The Drugging of the American Boy (2014)
esquire.com
esquire.com
The story recalls how when Michelle Obama publicized #BringBackOurGirls, laudably promoting saving many innocent girls from kidnapping and worse, Boko Haram had been burning alive and hacking to death many innocent boys for years to little western outcry.
We keep changing our culture from the world our emotional systems evolved to handle. Then we declare groups sick who can't handle the change, which happen to be boys mostly, and drug them.
When we create problems for girls, we ask "what have we done?", recognize we're hurting them, and try to change the culture we created stop hurting them. We may take time, but we don't want to hurt them.
When we create problems for boys, we say "we'll fix you," as if they were broken. If boys' behavior was adapted to a different world than sitting in rows for most of the day, why don't we change the culture we created to stop hurting them?
From my perspective, the root of this is more yet another case of medicine being over-sold well beyond their intended purpose. In this case, energetic boys are the ones that get caught in the cross fire. But this seems overall like a systemic problem of current medicine, well beyond ADHD medicine... ranging from the over-prescription of antibiotics, to the roots of the opioid addiction crisis. Our medical system just plain and simple seems to dish out too many pills, even when the chances of help is marginal.
I'm guessing (to be fair) that many times this is due to patient demand, I just wish doctors would sometimes push back sometimes. People are looking for easy solutions to life's problems, and don't necessarily realize the whole picture that comes from medication (side effects and whatnot). Your child is energetic and a handle sometimes, right? That's often normal. You don't need to necessarily give your child powerful stimulants, what is essentially commercialized speed, to "cure" this, unless you are really sure of the diagnosis, in my opinion.
Which is sad because a very common trope (especially for young boys) is recess being their favorite "class". It is also pretty well documented to help in all kinds of behavioral issues as well as being a valuable learning environment in its own right.
Most of the research out there seems to support the idea that recess or other unstructured play is quite beneficial, for quite a number of reasons, so it's quite possible that half an hour is not enough. I'd certainly suspect more recess would do a lot more good for energetic children than powerful stimulants!
If recess periods for schools that have it are an hour long, then less than half of the kids actually have recess. Anyway, what a frustratingly useless statistic since I didn't know how they got it.
Maybe it's what we don't see? Enforced truancy laws may be a possibility. If you were a 'problematic' child back in the day, it's very likely you would be kicked out and not get any education. Now schools wanting to maximize their federal payments use law enforcement to punish truant students.
Girls face what is left (in many places 100%) of our old male dominated culture. This means (for a variety of complicated reasons) they'll make a little more money and feature more prominently in the ranks of power.
But, some of the places where they're disadvantaged as boys (eg schools generally, to a small extent), boys tend to get less attention on their problems. There's also a "sins of their father's" effect, where typically male behaviour is often seen as negative... especially sexual behaviour. Rowdiness too, which may be the reason here.
Hard to know where it'll go, but in a worst case scenario male sexuality gets repressed the way female sexuality was/is. I doubt it will go anywhere near that far.
Schools as an institution... I think there's clear evidence (drugs being one) that the system works a little better for girls.
We could do better in theory, but practically I think it's just going to happen how it happens.
Schools are a whole other pit of insanity. Most public schools can't enforce behavior norms, which are 90% a result of clueless parents. Their recourse is medicalizing the problem and addressing bad behavior with drugs. With my children we ended up opting to private school because you simply don't have that problem -- they address behavior issues and if it turns out to be a problem that isn't being fixed, the kid doesn't come back.
[0]https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-punishi...
There is a much more safety and risk averse culture here for kids growing up and there is an epidemic of over policing of children. Back home, I could run around and play in the streets without much parental oversight as early as the age of six. All I had to do was get back before dark and my parents made it very clear if I didn't there would be significant consequences (I was never beaten so you can make children understand it without the threat of corporeal punishment). However here, CPS can be called if you leave your child unattended in your backyard.
My theory is that since boys hitting puberty are driven towards riskier behaviour thanks to testosterone (they just have more physical energy than girls that needs to be expended and mundane activities rarely suffice), this policing culture that no longer fits that style of exploration takes it upon themselves to neuter young boys. It's a sorry state of affairs, but unfortunately I don't see a way to fix it without getting mired down in identity politics
Honestly, I grew up the same way, in suburban America - but thirty years ago. When my own kids were little, they wanted to go outside and play, and my wife almost had a heart attack when I suggested letting them. I told her that's how I grew up and she said what every mother I've heard of says now: "times were different back then". Yes, times are different... but not necessarily for the better.
One example is false rape accusations. People say false rape accusations are bad because it makes it that harder for women who have been raped to be believed. No mention of men whose lives are destroyed by false rape accusations. Even when it's women lying about rape, the focus is on other women and how it harms them. Never about the males who are languishing in prison or have their lives destroyed by false accusations.
