Do you think ADHD is real and/or over prescribed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to get flamed for this, but here goes...some of the most misbehaved children I know are diagnosed with ADHD. Interestingly enough, their parents are the most ineffective, passive and permissive adults.

I've yet to meet a child with ADHD who's raised in a strict but loving, disciplined household with firm limits, consistent boundaries, a set schedule and a healthy dose of the word n and benign neglect as needed. We're raising self-centered, entitled brats.

Go ahead, tell me that you are raising your child this way and he/she is gifted, healthy, quirky, etc. but despite your loving interventions...

We've gotten so afraid of blaming Mother or accusing the parents of neglect that experts tend to gloss over or claim the home environment is relevant.

You know, a lot of kids with ADHD have PARENTS with ADHD. The ADHD in the parents is frequently undiagnosed and untreated. The parent have difficulty organizing herself and difficulty organizing her child. That doesn't mean ADHD isn't real. It means both parents need treatment. Both the parent and the child could benefit from medication in that situation.

http://www.additudemag.com/adhd/article/9569.html

http://www.additudemag.com/adhd/article/2539.html

I think it's over medicated. I know kids with ADHD whose parents were diagnosed after their kid was. Just my experience but the parents went to Harvard, Yale, Cornell and U. of Michigan law schools and did well enough to get federal appellate clerkships: All without medication or accommodations during their schooling where they obviously did very well.
So their ADHD was mild and they learned to compensate for their slow processing and executive functioning skills. I think for SOME kids with ADHD, people (and schools) are too quick to medicate instead of working on organization and coping skills.

I have 2 boys with ADHD, both combined, one child's is regular middle of the road diagnosis, the other has very severe ADHD. My dh is an ADHD parent diagnosed after my first child. He went to a prestigious university and has a very successful career making over 300k a year. HOWEVER, his ADHD severely affects our marriage and his parenting ability. Yes, he has learned strategies to cope at work although he always works much longer hours to complete all of his work than most of his coworkers. Having ADHD can give you the ability to have a narrow focus on certain parts of your life, such as school and work, but that focus cannot be sustained and it is often the home life that it disrupts.

Working on organization and coping skills are very important, but sometimes the brain cannot even begin to process how to do so without medication to begin with. And I say this as a very "crunchy", organic, anti meds unless absolutely necessary mom. If you knew my dh at work and how organized he is there, you would never believe the chaos of his things at home. His stacks and piles and clutter get scattered around the house. This while trying to keep a structured routine for the ADHD kids at home. It's a vicious cycle and I wish there was not such a stigma surrounding it. My in-laws still think this is something my kids will grow out of (after many years of denying there was a problem to begin with and thinking I was paranoid mom) and clearly never thought dh had a problem.

A diagnosis and medication should have been pursued for my dh as a child. He is working extra hard now to learn the life skills necessary while juggling career and family.

I agree with you that everyone who has ADHD should get diagnosed and treatment but obviously for some with mild ADHD, medication is not always necessary to do well at school which is my only point (and I have no problems with meds at all and acknowledge that for many kids with ADHD, meds are absolutely necessary). The examples I mentioned are all around my age, pushing 50, when ADHD was not recognized so that was not an option unfortunately. That said, many people without ADHD have problems juggling career and family and I'm not sure simply having this issue and being disorganized at home is a reason to pursue medication.

[Anonymous]

I agree with you that everyone who has ADHD should get diagnosed and treatment but obviously for some with mild ADHD, medication is not always necessary to do well at school which is my only point (and I have no problems with meds at all and acknowledge that for many kids with ADHD, meds are absolutely necessary). The examples I mentioned are all around my age, pushing 50, when ADHD was not recognized so that was not an option unfortunately. That said, many people without ADHD have problems juggling career and family and I'm not sure simply having this issue and being disorganized at home is a reason to pursue medication.

I think you are not understanding that being diagnosed with ADHD doesn't mean that all of a sudden a prescription ends up in the mail. DD has ADHD and I would prefer not having her on medication. I could let her just fail in school or underperform where she just gets by but this would basically mean that she misses out on an education. A person who needs a wheel chair could crawl but they will not get very far and they would suffer through the trip. The same analogy works for ADHD. The medication allows them to access the curriculum. DD has a very high IQ but without the meds she can't complete a written assignment.

