of it"

"There's nothing wrong"

"Wait and see"

when mom and dad know absolutely and with certainty that something is wrong with their child. Nearly every parent of a child w/ autism and many parents of children with epilepsy have been told that, and these are already established diagnoses. What does a parent with a child who really IS bipolar DO? Listen to platitudes?

So possibly this is my personal history, but our child had a grade 4 hemorrhage at birth. (Look up what that means). After the first couple of months, we were left alone to deal with whatever might come along, and even when we raced her in to same day after she had her first toddler-age seizure, we were turned away with "She just has a flu. Kids act funny when they throw up". We spent at least a year just trying to get her illness recognized by doctors because she had subtle symptoms (like putting everything into her right field of vision or always leading with her right foot.) And when they FINALLY did an EEG it was "OMFG, what is going on?"

So while it may be difficult to come up with a DEFINITIVE diagnosis, just blowing the parents off or refusing to prescribe meds is just as irresponsible as overprescribing meds.

And BTW I find your attitude condescending. Yes, two-year-olds behave like two-year olds, but you are doing a grave injustice to parents of sick children with your holier-than-thou attitude. As a general response from parents everywhere who have neurologically compromised children: Thanks for nothing. Your lack of understanding is appalling, so I hope you learned something.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 5:48 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I know that a lot of parents feel desperate to help their children, especially if it means their household is in upheavel and OTHER family members suffer. ... I really struggle to see how anyone would make THAT diagnosis in a 2 year old, no matter how extreme the behaviour."

Seeing your child suffer does cause suffering to normal parents. So yes, it comes down to is the parent suffering. But in those cases the parent is not the ONLY person suffering.

Sometimes parents struggle to get a diagnosis - ANY diagnosis - when there is something clearly and seriously wrong with their child. And good doctors help them come to one. Because it is only AFTER getting a diagnosis that the child can be treated at all.

It's more than tragic when children are in real distress. When what they have is rare, has no standard treatment, or even has no certain diagnosis. (BTW - reading the background on this, the father was bipolar, which may have led to the diagnosis.)

But it does happen. And what is YOUR answer to that? Que sera, sera?

ETA: Not that I hold the doctor completely blameless. Knowing that the treatments were experimental, the doctor had an increased ethical (though not legal) duty to medically monitor the health of the child. As per the story, the doctor in question was a psychiatrist. My experience is that neurologists are far better medical doctors than psychiatrists. The child would have been better off in the care of a neurologist.

And I find it interesting to observe how QUICKLY everyone missed the main point of the story - which is that the pharmaceutical industry - with money first, middle and last on its collective mind - hid the risks of these drugs so that doctors are prescribing 'blind', even WITH on-label routine-diagnosis uses. And how the pharmaceutical industry with all their considerable resources will legally go after individuals who are only trying to get out the facts.

And as I read more about the doctor who is the linchpin in this entire story, there is a whole lot that doesn't add up. Why for example was her license to practice reinstated? Why is she still working for Tufts? Clearly her failure to adequately monitor the child's health directly led to the child's death.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 7:01 AM

Despite the fireballs flying on each side, you have unwittingly agreed on a single point, and one I think is absolutely critical to the argument.

PROPER DIAGNOSIS.

That's a physicians job, innit ?
And a complete failure via ignorance, avarice, or allowing bad data influences, such as taking a parent or schools word for it when they have an agenda, instead of doing an independent evaluation of the patient - this constitutes malpractice in its surest form, and should be prosecuted.

First, DO NO HARM.

Factually I have found, that many of the parents who are so convinced their kids have issues, it's in truth the parents who have issues, and refuse to admit it (1) - case in point my sister when she tried to have my niece committed, and the facility rejected the notion and flat told her that SHE was the one who needed help, not her daughter - something that sent her into a complete ballistic rage.

Also, this thought struck me as odd, the way our excuses change, the lies we cover it with, but the underlying bullshit never does.

At first it was
"My kid doesn't do what they're told, they must be on drugs!"
And now it's
"My kid doesn't do what they're told, they need to be on drugs!"