Another example is female dominated professions. The media seems to be obsessed with "diversifying" male dominated professions like engineering/software development. But nobody talks about diversifying female dominated professions. 77% of public school teachers in the US are female. This is a government job. Shouldn't the media be focusing on the lack of diversity in education? To put this in perspective, google ( a focus of the media's crusade for "diversity" ) is 69% male and 31% female.
And then there is nonsense like "toxic" masculinity. Can you imagine if people talked about "toxic" femininity? They'd be branded a bigot and attacked mercilessly.
But female dominated positions aren't "diversified" because it's one of the few places where a woman actually gets a shot at a job. This is the entire purpose behind "diversification": minorities and oppressed groups don't get a fair shot at normal jobs, so they have to get lumped into jobs that society thinks is "appropriate" for them. So, while I think you are misguided in your criticism, I agree that we should root out why exactly women are relegated to being the majority in only a few select stereotypical positions.
"Toxic masculinity" is not nonsense. I'm a male and it's easy for me to see what toxic masculinity looks like. Misogyny, homophobia, violence, and other forms of oppression are all traits men overwhelmingly exhibit more than women. If women acted like this we would label it and talk about it and we wouldn't be called bigots (except by the people trying to deny that it exists).
You misread what I wrote. My point was when it is proven that a false rape accusation is made, people turn the focus to how the proven false rape accusation hurt other women, not how it hurt the man who was falsely accused.
People say that false rape accusations are bad because it makes it harder for actual rape victims to be believe. What people should be saying is false rape accusations are bad because it hurts the falsely accused.
> Weird as it is for you to bring it up that way.
No. It's weird you misinterpreted a fairly straightforward point I was making.
> But female dominated positions aren't "diversified" because it's one of the few places where a woman actually gets a shot at a job.
One of the few places? This is hilarious. You are doing exactly what I said. You are spinning discrimination against men into victimization of women.
> I'm a male and it's easy for me to see what toxic masculinity looks like.
I'm sure you are.
> Misogyny, homophobia, violence, and other forms of oppression are all traits men overwhelmingly exhibit more than women.
That sounds very sexist. What's the difference between you and sexists decades ago saying women's "toxic femininity" needed to be "cured" with hysterectomies?
> If women acted like this we would label it and talk about it
There are just as many misogynous, homophobic, violent and "other forms of oppression" women out there.
It's so funny. I bet you are the first one to talk about how there are no differences between men and women right? We are pretty much the same. Right? And yet you claim that men are "toxic".
"Spinning" would imply this is propaganda, or that I'm using some disingenuous or deceptive tactic. But instead, I simply pointed out that there is probably a cause behind the "dominance of women in certain professional fields", and that it may in fact be related to women's oppression. You can disagree all you want, I don't really give a shit, because you aren't interested in finding out if this is or isn't the case - you aren't even capable of doing research to find out if this is some ridiculous "spin" or made up story, or find any backstory to it at all.
> There are just as many misogynous, homophobic, violent and "other forms of oppression" women out there.
First of all, just as many misogynous women as men? So there are just as many women who hate women as there are men who hate women? Sounds weird. Why would they hate themselves, especially in large numbers? And just as many homophobic women? So why isn't women beating up other women for being gay such a cultural trope as it is for macho male culture? Why are there so few women at nationalist, white supremacist, neo-nazi, and similar rallies? And I'll just post this Wikipedia page (I know you're not going to read it, but again, I don't care): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_women 1 in 4 women experience domestic violence in their lifetime, compared to 1 in 7 men. And 1 in 7 women experiencing at least an attempted rape in their lifetime compared to 1 in 37 men. Women are also more likely to be murdered by an intimate partner than men. And 1 in 6 women have been stalked in their lifetime compared to 1 in 19 men. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_violence_in_the_Unite...
You had a valid point about listening to the stories of men who are accused of rape and the subsequent aftermath thereof, and then you threw it all away by being an MRA shill and an uninformed troll. And here I am, correcting your dumb ass, because some idiots on this forum are actually upvoting you like you have a valid point.
Man. Humanity is a garbage fire.
Heck, Howard Glasser himself shows that giving a boy more love is a viable method to manage a boys hyperactivity.
I wonder how much a coincidence that the last three presidencies(first family) before Trump had no sons, only daughters and whether this influenced subtly our perception and bias towards daughters over sons.
It's easy to dismiss the value of these medicines if you've never felt saved by them. It's hard to understand how painful and frustrating it is for a child to not be able to complete an exam because when he gets a few words into a question he has to start over from the beginning again and again and again and again and again because the words just keep slipping away from him. It's hard to explain that, no, extra time doesn't actually mean a special edge against other children who don't have the same problem. It's hard feeling really bad at subjects that you're actually really good at because you can't keep your thoughts together. It's hard to walk out of an exam room crying because you can feel yourself starting to lose your grip. It's hard as an adult to say "this saved my life" to another adult who doesn't understand it. But it's just weird when adults who are perfectly happy to drug themselves on the regular for no other reason than because it feels good are like "yeah, but..." when there are kids out there who will gladly take negative side effects over the alternative.