We take her off ADHD meds in the summer when she does sports and other activities that don't require the executive functioning and sustained focus.

Also ADHD is not always hereditary. A high % of premature infants later develop ADHD. This is most likely the case for DD who was a growth restricted preemie while her siblings were not. She is the only one in the family with ADHD so its more obvious to us that this is not a lifestyle issue but an actual learning and brain chemistry issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with you that everyone who has ADHD should get diagnosed and treatment but obviously for some with mild ADHD, medication is not always necessary to do well at school which is my only point (and I have no problems with meds at all and acknowledge that for many kids with ADHD, meds are absolutely necessary). The examples I mentioned are all around my age, pushing 50, when ADHD was not recognized so that was not an option unfortunately. That said, many people without ADHD have problems juggling career and family and I'm not sure simply having this issue and being disorganized at home is a reason to pursue medication.

I think you are not understanding that being diagnosed with ADHD doesn't mean that all of a sudden a prescription ends up in the mail. DD has ADHD and I would prefer not having her on medication. I could let her just fail in school or underperform where she just gets by but this would basically mean that she misses out on an education. A person who needs a wheel chair could crawl but they will not get very far and they would suffer through the trip. The same analogy works for ADHD. The medication allows them to access the curriculum. DD has a very high IQ but without the meds she can't complete a written assignment.

We take her off ADHD meds in the summer when she does sports and other activities that don't require the executive functioning and sustained focus.

Also ADHD is not always hereditary. A high % of premature infants later develop ADHD. This is most likely the case for DD who was a growth restricted preemie while her siblings were not. She is the only one in the family with ADHD so its more obvious to us that this is not a lifestyle issue but an actual learning and brain chemistry issue.

I was talking about parents who were diagnosed with ADHD after their child was diagnosed with ADHD. The parents were finished with school at the time of their diagnosis and based on their achievement, it's obvious that they did not need medication or accommodation for their ADHD to "access the curriculum."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with you that everyone who has ADHD should get diagnosed and treatment but obviously for some with mild ADHD, medication is not always necessary to do well at school which is my only point (and I have no problems with meds at all and acknowledge that for many kids with ADHD, meds are absolutely necessary). The examples I mentioned are all around my age, pushing 50, when ADHD was not recognized so that was not an option unfortunately. That said, many people without ADHD have problems juggling career and family and I'm not sure simply having this issue and being disorganized at home is a reason to pursue medication.

I think you are not understanding that being diagnosed with ADHD doesn't mean that all of a sudden a prescription ends up in the mail. DD has ADHD and I would prefer not having her on medication. I could let her just fail in school or underperform where she just gets by but this would basically mean that she misses out on an education. A person who needs a wheel chair could crawl but they will not get very far and they would suffer through the trip. The same analogy works for ADHD. The medication allows them to access the curriculum. DD has a very high IQ but without the meds she can't complete a written assignment.

We take her off ADHD meds in the summer when she does sports and other activities that don't require the executive functioning and sustained focus.

Also ADHD is not always hereditary. A high % of premature infants later develop ADHD. This is most likely the case for DD who was a growth restricted preemie while her siblings were not. She is the only one in the family with ADHD so its more obvious to us that this is not a lifestyle issue but an actual learning and brain chemistry issue.

I was talking about parents who were diagnosed with ADHD after their child was diagnosed with ADHD. The parents were finished with school at the time of their diagnosis and based on their achievement, it's obvious that they did not need medication or accommodation for their ADHD to "access the curriculum."

Absolutely fascinating. How do we explain that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with you that everyone who has ADHD should get diagnosed and treatment but obviously for some with mild ADHD, medication is not always necessary to do well at school which is my only point (and I have no problems with meds at all and acknowledge that for many kids with ADHD, meds are absolutely necessary). The examples I mentioned are all around my age, pushing 50, when ADHD was not recognized so that was not an option unfortunately. That said, many people without ADHD have problems juggling career and family and I'm not sure simply having this issue and being disorganized at home is a reason to pursue medication.

I think you are not understanding that being diagnosed with ADHD doesn't mean that all of a sudden a prescription ends up in the mail. DD has ADHD and I would prefer not having her on medication. I could let her just fail in school or underperform where she just gets by but this would basically mean that she misses out on an education. A person who needs a wheel chair could crawl but they will not get very far and they would suffer through the trip. The same analogy works for ADHD. The medication allows them to access the curriculum. DD has a very high IQ but without the meds she can't complete a written assignment.

We take her off ADHD meds in the summer when she does sports and other activities that don't require the executive functioning and sustained focus.

Also ADHD is not always hereditary. A high % of premature infants later develop ADHD. This is most likely the case for DD who was a growth restricted preemie while her siblings were not. She is the only one in the family with ADHD so its more obvious to us that this is not a lifestyle issue but an actual learning and brain chemistry issue.

I was talking about parents who were diagnosed with ADHD after their child was diagnosed with ADHD. The parents were finished with school at the time of their diagnosis and based on their achievement, it's obvious that they did not need medication or accommodation for their ADHD to "access the curriculum."

Absolutely fascinating. How do we explain that?

Their ADHD is mild and there is a push to diagnose adults as mentioned in the NY Times article although none of the people I mentioned take meds for ADHD. At our age, we already take enough meds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with you that everyone who has ADHD should get diagnosed and treatment but obviously for some with mild ADHD, medication is not always necessary to do well at school which is my only point (and I have no problems with meds at all and acknowledge that for many kids with ADHD, meds are absolutely necessary). The examples I mentioned are all around my age, pushing 50, when ADHD was not recognized so that was not an option unfortunately. That said, many people without ADHD have problems juggling career and family and I'm not sure simply having this issue and being disorganized at home is a reason to pursue medication.

I think you are not understanding that being diagnosed with ADHD doesn't mean that all of a sudden a prescription ends up in the mail. DD has ADHD and I would prefer not having her on medication. I could let her just fail in school or underperform where she just gets by but this would basically mean that she misses out on an education. A person who needs a wheel chair could crawl but they will not get very far and they would suffer through the trip. The same analogy works for ADHD. The medication allows them to access the curriculum. DD has a very high IQ but without the meds she can't complete a written assignment.

We take her off ADHD meds in the summer when she does sports and other activities that don't require the executive functioning and sustained focus.

Also ADHD is not always hereditary. A high % of premature infants later develop ADHD. This is most likely the case for DD who was a growth restricted preemie while her siblings were not. She is the only one in the family with ADHD so its more obvious to us that this is not a lifestyle issue but an actual learning and brain chemistry issue.

I was talking about parents who were diagnosed with ADHD after their child was diagnosed with ADHD. The parents were finished with school at the time of their diagnosis and based on their achievement, it's obvious that they did not need medication or accommodation for their ADHD to "access the curriculum."

As a parent of an ADHD child, it was after his diagnosis that I realized I most likely suffered from the same thing, Yes, I found workarounds in my career but my academic life and career choices would have been vastly different had I been diagnosed AND medicated while in school. I now take meds and it is life changing for me. I go from scattered, unfocused and forgetful to firing on all cylinders as they say. My job is easier for me, I am more productive and I no longer feel "useless" and lost. My self esteem has also improved tremendously because now I realize Im not STUPID.

So PP, for you to say that its obvious that we don't need the medication to access the curriculum I have one wish for you - to spend the day in MY shoes or in my son's shoes. And if you have a child that has this diagnosis, I wish for them that you either get a clue or they have a father who gets it and take the reins on this one for you are doing your child a terrible disservice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with you that everyone who has ADHD should get diagnosed and treatment but obviously for some with mild ADHD, medication is not always necessary to do well at school which is my only point (and I have no problems with meds at all and acknowledge that for many kids with ADHD, meds are absolutely necessary). The examples I mentioned are all around my age, pushing 50, when ADHD was not recognized so that was not an option unfortunately. That said, many people without ADHD have problems juggling career and family and I'm not sure simply having this issue and being disorganized at home is a reason to pursue medication.

