Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Friday, January 08, 2010

The rate of children aged 2 to 5 who are given antipsychotic medications has doubled in recent years, according to a new study in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. Presumably, children with the most severe mental problems would be given the potent drugs. Yet less than half of these children had received any mental health assessment or treatment from a psychotherapist or psychiatrist, the study noted. "It is a worrisome trend, partly because very little is known about the short-term, let alone the long-term, safety of these drugs in this age group," said study author Dr. Mark Olfson.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

L_RContrarian

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Prescribing antipsychotics to children ages 4 and 5 is justifiable only in rare, intractable situations in which all other treatments

What if the parents are really, really lazy?

The story doesn't break down the cases other than to state that Medicaid insurance recipients were the highest aggregate. This would only suggest that the parental situation is the actual cause. Not mentioned were protective services' cases where, in some districts, it is nearly automatic to place the children on anti-psychotics. The advantage is they are then deemed special needs kids windfall.

These kids shouldn't be taking pills that LR is in much greater need of.

The explosion in autism is mentioned as well as a cause.

#3 z
Trolling again, loser?

You clearly should have your head checked and not be commenting on this topic.

I don't follow where you're going with the link, but keep 'em coming, Mulder. LR's Circus of Psychosis is better than the Texas-Alabama game so far.

#6 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-07 10:25 PM | Reply | Flag: You wouldn't get it, would you?

The rest of DR gets it just fine, sicko!

Recurring Theme?

Doctors are over diagnosing ailments--could be problems with the parents too.

It is hard to imagine that people would do this for money--but after 26 years in insurance claims--nothing surprises me too much. Does make it sad though.

And when there is autism diagnosed 1 out of 150 kids--something is wrong with the system--not the kids.

The rest of DR gets it just fine

Lol oh really? I'm sorry I had to be the one to break the news to you, but the voices in your head don't post here...

And when there is autism diagnosed 1 out of 150 kids--something is wrong with the system--not the kids.

The diagnostic criteria are extremely broad, physicians are becoming increasingly aware of them, and (like most conditions involving the mind) the underlying disease processes are poorly understood. It is quite likely that a host of unrelated processes cause similar outward effects and get labeled "autism" as a result.

There have also been increases in the number of psychiatrists willing to prescribe drugs for "off-label" purposes and development of atypical antipsychotics with more favorable side-effect profiles than their predecessors. If parents report "improvement" after giving their kids these drugs (many of which have pronounced sedative properties), word will spread through the grapevine and off-label use will increase.

Ah, so L_R is really a Scientologist. Quelle suprise.

The diagnostic criteria are extremely broad, physicians are becoming increasingly aware of them, and (like most conditions involving the mind) the underlying disease processes are poorly understood. It is quite likely that a host of unrelated processes cause similar outward effects and get labeled "autism" as a result.

There have also been increases in the number of psychiatrists willing to prescribe drugs for "off-label" purposes and development of atypical antipsychotics with more favorable side-effect profiles than their predecessors. If parents report "improvement" after giving their kids these drugs (many of which have pronounced sedative properties), word will spread through the grapevine and off-label use will increase.

#10 | Posted by ZombieHunter

Ah, so L_R is really a Scientologist. Quelle suprise.

Lol, I guess we're hopelessly infested with thetans. Hail Xenu! Death to Dianetics!

The diagnostic criteria are extremely broad, physicians are becoming increasingly aware of them, and (like most conditions involving the mind) the underlying disease processes are poorly understood. It is quite likely that a host of unrelated processes cause similar outward effects and get labeled "autism" as a result.

There have also been increases in the number of psychiatrists willing to prescribe drugs for "off-label" purposes and development of atypical antipsychotics with more favorable side-effect profiles than their predecessors. If parents report "improvement" after giving their kids these drugs (many of which have pronounced sedative properties), word will spread through the grapevine and off-label use will increase.

#10 | Posted by ZombieHunter

#12 | Posted by matsop

I think I understand what your posting, Zombie, and you tend to be spot on---what were often variants of normal behavior (although extreme) in the past are now given diagnosis through the broadening of definition of certain disease states--therefore, once diagnosed, it of course has to have treatment---ADHD was the big one in the past and now autism will be the current rage and in another decade it'll be something else---ADHD has gone very quiet in the press and now we're focussed on autism---then all parties that benefit economically push the envelope because it's in their self-interest.

Doctors are over diagnosing ailments--could be problems with the parents too.

It is hard to imagine that people would do this for money--but after 26 years in insurance claims--nothing surprises me too much. Does make it sad though.