And the terrible irony is that in many cases they're the same goddamn drugs, wacky, innit ?
Without, of course, ever addressing the initial premise and wondering why - maybe the kid thinks you're a moron, maybe they have their own reasons... it's only in recent history that folks have finally begun to see children as something other than a mere extension of their will, as individuals who might have their OWN will, hopes and dreams.. and in the case of that horribly-abusive tiger-mother chick, apparently that concept isn't universal even now.

(1) Siggy, why do you always take it personal and rush to the defense of use of medication even in a situation like this where it's bloody OBVIOUS there was malpractice and abuse ?

I realize you have a tough situation on your hands and there are others, especially with autism-spectrum or otherwise disabled children, and that medication can be helpful for symptom abatement or normalising - but that is NOT what went on here, and when you go throwing fire and thunder at folks trying to put a damper on obvious abuses of psychotropic and other medications for nefarious purpose, you're putting yourself in harms way for no good purpose due to your own oversensitivity about the whole matter - and worse, enabling these abuses because a lot of the reason they've got so bad *IS* due to the unreasoning rush to defend them by folks who should know better.

And you *DO* know better, but you let your emotions cloud your judgement here - presuming that folks cannot tell the difference between the effective use of medication following a proper diagnosis and treatment plan, and pill-pushing for profit/control reasons, is actually quite insulting, not to mention certain pre-existing grudges and axe-grinding that makes me wanna knock all your heads together about.

Anyhows, the essential POINT here, is that a proper diagnosis is key, and a physician who has failed in that has committed malpractice and should be held accountable.

Can we at the very least, agree on THAT, as a start ?

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 7:17 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

As I think about it further ... would a national healthcare system with uniform standards of diagnosis and care avoid these problems, or make them worse?

When I think of the really egregious cases of medical malfeasance - for example the clinics in Nevada that re-used needles and exposed thousands to the risk of HIV, HepB, HepC and other diseases ( http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/nevada-health-threat-a-cli
nics-re-used-needles/), the fact that a medical strike lead to lower rates of surgery and death in Western NY, and that really expensive care is also worse care ( http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande) - the problem seems to come down to greed and lack of regulation. Clearly there is a conflict of interest between good patient care and profit, and profit often wins out.

The other thing that our scattershot medical system leads to is widely disparate care and standards depending how many doctors are privately practicing in a market and how many procedures they have to sell to make their margin. (Conclusions: We found significant variation in surgical decision-making and a lack of clinical agreement among orthopaedic surgeons about rotator cuff surgery. There was a positive correlation between the volume of procedures performed by the surgeon and the surgeon’s perception of outcome, with surgeons who had a higher procedure volume being more enthusiastic about rotator cuff surgery than those who had a lower procedure volume.)

And having a for-profit medical system seems to lead insurance companies and doctors to cover over their misdeeds and errors rather than bring them to light, hold institutions and people accountable, and fix the problems.

On the other hand, there are more than enough seriously ill people with rare or uncertain medical problems. Would a large system geared to handling many people with known problems efficiently have the flexibility to address the rare, unusual illnesses?

Not so entirely theoretical. I have known far too may children with serious neurological and/ or behavioral problems. (And while it seems to be true that neurological problems always results in behavioral problems, behavioral problems are not always traceable to neurological ones.) Children whose parents were ready to try anything to stop destructive, violent and/ or self-destructive behavior. When your six-year old stepdaughter comes at you with a knife, tears up the furniture and huddles on her bed staring at the wall for days at a time, it's not behavior you can just shrug off. Even if the EEG comes up clean and the neurologist can find no outstanding abnormality.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 10:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
PROPER DIAGNOSIS.

Yup. Siggy's talking about underdiagnosis, and Magon's talking about overdiagnosis. Both their problems would be solved if physicians diagnosed folks properly.

There are several systemic limitations that prevent proper diagnosis.

1. TIME. Physicians don't spend enough time with a patient,esp a young one, to make a proper diagnosis. You can't diagnose bipolar disorder in a 2 year old in a 20 minute session, or even a 1-hour session at the office. They don't teach proper diagnostic methods in medical school, unfortunately. If it is not quick, and actually requires listening to the patient/parents/child, you'll end up being underdiagnosed (dismissed as stupid) or overdiagnosed (dismissed with whatever piece of paper you want).

2. SUBJECTIVITY. Diagnostic criteria for mental disorders are ultimately subjective. Their treatment is also subjective. If any industry is vulnerable to marketing and advertising manipulations, it would be psychiatry. (Not to mention the load of subjective mistakes made because of #1.)

Which leads us to #3.

3. BIG PHARM INCEST. Let's face it. Each successive DSM 1) has added new diagnoses for which there is conveniently a "treatment," and 2) has broadened diagnostic criteria to detect subtler expressions of existing disorders. In other words, DSM is getting bigger and bigger. That means the market for pharm companies is getting bigger and bigger. Overdiagnosis is good for profits, see?

Until formal medicine can cut its incestuous relationship with Big Pharm profits, doctors will be nothing more than mafia drug dealers in white coats.

PS For your reading pleasure, here is a good article by the head of the task force on the DSM-IV, warning of overdiagnosis with the DSM-V.

http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com/2009/6/Frances_DSM-5.pdf

Quote:
Thus are false 'epidemics' created.... This issue becomes especially poignant when one considers the great and skillful pressure that is likely to be applied by the pharmaceutical industry after the publication of DSM-5. It has to be assumed that they will attempt to identify every change that could conceivably lead to a marketing advantage--often in ways that will not have occurred to the DSM-5 Task Force. In order to promote drug sales, the companies may well sponsor expensive 'education' campaigns focusing on the diagnostic changes that most enhance the rate of diagnosis for those disorders that will lead to the increased writing of prescriptions.

...

Undoubtedly, the most reckless suggestion for DSM-V is that it include many new categories to capture the milder subthreshold versions of the existing more severe official disorders. The beneficial intended purpose is to reduce the frequency of false negative missed cases, thus improving early case finding and promoting preventive treatments. Unfortunately, however, the DSM-V Task Force has failed to adequately consider the potentially disastrous unintended consequence that DSM-V may flood the world with new false positives. ... The result would be a wholesale imperial medicalization of normality that will trivialize mental disorder and lead to a deluge of unneeded medication treatments--a bonanza for the pharmaceutical industry but at a huge cost to the new false positive 'patients' caught in the excessively wide DSM-V net.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 10:53 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Proper diagnosis would be great - but doctors don't even manage that with everyday medical issues like heart failure, rotator cuff problems, or appendicitis. And by its nature, diagnosis of neurological/ mental problems is way, WAY behind that of even routine medical ones.

I sometimes think that certain improvements could start to turn the problem of diagnosis around:

1) The ordinary video: You can talk and talk and talk and talk till you are too tired to talk anymore, and still not get across what, exactly it is that you are seeing that causes concern. A good video - with adequate examples of normal behavior - followed by examples of new/ abnormal behavior, can get the information across far more effectively than all your words. At the very least a video or three puts the putative problem ON THE RECORD for all to see.

2) Routine neurological workups: All neurological problems that I know of present as behavior problems AT FIRST. Routine EEGs (including SLEEP EEGs - the only way to diagnose some neurological conditions) and thorough neurological exams over time will help uncover occult, neurologically-based problems. Children are programmed to learn and play. Overwhelmingly, a child who is doing something very unusual, or not doing some very usual, is not showing that difference because of emotional problems but because something is going wrong in their brain. And as a rule of thumb, a child who regresses (loses function) is ALWAYS in the grip of some neurological problem, and not a psychological one.

3) A GOOD history: Most important, is there any place where the child does NOT show behavior issues? At school? At home? With gramma and grampa? (BTW - simply b/c gramma and grampa have a tolerance for 4 hours straight of screaming doesn't mean there isn't a problem. Behaviors need to be quantitatively tracked to see if there are actually differences between one situation and the other. For example - if parents say that screaming is a problem, then the presence or absence of screaming needs to be tracked.)