25 years later I’m so glad she did and I’ve benefitted enormously. Ultimately I wound up with a combination of a stimulant medicine and a low dose anti-seizure medicine to take some of the edge off the stimulant (speaking fast, jumpy, etc).
In the end, the experience has made me much more of a believer in psychiatry than psychotherapy. I never benefitted from that the few times psychiatrist I’ve had have requested me take it. If anything, going to confession / mass has helped more in the “non-medicine” stuff you can do.
I often wonder how horrible my life would have been if I had done well in school and not pursued my dreams through entrepreneurship.
I’m greatful every day that I get to live life riding the roller coaster of startup life.
My personality is well suited to the insanity and chaos often brought to this kind of life.
Had I been tempered by medication so the words stopped moving and I didn’t have to re-read I might never have learned how to learn.
I feel like the raw statistics are a bit misleading here, because yes, on average, formal education improves outcomes. And I think most of us here are hardcore outliers, and have a passion for learning and self-development outside of a formal education context.
A passion for learning only helps if you learn useful things, and a child with ADHD will focus on what they find interesting. And I don't see how improving your ability to focus on uninteresting things would have held you back.
I've found the most magic in finding the intersection of useful and interesting, and suspect that this has led me to more satisfaction than someone who has found something only useful and used their willpower to focus on it.
Second,those aren't the two options. You're gaining the ability to focus on uninteresting things, something people without ADHD have and don't use constantly. All the traits mentioned in your last post don't disappear when you add the ability to focus.
How likely is it the failing in school helps you? Not very.
Given that you have succeeded because of failing in school, what was the probability that failing in school helped you? There's no such thing as that probability because there's no such thing as how likely it is that your actual outcome came about. There's no such thing as what fraction of possible life-outcomes are similar to your actual outcome. At least you can't possibly know these things.
It is true that the statistics show that those who are born with the right traits to succeed in life are more likely to do well in school and in the workplace, which is unsurprising. Life is a gradient, but when we take it to the logical extreme, it becomes quite apparent that someone with a crippling mental disability is not going to be able to go far in school, nor are they going to be a top choice to do business with. But that does not mean that there are not cases where people who are born with the right traits slip through the system. The education system is big and complex and sometimes fails. Someone with successful traits does not lose their successful traits from that experience.
That said, I agree that there is more to life than career success. The enrichment that school could have provided him may have made his life better in other ways.
I see where you're coming from, and happy to find your relatively niche fit, and for sure I hope it's something long term sustainable.
But since you're clearly describing something you don't have experience with - what your life would be when actually finishing university and being more 'stable' - you paint a dark picture. It's actually opposite - you would have many more options in life.
I've met tons of 'unstable' people in life, for whatever reason - they can sometimes find spot in the universe to fit in, but long term they almost always, consistently struggle. Their life is a mess. Relationships are often crap. Long-term happiness and life balance are mythical phrases. And so on.
I hope this isn't and never will describe you (and ideally nobody)
Lets hope it works out in the Whitehouse also.
Concerta doesn't magically give you attention abilities you didn't have before. It's a nervous system stimulant. It makes you neurotic, trapped in your own head. Maybe this makes it easier for some people to focus, but I have enough experience with it to explain why. It forces your attention from the world around you to your own mind. You will be more physically still and "studious", only because you are mentally struggling more. It makes you feel sick. Food seems abhorrent. You will eat a small fraction of what other kids your age eat, you will be below the 99th percentile in height and weight for your age and you will stay that way for the rest of your life. You will be paranoid and anxious, more than ever before the meds. When things are illogical, when you see other people make bad decisions that seem so simple to you, you will be ANGRY. You will be inhumanly smart, but you will be inhuman.
The food, yes, the frustrations with illogical decisions, yes. I'd never recommend the drugs to a child, just run them outside until they wear out, but for adults who have trouble keeping multiple plates spinning; yes, use science to overcome your random genealogical assignment.
There is no proof that social disorders like ADHD/ADD are genetically deterministic. Which is why the diagnosis relies solely on social observations rather than biological tests. That is of course not to say that drugs can't enhance desired brain functions.
>Finally, one of the key goals of genetic studies of ADHD is to understand its aetiology and mechanisms. The challenge undoubtedly will not only be in identifying risk factors but more importantly testing causal mechanisms.
Again, there is no proof, only hypothesis. This is in stark contrast with actual biological pathologies which have proven genetic causes, such as sickle cell anemia.
The whole thing bubbles down to the drawbacks of any hard drug -- addiction, physical dependence, side effects, and rebound effect from physical dependence. Psychological dependence, poor discipline due to not having to exercise it as much.
I guess HN is with the "carry a bag with a bunch of drugs. drugs have desirable effects." Need to fall asleep but you can't because you are _bad_ at it? Pop some benzos. Need to wake up, but you feel sluggish and hungover? Pop some coke or amphetamines. Toe hurts because you stubbed it? Pop some opiates. Lacking creativity? Pop some ketamine, lsd, or smoke some weed. Etc etc.
No one is saying amphetamines aren't effective. They are a hard drug. Drugs as a crutch, are bad, mmkay?
I see irony in calling someone else uninspired for being more attentive, and I eagerly await the publication of your well-founded study on the subject of demarcating things that are objectively and universally worth ignoring.
Ah, I didn't realize that by "people" you meant "people who are me and not someone else". That clarifies things, thanks.
> There is no reason to pay attention to everything in this world.
The inability to see reasons for things is like the definition of uninspired, though.
> Being obedient is common in...
I eagerly await publication of the results of your well-founded study of the relationship between obedience and vigilance.
So...you know...stop saying crazy things and I'll stop eagerly awaiting your publications.
I get it. You don't believe the problems are real. Or you don't believe that the drugs are effective at treating them. So I'm lying. And other people are lying. We're all lying to you, part of the vast conspiracy of children who never actually went through something that you didn't go through. Congratulations, you found us out! Or maybe you don't actually know everything.
> You are welcome to keep thinking you are doing yourself a therepeutic solid
I'll do you one better. My mother's strong advocacy for my mental wellbeing saved my life and ultimately made me an understanding and compassionate person who listens when someone tells them about real childhood trauma from being literally unable to read until the medicine magically fixed what was wrong.
> I feel bad that you think amphetamines are some class of "lifestyle" drug
I feel bad that you don't understand that different people have different needs to be able to function, and that sometimes things go wrong in ways that are fixable. I feel bad that you don't understand that people are very often willing to accept harmful side effects because those are less bad than the alternative.
> one of the most simple drugs around
Simple, eh? Let me tell you a story about a little drug called Lithium Carbonate. We can compare.
Ah. I understand now that you think that taking drugs is a similar professional qualification to, say, decades of medical accomplishment and meta-analysis in Neuropsychology. What a joke.
> The specific biochemical mechanism of lithium action in stabilizing mood is unknown.
Fun fact: Nobody knows why _any_ mood or cognition altering drug works the way it does, because nobody knows how the brain produces awareness. Nobody can predict which if any mood or cognition altering drug will treat known problems, because nobody knows yet what fundamentally causes the problems. It's why psychiatric treatments always require experimentation to discover which of multiple medications might work and at what dosage. Or are you saying you know that too? Because if you are, then I eagerly await the publication of your well-founded study.
Every time you assert that your experiences are universal, that's a crazy thing. It's even crazier that your basis for asserting it is that you did some drugs.
The reason psychiatric treatments require experimentation is because most psychiatric drugs are poorly understood in their mechanisms. We use them mainly because of pragmatic effects - not because we actually know their precise mechanisms.
I never said my experiences are universal, just that amphetamines have a markedly simple mechanism in humans and other animals -- that is, increasing dopaminergic activity, along with noradrenal activity. It is common knowledge that by increasing levels of dopamine, harder tasks can be performed without as much exhaustion. But mind you, the body's energy supply isn't unlimited - and though the mind might be more resilient, the body still pays for the extra activity done under guise of ease.
It is clear that you find the tradeoff worth it. Like you said, everyone has different experiences and finds different tradeoffs worth it. For me, the tradeoff isn't worth it - I find that taking amphetamines daily extracts most of the beneficial effects into tolerance, and what follows is pretty much just maintanence. If you find the tradeoff worth it, then clearly you should be using it. Only you can decide whether you are getting an overall positive effect from a narcotic that provides both positive and negative effects.
My main point is that we cannot deny that amphetamines are hard drugs - narcotics. And thus, it seems wrong to give them to kids with such ease.
Individual experiences vary. Patients have reported experiences like what both of you describe, though the reality tends to be a lot more middle of the road than that.
I’ve required such medications myself, and my experience was much more on the positive side, though not as extreme.
Assuming the worst of posters is definitely against the site rules, and just rude in general. As someone who takes Equasym - the same as Concerta except the different release cycle - I can't recognise anything in your post as being what I've experienced, nor does it match anyone else I know that also uses the same medication.
Your anger certainly seems misplaced to me, but severe enough that you should probably seek help for it. Hope you manage to move on in life.
I'm sorry that you think another person's life experiences are shit.
> I have to wonder if I'm reading from some big pharma social media bot.
It's very strange to hear this coming from an account created 15 days ago with a generic name and scant comment history.
> It makes you neurotic, trapped in your own head...you...you...you...
I would like to be the first totally-a-human person to welcome you to the real world where your personal feelings aren't universal truths.
> Dr. Allen Frances, professor emeritus at Duke University School of Medicine, the former chairman of its psychiatry department, and the chairman of the DSM-IV (1994) task force, feels the problem is not corruption but the slow creep of misinformation. "I know the people. They're not doing it for the drug companies—they really believe what they're doing is right. They really believe ADHD is underdiagnosed, and they want to help people who should be getting medication. I just think they're dead wrong."
I get your sentiment. I can say Adderall has helped me so much that I could get teary eyed. But thats only because I am too lazy and lack the willpower to discipline myself naturally. Speed is an easy way out of self improvement. The last thing we should do is put kids on it, and promote a life long cycle of helplessness and shortcuts to mental toughness through drugs.
Have you been diagnosed with ADHD? Do you even believe in ADHD? Your post seems to contain a lot of self-hatred, which is sad to read. As someone diagnosed at the age of 31 I have had a lot of time to reflect on my childhood and early experiences, and despite managing and in many ways thriving, medication earlier on would have made a lot of subtle differences that would have made things much easier over the course of my adult life.
I've never experienced a "cold, robotic mind space" either :)
Amphetamines aren't somehow special for one person and not for another, lest we are talking about actual brain damage.
They will make any person more apt to do mental and physical tasks. So keep on excusing the fact that you are doing a hard drug as a substitute for actually learning to learn. Being on speed your whole life is not a good thing. It's gross that this thread is being subverted to claim non-medical anecdotes about how gentle a hard drug is, and "once you get used to it, its no big deal!"
It's fucking speed! Of course it makes you feel great and more energetic. Thats what stimulants do!
(not advocating for this...yet).
I probably would have been on these meds if not for a teacher who became a mentor to me. He helped teach me how to study and other things that were enormously valuable to me, but never would have happened normally.
Besides science classes, I received Ds in every class through my sophomore year. At the time I looked like a failure but today Id consider myself happy and successful as I’ve travelled the world, become a father and started a number of innovative businesses.
ADD is a gift as it has enabled me to make creative connections that others simply don’t see.
If you have kids please focus on their long-term well being. Please love your kids and support the things they find interest in. Getting good grades being well behaved in class aren’t everything are not necessarily an indicator of future success.
ADHD has some very neat pros, but without a proper support network and a good foundation, going without meds is hell. I recently finally gave in to my idealism (even now I don't want to call it that) and convinced myself that I have goals, and those goals can't wait another year for me to get things right. I've wasted enough years struggling for air.
The first month was pretty bad, adjusting your family and friend's expectations. I even found myself avoiding conversation "until the meds wore off and I was me again." Few will understand any of the things in your post, but it will spark some thought in those that are susceptible.
Amphetamines are performance enhancing drugs for air force pilots to do 16 hour sorties.
They are too hard a drug to give to a kid to bandaid over his impulsivity.
High school sucks and everything is weird and I was depressed at some point. Eventually I decided on my own to stop taking the medication and it was like I woke up. I started enjoying life, surfing, going to concerts, being creative, etc. I've also traveled all around the world since then and been very successful.
I don't think I'd change anything about my experience, but in retrospect I think I was probably misdiagnosed. Also it's important to realize that everyone is different and we need to try to accept that.
Which is why so much failed social policy ultimately ends up in the ED getting sedated into pliability.
[1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drapetomania
If children weren't forced to sit in classrooms 7 hours a day, 5 days a week (or similar), ADHD, ADD, etc. would not get the negative focus it does.
Just because education is A Good Thing™ does not mean we should ignore the detrimental effects of its implementation
I have long believed that education and schooling are not as linked as society pretends.
Children aren't served by locking them in a room with barred windows for hours on end and telling them to pay attention and not fidget and do your work and go home and do several more hours of work and then repeat.
Distraction is a part of being a child. There are productive distractions and unproductive ones, but the solution is not to pump children full of drugs. You're robbing them off their natural connection-making process, and of the chance to learn how to handle distractions as they grow up in a society of smartphones and advertisements.
And all that is assuming that we're even trying to educate the kids while they're in school. https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament....
At least for boys, if you grassroots up from first principles and implement what works pragmatically, rather than what we've always done or whats in the union contract, you end up with something like cub scouts or boy scouts.
Given the wildly divergent goals of school and scouts, where school exists to perpetuate and expand the bureaucracy and scouts exists because organized screwing around provides more learning opportunities than disorganized screwing around, they will continue to diverge until they're unrecognizable. But at least in theory boys learn at both organizations. Much more at boy scouts than at school of course, but they are kinda similar.
There exist merit badges in boy scouting for semi-academic topics like electricity or programming. The time investment has to be limited but its intellectually interesting to imagine that someday the only way to teach a boy geometry would be a boy scout geometry merit badge. Unimaginable amounts of time and money will be spent in schools on a line item named "geometry" but the legacy school system does not have any goal of teaching boys geometry so ironically thats the one thing boys will definitely not learn in geometry class, they'll have to go to scouts to learn.
I have no personal experience with girl scouts because of their "no male leadership" rule, which is about as appropriate as the now removed "no gay leadership" rule in boy scouts; My lack of praising girl scouts is due to a lack of girl scout experience not implying its bad or wrong. Its possible, even likely, girl scouts is just as good for girls. I do find the ratio bizarre where per capita girl scouting is around ten times less popular than boy scouts, that might indicate a problem in girl scouting.
More modern version of scouts have focus on boys doing proper boyish activities and girls doing proper girly activities. E.g. boy version is more about camping and tracking, girl version developed from traditionally female crafts. They are not equivalent in terms of child raising goals.
Some of the more modern versions don't even make gender distinctions.
Those who do "education" to students are organized and powerful, and that is a serious problem. We as a society are being cheated out of learning by a mindless system.
Maybe those of us who have been enlightened to that fact ought to organize ourselves.
I am yet another person who, around 7, was prescribed strong stimulants. Yes, it turned me into a robot, and yes, I did better in school. For a while. Until finally I grew so bored of pointless academic striving that I completely gave up doing any school work. At the same time, I discovered the computer.
When I first told my mother "I don't want to live anymore", she asked me, "Good lord, why would you want to kill yourself?!" We had just recently moved back to the states, to a place I didn't know or like, to a school I didn't like. My parents fought, partly over us. My brother despised me. Due to my medicated existence, I had no real emotional connection to anything. At fourteen, I didn't see much value in life. "I don't want to die," I said, "I just don't really want to keep on living. There's no meaning to life. It's just pain."
Soon there was the anti-depressants, and when those didn't work, the anti-psychotics, and more stimulants. Sometimes I couldn't sleep for weeks. Sometimes I couldn't stay awake for months. I needed blood tests to make sure my kidneys weren't failing on new medications. I was kicked out of schools, and was unable to complete any work. The only thing I noticed about this time was the kids at public schools were somewhat nicer, and the work was somewhat harder. I remember reading Ray Bradbury's short story collection and thinking, wow, maybe there is something to life.
Dropping out of high school and not attending college, I was pretty fortunate to have found a medium for my attention that was both intellectually and fiscally rewarding. I doubt the rest of the kids who endure chemical tinkering at the hands of unscrupulous "doctors" are as fortunate as I to make a good living after a normal mental/emotional childhood is taken away from them.
So he sat me down after work, and we went through the material together. It took less than a week for me to catch up.
It makes me wonder what a kid could accomplish with a little bit of individual attention. I am not the dumbest person in the world, but I am also far from the smartest. Compared to the rest of the class, I was probably about average.
I thought the same thing as I read through these comments. Perhaps the attention deficit is not that of the child, but that of the parents/teachers.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...
> Many fertility doctors say that girls are the goal for 80 percent of gender selection patients. A study published in 2009 by the online journal Reproductive Biomedicine Online found Caucasian-Americans preferentially select females through PGD 70 percent of the time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/well/family/the-fear-of-h...
> a 2010 study [] discovered, among other things, that adoptive American parents preferred girls to boys by nearly a third. [] Adoptive parents are even willing to pay an average of $16,000 more in finalization costs for a girl than a boy.
1. In modern American culture, young boys, but not girls, are diagnosed with personality disorders and drugged into submission at rates so alarming that skeptics refer to things like "Youthful Tendency Disorder". ( https://www.theonion.com/more-u-s-children-being-diagnosed-w... )
2. Also in modern American culture, there appears to be a very strong preference for having female children over males.
But you don't think these could be related?
Thanks for bringing them to my attention.
When I read about studies like that I like to imagine two scientists in lab coats, one with a clipboard, the other with a complicated piece of equipment, looking at a kid throwing a wild tantrum:
- Dr Smith, what does the Noncompliance-o-scope say?
- It's off the charts, Dr Brown. Off. The. Charts.
Except -alas- there's no such machine that can tell you how much, or when, a child is non-complying so I have never any idea what those studies are supposed to be, you know, actually measuring.
Seeking perfect compliance is probably not even a desirable outcome. However, neither is drugging normal* children, but where there's profit opportunity there will be people lining up.
*Normal meaning a significant portion of the population of children
I'm sure there are some people who need these medications. But realize that the incentives of the system are to give you pills. It's not even as debauched as bribery or kickbacks -- it's simply that a person who studies psychoactive medications rather than parenting will, when asked to solve the problem of an unruly child, naturally come up with medications as the solution rather than alternative parenting.
It's awfully cynical, but I think that a lot of parents have a good idea what they're giving to their kids and do it anyway because they think the stimulants will give them a competitive edge in school, college admissions, and ultimately lead to higher incomes. The cost of not drugging your kid might be that they don't fit in, are singled out for punishment by school staff, and end up handicapped by their negative experiences in school. It's a very tough decision, even if you know what's in those pills.
I just wish the dosages were lower. Having tried a few of my friends' prescriptions over the years, I've found that even "low" doses get me high and then leave me with a hangover. I might be particularly sensitive (I get euphoric from taking 30mg of pseudoephedrine), but I'm a 180-pound adult. I can't imagine what an 18mg dose of methylphenidate does to a prepubescent boy. At worst, the 'high' from taking these drugs therapeutically should be subliminal.
It was not about a competitive edge, acing the SAT or going into Harvard, for them back then it was about not failing behind and ended up in remedial classes.
It doesn’t seem like good advice to try it on yourself to check if it’s good enough for a child. That was the point I was trying to make
An individuals reaction to stimulants varies based on a large number of factors. Though age may be one of the factors, it is not a large enough one to say "children react differently than adults." If they did react differently, stimulants being common for both children and adults with ADHD wouldn't make sense.
I mean no disrespect here, but might you have misremembered things doctors said about "your children" and changed it to all children? As people with ADHD do generally react differently to stimulants, with drowsiness being a common side effect.
With stimulants, I'm not sure if it's some or all children, however, my point was to apply a bit of skepticism towards trying medicine out on yourself as a filter for its efficacy on your child.
Edit: Here is a link for an example. It may actually be stating that stimulants in children do not have a paradoxical effect. I'm too uninterested to research this, but would be interested in a professional's opinion.
http://adhd.emedtv.com/adhd/adhd-myth-the-paradoxical-stimul...
I'd take it the further step and say "don't take medicine prescribed for someone else."
Here’s a simple one... why do some children react to Benadryl by getting a lot of energy? The rest of us get drowsy. Some children even get drowsy. Should we ask a pediatrician before commenting? At least that’s the warning my pediatrician told me, but apparently that’s second hand so it shouldn’t be mentioned by anyone but a licensed authority.
Everyone has an uncle, brother, mother, friend whose a doctor/scientist/authority of some variety. They usually are as ill informed and wrong as the general populace but use their mother/brother/friend/second cousin for imagined and unwarranted borrowed authority.
Borrowed authority is actually such a fantastic sign of bad information that if someone said my brother the professor of mathmatics says 2+2 is 4 I would pull out my calculator to check if this was so.
Its also a logical fallacy to suppose that because I don't support your contribution to the discussion that I support the position that people should eat their kids meds. Someone can disagree with you or some detail of your discussion without acquiring the beliefs of whomever you are arguing against or imagine you are arguing against. Try to stick with what people actually say and argue that.
Lastly the idea that there is no middle ground between being educated enough on a matter to discuss it and consulting said professional before posting is disingenuous. You needn't be a doctor to discuss medicine on the internet just educate yourself on the matter rather than passing on slightly wrong anecdotes from prior conversations.
Two things.
First, the first 1-2 days of ADHD meds can have a dramatic effect that have you thinking "this can't be right". It's normal, expected, and goes away very quickly. You should be warned to expect it by the prescribing doctor. After 3 days or so you barely know you're taking them.
Second, the dosage and effect on a non-ADHD person is entirely different to that an ADHD person will get. That's presuming it's the right med for them[0]. You will have a stimulating, speed, effect. An ADHD person (well most) will get little to no stimulation, and a calming effect, and might sit down to do their homework, or even just sit still for a couple of hours - for the first time ever. Amphetamines don't do that to normal neurology, thus you can't compare.
The dosage is putting them closer to typical, but putting you far away from typical. If you were normal vision or long sighted and tried your friend's short sight prescription glasses you wouldn't wish their glasses were weaker, would you? Same principle.
It's also common for one or other parent to discover they have it too after they have tried their child's meds.
[0] Getting the right medication is a bit of a trial and error minefield, but should be a standard part of treatment. Not all doctors are as willing to switch medication or titrate dosage as they should be.
There have been lots of studies using PET scans that show some brain regions tend to be smaller in ADHD, and develop later. Or finding differences in brain chemistry (dopamine and norepinephrine). Even started to show the genetic variation that leads to some growing out of it, and others not. Seems like it's becoming one of the better understood neurological disorders.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-03...
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/408381/a-neurological-bas...
Why should someone with a harder time focusing not improve their focus through actual lasting discipline?
Speed isn't the antichrist but it sure as hell isn't some great therapeutic fix for people with some minorly bad stats.
These are dangerous stimulants that are shockingly similar to readily abused street drugs.
Not surprising there are a range of effects, when it's fairly common to need to try 3 or 4 different drugs before finding one that works. For a minority, none work.
Perhaps it's not "misinformation" but an attempt to honestly report what I gleaned from the specialist, and what I and others have experienced.
If you aren't having those effects you are most likely taking close to a maintanence dose, to avoid the rebound effect that comes with physical dependence.
If a person has trouble sleeping due to self control issues, should they just patch it over with addictive drugs like benzodiazepenes? Or should they try to discipline themselves by adapting to their unique brain and body, for lasting change?
18mg of methylphenidate is on the lower end of "middle" in terms of dosage. I can relate to the "drugged" feeling and euphoria and that's a common complaint (that they feel like they're wired or that the euphoria is gone after the first week!) within ADHD communities. However, it doesn't last after the "break-in period," where the side effects dwindle and so does the euphoria. All you're left with is focus in pill form. It also should be noted that amphetamines et al. affect neurotypicals (relatively) differently than those with dopamine/norepinepherine disorders. While neurotypicals commonly (from first and second-hand accounts) note that they feel high, those with ADHD feel like they're "normal."
If that's too broad and indescriptive, then I point to the account of a small subset of people who only found out they had ADHD from experimenting with stimulants. They find their life no longer becomes a Sisyphean task and they can function like a normal person. Whereas neurotypicals might start picking at their skin or masturbating for hours, those with ADHD will finally clean their rooms or make that phone call they've been meaning to make for the past 2 years.
As to your belief of the "well-meaning parent," I have to disagree. I have been around poor families, stable families, and rich families, but most parents don't have the first clue of what ADHD really is, even less what an "amphetamine" is. Or even how to use thoughtfully use Wikipedia and the internet to answer their questions, instead of differing their thinking to, seeming, authorities. It's akin to asking the box-spring salesman if your bed needs a box-spring. The box-spring salesman will tell you all of the benefits in easily digestible, and deftly crafted, sound-bites. And then you will accept his proclamations and move on with your life, believing he knows best. The same is done by the majority of people who are in contact with drugs and supplements. Even more so, parents who are too busy/exhausted/inflexible by virtue of the mental capacity degradation that comes with years of not having to use much thought to get by, i.e the bulk of parents.
Most people do not do cost-benefit analysis, but a subset of "involved" parents will allow their children to be medicated (whether rightfully or wrongfully) to let them get a step-up over their peers. To this I agree, but I don't believe it's as common as your argument makes it out to be. To the statement after about "the cost of not drugging," I agree, but like with last statement, it's not common among parents.
To the rest, I have to say, in my opinion, your statements reek of neurotypicalness. Atleast, not of someone that has a disability that separates them from other people. This is not an insult, but an elucidation on the disconnect between yourself and other people's mindsets. People are very common and predictable, but if you're among them you likely won't see how. One of these similarities is that they believe everyone thinks like them. For you, it might be a more rational approach. For someone else, it might be a more feelings-oriented approach, that mimics rationality by appealing to the homeostasis of one's emotional state.
It's hard to tell where someone is going when you're all moving in the same direction. Now move yourself to outside the crowd. You can see all the little peculiarities of everyone's movement. Like a school of fish, they're all synchronized, but those peculiarities set them apart. With major disabilities, you're forced outside that school of fish, and destined to stare at everyone, instead of moving with them. Overtime, all the different combinations of moves have been played out. All the idiosyncrasies have been enumerated, and there is nothing left to deduce, but that most people are too wrapped up in going forward that they never step back and take a breather. To unplug from the global consciousness and just watch the synapses of other people fire. To peer take a look at someone similar so you can recognize your own shortcomings.
"Billy is having a lot of trouble sitting still and paying attention. I think he might have ADHD. A lot of the other boys do and they've really improved since they started taking medicine for it."
Now since the teacher got compliance from other parents your kid is not given much slack. A solution has been presented and you choose to take it or not.
"Billy is still fidgeting in his chair all morning and lunch time is pushed back to 1:30pm this year because of staffing issues."
"Billy is struggling with math. We do it every day at 12 and I think he's just worn out from fidgeting in his seat all morning. And you know on wednesday he started acting out and being loud."
"I really think Billy has potential to do better. I hope you'll reconsider having him seen by someone to address his hyperactivity."
Kids spend hours casually absorbed in phones, tablets, and consoles (basically the heroin of screen-based entertainment), and then we sit them in a room for eight hours. So they get restless. And we drug them.
What's the right thing to do here?
The only defense I have against "girls have tech, too; why aren't they on speed" is that boys spend more time on screens, which is just a casual hypothesis.
Praising children for proper behavior instead of just punishing bad behavior is good and what schools are moving towards (search for PBIS) but it’s not the same as teaching coping skills to people with reduced executive functioning. Having ADHD isn’t the same as having emotional troubles to work through.
listened to your brief and vague report that he seemed
to have trouble sitting still in kindergarten,
The end result seems to be, on the whole, self-confident, well behaved children who can be taken anywhere with little or no risk that they will be disruptive.
As far as I know the kinds of diagnoses that seem common in the US are rare here.