I think you are not understanding that being diagnosed with ADHD doesn't mean that all of a sudden a prescription ends up in the mail. DD has ADHD and I would prefer not having her on medication. I could let her just fail in school or underperform where she just gets by but this would basically mean that she misses out on an education. A person who needs a wheel chair could crawl but they will not get very far and they would suffer through the trip. The same analogy works for ADHD. The medication allows them to access the curriculum. DD has a very high IQ but without the meds she can't complete a written assignment.

We take her off ADHD meds in the summer when she does sports and other activities that don't require the executive functioning and sustained focus.

Also ADHD is not always hereditary. A high % of premature infants later develop ADHD. This is most likely the case for DD who was a growth restricted preemie while her siblings were not. She is the only one in the family with ADHD so its more obvious to us that this is not a lifestyle issue but an actual learning and brain chemistry issue.

I was talking about parents who were diagnosed with ADHD after their child was diagnosed with ADHD. The parents were finished with school at the time of their diagnosis and based on their achievement, it's obvious that they did not need medication or accommodation for their ADHD to "access the curriculum."

As a parent of an ADHD child, it was after his diagnosis that I realized I most likely suffered from the same thing, Yes, I found workarounds in my career but my academic life and career choices would have been vastly different had I been diagnosed AND medicated while in school. I now take meds and it is life changing for me. I go from scattered, unfocused and forgetful to firing on all cylinders as they say. My job is easier for me, I am more productive and I no longer feel "useless" and lost. My self esteem has also improved tremendously because now I realize Im not STUPID.

So PP, for you to say that its obvious that we don't need the medication to access the curriculum I have one wish for you - to spend the day in MY shoes or in my son's shoes. And if you have a child that has this diagnosis, I wish for them that you either get a clue or they have a father who gets it and take the reins on this one for you are doing your child a terrible disservice.

Not everyone with ADHD need medication. The parents all tried medication for their ADHD after they were diagnosed but found that at that time in their life, it was not needed. Many of their kids are on meds or were on them at some point although not all. I've known every one of these people for 30+ yrs and none of them have ever felt stupid although getting the diagnosis was a relief and put a name to that feeling that "things weren't right."

I have a child with SN but not ADHD, the reason my friends wanted to share their diagnosis... no one including his developmental pediatrician has ever suggested medication could help although if medication can help, I have no problems with meds. i have been on medication since I was 7 yrs old for a chronic condition and certainly know how valuable medication can be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.amazon.com/Weve-Got-Issues-Children-Medication/dp/B005DI8BKU

Surprised no one has yet mentioned this book. She goes into it with the premise that we're overprescribing everything. Does a 180 and comes out convinced it's all very real.

I am not sure this kind of anecdotes based books mean much. No one, well I guess no one who is serious will deny there are true benefits of medication for some children. But when prevalence jumped 200 percent in a decade, it is something to think about.

See, these are the things I think about long before I conclude "it's all made up," which is what you seem to be inferring.

1) The condition has always been there, largely untreated and undiagnosed. So it's not really an increase in prevalence. The increase in Rx may be related more to the fact that effective, FDA-approved and peer-reviewed medications tested in double-blind laboratory tests came onto the market, rather than the cynical meme of drug pushing. Or:

2) You're right, there IS an increased prevalence. But that's due to environmental factors, most likely the introduction of widespread use of genetic modifications to our crops and other toxins.

Toxins are indeed a major problem, as is absentee parenting.

Straw man. Every child I know who has ADHD is intensely supervised. Usually there is a parent at home. They are extremely involved in trying to manage the condition. There's no absenteeism.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I agree with you that everyone who has ADHD should get diagnosed and treatment but obviously for some with mild ADHD, medication is not always necessary to do well at school which is my only point (and I have no problems with meds at all and acknowledge that for many kids with ADHD, meds are absolutely necessary). The examples I mentioned are all around my age, pushing 50, when ADHD was not recognized so that was not an option unfortunately. That said, many people without ADHD have problems juggling career and family and I'm not sure simply having this issue and being disorganized at home is a reason to pursue medication.