4) Standardized criteria: For one thing it would help make diagnosis more reliable AND help uncover trends. Autism was once thought to be rare: 1:10,000. Now it is 1:166. What changed - the diagnosis, the population, or both, or something else?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 10:53 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Dang - how did this multiply like a tribble?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 11:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Magon, it is an all-too-common experience of parents (not necessarily THESE parents) of children with serious neurological/ developmental/ behavioral illness to be told

"S/he'll grow out of it"

"There's nothing wrong"

"Wait and see"

when mom and dad know absolutely and with certainty that something is wrong with their child. Nearly every parent of a child w/ autism and many parents of children with epilepsy have been told that, and these are already established diagnoses. What does a parent with a child who really IS bipolar DO? Listen to platitudes?

So possibly this is my personal history, but our child had a grade 4 hemorrhage at birth. (Look up what that means). After the first couple of months, we were left alone to deal with whatever might come along, and even when we raced her in to same day after she had her first toddler-age seizure, we were turned away with "She just has a flu. Kids act funny when they throw up". We spent at least a year just trying to get her illness recognized by doctors because she had subtle symptoms (like putting everything into her right field of vision or always leading with her right foot.) And when they FINALLY did an EEG it was "OMFG, what is going on?"

So while it may be difficult to come up with a DEFINITIVE diagnosis, just blowing the parents off or refusing to prescribe meds is just as irresponsible as overprescribing meds.

And BTW I find your attitude condescending. Yes, two-year-olds behave like two-year olds, but you are doing a grave injustice to parents of sick children with your holier-than-thou attitude. As a general response from parents everywhere who have neurologically compromised children: Thanks for nothing. Your lack of understanding is appalling, so I hope you learned something.

You know what, I was trying to have a reasonable discussion about this. I'm sorry about the situation with your daughter and I know this is a hot button topic for you. But I don't appreciate being called condescending because I disagree with 2 year olds being diagnosed with bi polar. I never said anything about NEVER using meds, as there are conditions which need medicating. Nor did I say anything about not doing anything for a child or seeking help or treatment. I NEVER said that. I disagree with a 2 year being diagnosed with bi polar and being medicated for a mental illness that could NOT be diagnosed.

Frankly sig, your response is rude and condescending to me just because I disagree with you. So screw you and this discussion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 11:11 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

You obviously haven't been involved with anyone who has a deeply ill child and who is desperate for a diagnosis - ANY diagnosis - just so they can get ANY kind of help.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 11:43 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

WTF is this?

"You obviously haven't been involved with anyone who has a deeply ill child and who is desperate for a diagnosis - ANY diagnosis - just so they can get ANY kind of help"

In THIS country, in America, diagnosises are given. Sometimes wrong, most times right. But they are given.

How else can the hospital charge for the care they give?

I keed. But JC... you make up shit out your ass, and its shit.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 11:51 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Wulf - you tool. I feel sorry for any child you have. What if the child is NOT diagnosed as having an illness? Or admitted to a hospital? What if the medical establishment makes a higher profit by

and you go home with nothing? Not this "How else can the hospital charge for the care they give?" but no diagnosis, no treatment, no admission?

DUH.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 12:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
You obviously haven't been involved with anyone who has a deeply ill child and who is desperate for a diagnosis - ANY diagnosis - just so they can get ANY kind of help.

That's just the problem. ANY diagnosis with ANY kind of help usually ends up with the WRONG diagnosis and the WRONG kind of help. It may grant some temporary respite for the parents, but the wrong treatment DOES NOT HELP THE CHILD.

Witness the 4 year old victim who is the original topic of this thread.

Remember this thread is about the problem of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. And yes, it IS a problem.

1. Spend enough time with the patients until they get the help they need, without intrusive medications based on rushed guesswork. Don't abandon the undiagnosed or underdiagnosed.

2. Don't overdiagnose either just to get them out of the office and make money.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 12:57 PM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

This is a toughie. Yes, the problem is under, over or incorrect diagnosis. Yes, when it comes to mental disorders, a DEFINITIVELY correct diagnosis is virtually impossible.

Which is worse, being handed off by physician/p-doc who thinks there's nothing wrong and won't look seriously at what the parents KNOW is a real problem, or docs and p-docs in Big Pharma's pocket or for some other reason being at the ready to diagnose and treat ANYTHING? I can't say; both can cause irreparable harm, and at present both happen, and until science comes up with a way to definitively diagnose brain disorders, what can we do? Not much, I suspect.

I'm against medicating a young child unless there are severe problems readily apparent and no other cause can be found, and even then only very, VERY cautiously.

I don't think anyone is intentionally being condescending, I think it's a matter of different experiences, opinions and interpretation. Just to say.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 1:54 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You know what, I was trying to have a reasonable discussion

Actually, you weren't. You were putting blanket judgment on a situation you know nothing about. NOTHING. You haven't seen the children in question, you haven't talked to the parents, but you automatically assume that somebody did something horrible and unreasonable without ANY of the specific facts on-hand. You ASSUME that the parents are just basically med-heads who can't deal with their children and went to a cooperative/ irresponsible doctor to medicate their children into submission. Right? Because after all, what could POSSIBLY account for ALL of the children to be on meds, other than bad parenting?

But WHAT IF all of the children in that family have an undxd mitochondrial disorder or lysosomal storage disorder with neurological consequences?
What if ONE of the parents (the gene source) has the same problem? What if the OTHER parent is taking meds just to keep from melting down?

This wouldn't be the first time its happened, I've seen in the the neurowebforum time and time again. But it seems to be a situation that never crossed your mind.

Quote:
But I don't appreciate being called condescending because I disagree with 2 year olds being diagnosed with bi polar.

Yanno what? If doctors and parents are dealing with a "mystery disorder" then they will GO WITH WHATEVER DIAGNOSIS GETS THE MOST INSURANCE HELP. This was a point that Kiki brought up, which you never addressed. So, what's your answer to the problem? I don't think you have one. But you seem to have a lot of assumptions and judgment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 2:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
... what can we do?

Don't go to a psychiatrist right off the bat. That is always a mistake unless it's some super-psychiatrist who fully understands the risks and unknowns of his/her own prescriptions.

1. Go to a neurologist. Do the workup. Rule out obvious explanations.
2. Go to a clinical psychologist who doesn't medicate, and who has a reputation for thorough and robust diagnostic standards. They're not easy to find, but they are out there.
3. Research alternative meds and therapies and diets. Ask other parents. Hang out at the forums. They know more than anyone else. Get both the pro-meds and the anti-meds view. Listen carefully to what everyone has to say, then do what you want fully informed.
4. AFTER #1 and #2 and #3, go to a psychiatrist the psychologist in #2 recommends if you decide to take meds. Really, psychotropic meds should be the last resort.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 2:17 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

CTS

I agree with everything you say about over- and under-diagnosis. Neither is acceptable in my view.

In THIS particular instance the doctor is IMO the obvious place where the problem lay. Even IF the diagnosis and treatment were appropriate, the medical monitoring was not. (And that's where the pharmaceutical companies may come in and may have provided both the reason and the excuse. If they didn't disclose all the potential and serious side effects, then the doctor couldn't have known to stringently monitor for them.)

But I disagree with people who make blanket judgments based on the idea that, 'Well, the situation couldn't be THAT bad'. Well, yes it could. Sure it's extreme, but SOMEbody is on the end of the bell curve. That's just the way things are.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 2:30 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Also, CTS, I agree with your preference for neurologists first, (though I would keep them in the loop as long as possible); psychologists or clinical therapists second; and consider psychiatrists only if they are stellar. It's just an all-over sense I get.

Not to be inappropriate, but I have a joke that includes psychiatrists:

PSYCHIATRISTS KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT NOTHING.
INTERNISTS KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING.
PATHOLOGISTS KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING, ONLY TOO LATE.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 2:53 PM

Beir bua agus beannacht

I think CTS's order of procedures is reasonable, though I might switch one and two. If the child is in amazing pain and agony one might move towards the psychiatrist faster.

I agree with Frem that the common ground here is that proper diagnoses are essential. I think most all of us agree that children can be over diagnosed or misdiagnosed as is the theme of the thread, and that treatment can be mismannaged as the story indicates. I too find the diagnosis of a two year old as having bipolar to be suspect, but I do know that children can end up with brain differences early on in life, certainly before puberty. A prime case is that of Janny Scofield (spelling?) who has schizophrenia with polymodal hollucinations, some friendly and some unpleasant. At least she has some friendly ones and not all of them are mean and nasty, not that many people get friendly ones so I guess she's luckier than most on that count, but its really difficult for her parents to give her all the care and looking after she needs while also protecting and raising their other child. Anyways, just thought I'd put a well documented case out there, children, even little ones, can and do get mental illness and sometimes need medicine in order to feel as safe and content as possible. But as is pointed out such cases are not that common and proper diagnosis and treatment is key. So yes Niki, most people with mental illness get it in their teens or twenties, but there are exceptions.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 3:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
PSYCHIATRISTS KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT NOTHING.
INTERNISTS KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING.
PATHOLOGISTS KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT EVERYTHING, ONLY TOO LATE.

Bwahahahaha!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 14, 2011 3:24 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I think it's a matter of different experiences, opinions and interpretation. Just to say."

I think it's a difference between being in a country with national health care where you assume care will be provided when there's a problem, because, hey, why not?; and being in the US where if you have a rare, poorly defined and potentially EXPENSIVE condition, you will get roundly ignored, because, hey, it could dig into profits.

It comes from either being in the path of routine problems, or entering into the group with extraordinary, unbelievable ones.

Magon and Signy are coming from vastly different experiences.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 19, 2011 2:48 PM

Firstly, I'd like to apologise for my 'screw you' remarks. Should not post when I am having a rough day.

Quote:
Actually, you weren't. You were putting blanket judgment on a situation you know nothing about. NOTHING. You haven't seen the children in question, you haven't talked to the parents, but you automatically assume that somebody did something horrible and unreasonable without ANY of the specific facts on-hand. You ASSUME that the parents are just basically med-heads who can't deal with their children and went to a cooperative/ irresponsible doctor to medicate their children into submission. Right? Because after all, what could POSSIBLY account for ALL of the children to be on meds, other than bad parenting?

Actually I was trying to have a reasonable discussion. If I came across as condescending, it wasn't something I intended. Of course I am generalising, of course I dont know the family in question and am making blanket statements. I'm only expressing an opinion on an online forum, which is what we all do here. Just like you are as well. Unless you know the family and are not disclosing this.

Quote:
But WHAT IF all of the children in that family have an undxd mitochondrial disorder or lysosomal storage disorder with neurological consequences?
What if ONE of the parents (the gene source) has the same problem? What if the OTHER parent is taking meds just to keep from melting down?

Then they still really couldn't be diagnosed with bipolar because that clearly isn't the illness they would be suffering from, and worse still to be medicated for a misdiagnosed illness.

Even if both parents suffer from mental illness does not mean that a child will automatically have the same illness, although the risk factors are greater. You can't medicate for prevention sake, it just doesn't work like that.

You mistake my intent that children should not be diagnosed and treated if necessary. If parents are really worried of course then they should seek help to work out what the problem is, and if there are any developmental delays or underlying neurological conditions. I would hope that medication, especially use of long term medication, would really only be a last resort for an infant, but I'm damn sure there would be times where they are necessary.

My argument has always been about medicating children where there are only behavioural issues, assuming there is no underlying neurological damage. Even then, I am not against the use of ritalin per se, but I would be concerned if it was given to an infant and I think it should only be used if other therapies are taking place as well.