And when there is autism diagnosed 1 out of 150 kids--something is wrong with the system--not the kids.

#8 | Posted by MURPHY

Having been in healthcare for a few years, Murph, you are spot on and yes, there are and always will be individuals that materially will take advantage of these situations.

Murph,

Your a fellow insurance hack like me? Cool.

My wife is an OT specializing in children birth to three and NICU and it is amazing what people will do to their children to avoid being being a responsible parent (note: blanket statement, not true in all instances).

Currently we are managing our son's spectrum disorder outside of the school system because NC treats spectrum children as lepers which just further screws them over for life.

what were often variants of normal behavior (although extreme) in the past are now given diagnosis through the broadening of definition of certain disease states

Yeah, that's definitely true, too. The spectrum of "normal" behavior is being narrowed. In addition to our changing culture (since when did kids need PSA's telling them to play outside?!), it probably has something to do with both the medical community and parents themselves. I imagine the two feed back on each other - parents and family physicians are growing increasingly aware of mental health issues, parents say they have problems with their kids, the medical community is more inclined to recognize them, and in the process they convince more parents that their children have problems.

I was also trying to make the point that nobody really knows what the hell autism really is. The same goes with a lot of psych stuff. The conditions are diagnosed based on behavior or subjective reports from the patient, friends, and relatives. Those are extremely complex things. Patterns of behavior that look the same to an outside observer may have very different causes. You have to question the wisdom of treating behavioral patterns with powerful mind-altering drugs that are really pretty crude in their mechanism of action.

all parties that benefit economically push the envelope because it's in their self-interest

Between the economic side of things and the problem of parental panic, it's not a good thing. I think some of it has to do with people wanting to feel like they're doing something despite the fact that nobody really knows what to do. Somewhere along the line, a parent is going to run into a psychiatrist who says, "Well, you could try an atypical and see if things improve..."

As much as I think Tom Cruise is a fool, he is 100% correct in his assessment of Psychiatry. This truly is a scientific field that is based on anything but science. I will agree that there are some people due to birth defects or deficient early childcare (Romanian orphan example) that need drugs for their mental state, but the rest really need a few simple things that parents are too lazy to provide such as:

1.) Adequate quality time with the parents
2.) Healthy diet
3.) Exercise

People, starting with children, need to understand that life is hard and is often a struggle but the joy of overcoming the struggle is what makes it so rewarding. The current instant gratification' society which we have allowed to dominate our lives sets people up for failure. I personally like to have physical challenges I climb mountains, run marathons, etc and I can tell you, my joy is in the struggle, not in crossing the finish line.

Lastly, if you know anyone struggling with non-suicidal depression, etc, I would highly recommend something like Landmark Education over seeing a psychiatrist.

As much as I think Tom Cruise is a fool, he is 100% correct in his assessment of Psychiatry.

Maybe about 50% right. There is a lot of voodoo that gets passed off as psychiatry, but there is a time and a place for it. For as crude as the drugs are, there is a subset of psych patients who get a tremendous benefit from them.

Another product of the free market and capitalism. There's no money to be made from healthy kids. Just more "Professionals" to bill and more crap to sell.

One easy way to reduce health care costs is to reverse the trend of physicians becoming nothing more than drug pushers.

You have to question the wisdom of treating behavioral patterns with powerful mind-altering drugs that are really pretty crude in their mechanism of action.

#17 | Posted by ZombieHunter

One of our children was diagnosed as having significant ADD---moment he was born, he was a handle and we knew we were in trouble---different from our other children; we sat down one night to talk about how to respond--we had to follow the kid around everywhere so he wouldn't destroy himself and everything else--we decided to define the major issues we would react to since we would have destroyed the kid's self -esteem if we had responded to everything negative he was doing--we were consistent in disciplining on the majors and constantly loved him. (he was getting all the negatives he needed from school and we felt home, at least, had to be a refuge.)---refused to put him on drugs and decided we had to be his drugs. When he was in about the 7th grade we asked him if he would like to try meds after being educated on them--he said no and when asked why he responded that his friend Ben (also ADD) was on drugs and "Ben isn't Ben anymore". To finish up, our son is successful today with an outstanding job and his mother got a letter recently from him thanking us for sticking with him and loving him---your point is so well taken about how we want to sedate children that shouldn't be because we don't want to take the grief of having to put extreme effort into working with them.

One easy way to reduce health care costs is to reverse the trend of physicians becoming nothing more than drug pushers.

#21 | Posted by Sully

FF!