I think you are not understanding that being diagnosed with ADHD doesn't mean that all of a sudden a prescription ends up in the mail. DD has ADHD and I would prefer not having her on medication. I could let her just fail in school or underperform where she just gets by but this would basically mean that she misses out on an education. A person who needs a wheel chair could crawl but they will not get very far and they would suffer through the trip. The same analogy works for ADHD. The medication allows them to access the curriculum. DD has a very high IQ but without the meds she can't complete a written assignment.

We take her off ADHD meds in the summer when she does sports and other activities that don't require the executive functioning and sustained focus.

Also ADHD is not always hereditary. A high % of premature infants later develop ADHD. This is most likely the case for DD who was a growth restricted preemie while her siblings were not. She is the only one in the family with ADHD so its more obvious to us that this is not a lifestyle issue but an actual learning and brain chemistry issue.

It's a combination of all the factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Longterm effects.....?
Unknown.

I have to disagree with this. ADHD meds have been around for decades now, and they are one of the most researched class of medications out there. I'm not saying there are not side effects because there definitely are. But it has never been shown that they have lasting, long-term side effects like drug dependence, cardiovascular issues, etc.

As to OP's question, it's difficult to say. I know my son has ADHD. We wish he didn't because life would be easier for ALL of us, and we are thankful that medication helps to keep the worst of this symptoms under control. I know my father and sister have it (both diagnosed), and that my husband probably has it (never diagnosed but suspected by both of us). We have a rather large circle of friends, and out of that, I only have one friend who has a diagnosed case. No other kids do, and no other adults. I don't know of any other kids in my son's grade with ADHD. This is all just anecdotal, however it does seem like if it was an overdiagnosed condition, we'd hear a lot more about it.

[Anonymous]

This is a great video that went along with the New York Times piece on how pharmaceuticals market ADHD medications:

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002574787/how-pharmaceuticals-sell-adhd.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ADHD is very real and, on the whole, not over-diagnosed or over-medicated. Are there people who game the system to get the medication? Certainly. Are there populations where it is diagnosed because other factors aren't accounted for? Certainly. Does that mean it deserves the scorn and condemnation that it frequently receives? No way.

I'm so very glad my DSs are receiving appropriate treatment. My brothers weren't so lucky and the consequences have been horrific.

Sorry, I don't have time to read all the posts here. My child is ADHD and the meds help him so much. But my real comment is that I clearly have ADHD but was undiagnosed as a kid ... I often wonder how much easier my school days could have been with proper medication or at least awareness. I am never willing to say it could have been "better" as that is unknowable, but I cannot imagine I wouldn't have had an easier time in so many ways. No use worrying about it now, but I am SO happy my kid gets the opportunity to function with the assistance now available as well as a clued in mom.

[Anonymous]

What about the long range effects of ADD meds?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a great video that went along with the New York Times piece on how pharmaceuticals market ADHD medications:

http://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000002574787/how-pharmaceuticals-sell-adhd.html

We all need to take a look at this informative video by The New York Times. It's about 4 min.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.amazon.com/Weve-Got-Issues-Children-Medication/dp/B005DI8BKU

Surprised no one has yet mentioned this book. She goes into it with the premise that we're overprescribing everything. Does a 180 and comes out convinced it's all very real.

I am not sure this kind of anecdotes based books mean much. No one, well I guess no one who is serious will deny there are true benefits of medication for some children. But when prevalence jumped 200 percent in a decade, it is something to think about.

See, these are the things I think about long before I conclude "it's all made up," which is what you seem to be inferring.

1) The condition has always been there, largely untreated and undiagnosed. So it's not really an increase in prevalence. The increase in Rx may be related more to the fact that effective, FDA-approved and peer-reviewed medications tested in double-blind laboratory tests came onto the market, rather than the cynical meme of drug pushing. Or:

2) You're right, there IS an increased prevalence. But that's due to environmental factors, most likely the introduction of widespread use of genetic modifications to our crops and other toxins.

Toxins are indeed a major problem, as is absentee parenting.

Straw man. Every child I know who has ADHD is intensely supervised. Usually there is a parent at home. They are extremely involved in trying to manage the condition. There's no absenteeism.

+1000

What exactly do you mean by "supervised"? How much counselling and direction are the parents and caregivers getting on a weekly basis? Even one hour a week should be useful, don't you think?