I believe that parents need support when they have a child with such issues, I don't think letting them suffer alone is the answer, but I'm not big on the medication of children, as you can probably work out. I think there are a number of things which would work better and be less dangerous for kids, including physiotherapies, play therapy and family therapy. I'm also not a big believer in the diagnosis of ADD, ODD and ADHD and the like, along with diagnosis of mental illness at an early age, just because I think kids get labelled and kind of stuck with those labels, and they are not always helpful. I also see that parents sometimes prefer to label a child rather than look at the family system which can (but not always) contribute to said behaviours. Medicating can too often be an easy way out, rather than making changes that are necessary. And that can apply to a lot of adults as well. Medication can be an easy 'quick fix'. But before anyone goes ballistic at me for my views, I am not saying 'never medicate' for mental illness, because I believe that some people need medication to lead stable lives.

That is my philosophy and based on my experiences in life, and I don't mean to offend anyone when I state them. I understand that others will see things differently. I'd also like to state that I am saying this stuff on an anonomous forum. I'd never state them to a parent who was doing stuff that I personally disagree with, just like I wouldn't comment if someone was parenting in a way i didn't like. But I still hold my own views on these things.

Quote:
Yanno what? If doctors and parents are dealing with a "mystery disorder" then they will GO WITH WHATEVER DIAGNOSIS GETS THE MOST INSURANCE HELP. This was a point that Kiki brought up, which you never addressed. So, what's your answer to the problem? I don't think you have one. But you seem to have a lot of assumptions and judgment.

I didn't answer cause I've been busy with life. I really hope people wouldn't have to wrongly diagnose and wrongly treat a child just for the sake of getting some help. That would be really tragic.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 19, 2011 6:43 PM

Two by two, hands of blue.

It seems that those who would save a single soldier would but use it as an excuse to slay an army. Has it not occurred to anyone here that in so doing they are creating Miranda?

On another note...

It occurs to me that the attitude of nobles of Milan towards islanders is very much "work will set you free." It seems ironic some how. It seems like the magic doth belong to Ariel, and yet, not the power.

My high charms work And these mine enemies are all knit up In their distractions; they now are in my power; And in these fits I leave them

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 19, 2011 6:45 PM

Que?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 19, 2011 8:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Que?

Sorry, it was topical. Miranda. Is a character in the Tempest. And a planet in Firefly named after her. Probably because she says "O Brave New World that has such people in it" from which Aldous Huxley took the title for his dystopian future about a drugged world. But it's not inappropriate.

Prospero is mad. He's totally nuts. I am not sure that Shakespeare realizes this. He uses not just his power, but everyone else's to achieve his ends of increasing his power at the expense of others, and he enslaves Caliban and Ariel to that end.

What else I think is that Shakespeare also, while he actually *does* bother to have character motivations for the fae, doesn't actually consider their own political dynamic.

Caliban wants to be human, which is another angle by which he can be exploited, and the scene in lord of the rings with gollum sam and frodo is stolen directly from this play. It's not just similar, I'm sure it's the origin. That's why Sam acts the way he does, because Trinculo does. But I digress. I think Tolkein saw the potential of Caliban's motivations in this relationship as reaching beyond approval seeking for essentially membership in humanity towards being something more similar.

But isn't this really what it's all about? We are told, as Caliban is, that we are less than human, and so we come crawling back to seek approval, to gain recognition as humans, and by this manner we are controlled.

Thus some are deemed mentally ill, and others sane because they fit the mold and obey the power structure.

Isn't it just nobility and behavior that really judge the status of people as human? Sycorax is dismissed from the species as a "Witch" which is doubly ironic as Prospero is using her spellbook, and his control over her own fae subjects the same way she did it. Even Shakespeare is aware of the hypocrisy of it which is why Prospero promises to get rid of the book at the end, etc. once he has achieved all of his ends.

But the boatswain and all are doomed to serve the nobles of Milan, and all who are not rightly heirs are manipulated by drugs and magic and trickery. Objectively, Ariel is more powerful than any of them, should any of them care to have any contest over the Island.

Stephano is joking in declaring himself king of the island. If it were a real contest, it would not be a contest.

That's what a ship is, you know - it's not just a keel and a hull and a deck and sails, that's what a ship needs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, March 24, 2011 9:15 PM