America Has the Greatest Medical System in the World.

Sincerely

Rush Limpough, "conservative" Grand Wizard

1 out of 150 kids

Umm, that's 1 out of 150 Eight Year Olds (only).

Your purposeful omission aside, you claim to have access to "medical claims", then obviously you or your organization has done a study for your region on this (I know we did).
One thing to note, most HMO don't cover autism outside of a rider, so in many cases autism is indistinguishable from other mental illness when looking at CPTs and ICD-9 codes within the medical billing record insurance claim. It's extremely hard to quantify this data knowing how doctors game the system (i.e. giving a diagnosis that's covered rather than the actual diagnosis where treatment is not covered). So the CDC results probably include a slew of mental illness diagnoses and is therefore subjective and only a primer.
Our rates were considerably lower (less than 1%) in our own study, but I like how you eagerly latch on the "government" version of things when you think it's an advantage.

Weren't you one of the so called "conservatives" who claimed the CDC was lying for Obama in regards to the flue virus? Why the sudden change of heart for a government outfit?

Personally, I just think you're a habitual liar.

Children Reaching Age 3 Without Speaking a Word

If you follow the comments on the retort then you have to come to the conclusion that not enough adults are perscribed anti-psychotic medications.

This is due, in part, to parents who don't want to actually have to be parents and just want to drug the thing so it won't require any attention.

Shitty parenting for many of these cases. Sad.

There are also some schools that, after disruptive behavior, won't let your child attend if they're not on this crap.

WTF!?!? Are these 'guidance counselors' in the pocket of big pharma too?


Mental-health Screening of Children, September 7, 2004

The American tradition of parents deciding what is best for their children is, yet again, under attack. The pharmaceutical industry has convinced President Bush to support mandatory mental-health screening for every child in America, including preschool children, and the industry is now working to convince Congress as well. But mandatory screening alone is not what the pharmaceutical industry wants. The real payoff for the drug companies is the forced drugging of children that will result as we learned tragically with Ritalin even when parents refuse.

Congressman Ron Paul, an OB/GYN physician for over 30 years, is desperately trying to keep the drug companies, politicians and federal bureaucrats from becoming parents to your children. Dr. Paul will introduce on Wednesday afternoon or Thursday morning (whenever the floor schedule allows) an amendment to the Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Act for FY 2005 that will withhold funds for this new federal mental-health-screening program. He will urge his congressional colleagues to support his effort in a letter to be distributed tomorrow morning.

"As you know, psychotropic drugs are increasingly prescribed for children who show nothing more than children's typical rambunctious behavior. Many children have suffered harmful effects from these drugs. Yet some parents have even been charged with child abuse for refusing to drug their children. The federal government should not promote national mental health screening programs that will force the use of these psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin."

In 1995, the state of Texas launched the Texas Medication Algorithm Project. The state of Illinois has also approved a mental health screening program. The legislature passed the Children's Mental Health Act of 2003 which will provide screening for "all children ages 0-18" and "ensure appropriate and culturally relevant assessment of your children's social and emotional development with the use of standardized tools." In addition, all pregnant women in Illinois are to be screened for depression.

Dr. Karen R. Effrem, another physician and leading opponent of mandatory screening recently stated, "Universal mental health screening and the drugging of children, as recommended by the New Freedom Commission, needs to be stopped so that many thousands if not millions of children will be saved from receiving stigmatizing diagnoses that would follow them for the rest of their lives. America's school children should not be medicated by expensive, ineffective, and dangerous medications based on vague and dubious diagnoses."

Dr. Effrem warns of the following:

1. Parental rights are unclear or non-existent under these screening programs.
2. Parents are already being coerced to put their children on psychiatric medications and some children are dying because of it.
3. Mental health screening does not prevent suicide.
4. Mental health diagnoses are "subjective" and "social constructions" as admitted by the authors of the diagnostic manuals themselves.
5. Most psychiatric medications do not work in children.
6. The side effects of these medications in children are severe.
7. The untoward influence by the pharmaceutical industry, or at least the impropriety, is abundantly clear in two important aspects of this issue.
8. Merging screening with the academic standards required by No Child Left Behind, as is happening in Illinois, will lead to diagnosis for political reasons. School mental health and violence prevention programs funded by NCLB and government
counterterrorism operations are already using such criteria as "homophobia" and "defenders of the US Constitution against federal government and the UN" to label school children and US citizens as mentally unstable and violent.

There are also some schools that, after disruptive behavior, won't let your child attend if they're not on this crap.

Where?

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable