S/O - not agreeing on ADHD Medication - uncensored

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Full disclosure -- I have no kids, so I have zero knowledge of what it's like to have a child who isn't doing well in school and to want to fix that problem.

But as an outside observer (pretty much all my friends have their kids on some kind of med), I wonder if the aggregate result hasn't been to reset the bar about what constitutes "appropriate behavior" and "achievement"?

All of you expect your kids not only to perform, but to excel -- if Johnny isn't in the 98th percentile, then something's wrong and we must fix it. If Janie doesn't test at least 3 years above her grade, she'll never get into Harvard.

And the schools now seem to feel that any child who doesn't behave like a doped up zombie is a distraction in the classroom.

I'm just not sure you can know what long-term use of amphetamines will have on these kids.

That is not the case at all -- this is the SN forum, not the forum for the Harvard-obsessed. Our son is in 3rd grade, has ADHD and anxiety and some learning challenges. In his case, medication enables him to access learning/school -- he got very little out of preschool and was way behind. In the past year, he's been able to progress a lot but trust me, he's not on the Harvard track.

Second, medication doesn't "medicate" the way people think it does. Stimulant meds have not changed our son's personality -- they simply enable him to "attend" (to use educators' language) and access learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Full disclosure -- I have no kids, so I have zero knowledge of what it's like to have a child who isn't doing well in school and to want to fix that problem.

But as an outside observer (pretty much all my friends have their kids on some kind of med), I wonder if the aggregate result hasn't been to reset the bar about what constitutes "appropriate behavior" and "achievement"?

All of you expect your kids not only to perform, but to excel -- if Johnny isn't in the 98th percentile, then something's wrong and we must fix it. If Janie doesn't test at least 3 years above her grade, she'll never get into Harvard.
And the schools now seem to feel that any child who doesn't behave like a doped up zombie is a distraction in the classroom.

I'm just not sure you can know what long-term use of amphetamines will have on these kids.

I think you're drinking the 'conventional wisdom' koolaid. If you were to research these disorders using peer-reviewed studies, you'd find this has nothing to do with changed achievement expectations or a 'resetting of the expectation bar'. You seem to be getting your information from unreliable amd as a consequence are woefully ignorant about ADHD and the effects of medication. You also know very little about how schools expect children to act. The comment about a ‘doped up zombie’ is just unfounded and ignorant.

Two of my three kids have ADHD. We're aren't striving for the 98th percentile, we aspire for 'average'. I don't know anyone made the decision to medicate lightly nor do I know anyone who medicates a child who doesn’t need it. In fact, I know far more people who are in deniable about their child’s challenges and who refuse to consider medication because of the misinformation out there. Finally, amphetamines are not the only medication choice for ADHD. Non-stimulant medication is also available.

[Anonymous]

I appreciate your post, 9:33 and am glad you've had success on your journey. However, most of the treatments you cite have their own side effects, are cost prohibitive because they're not covered by insurance and there isn't conclusive scientific evidence that they are effective. I also don't think they're appropriate for my ADHD (primarily inattentive) DS. My DS doesn't have significant behavioral issues. He's classic ADHD in that he can attend very well to things he's interested in but not on thing that not of interest or that require sustained mental effort. He also has anxiety. From my own research, I don't believe alternative medicine is an appropriate choice for him and I think pursuing some of these treatments would exacerbate his challenges. I'm not discounting them, certainly you believe they have helped your DS and they may benefit other kids with ADHD. I have just come to a conclusion different than yours.

Can I ask if you were to suffer from depression would you avoid medication?

[Anonymous]

PP just described our classic inattentive child. We also researched, debated, stalled trying meds. We tried OT and tutoring. We tried dietary changes, adding more activities, supplements. Kid simply could not stayed focused. This caused anxiety, low grades, social problems and ultimately low self steem and sadness/anger in a mild easy going child.
Seeing that sadness and talking with an older child who was very articulate explaining how different he felt when he was taking his meds vs. not taking them changed our minds.
We saw a phenomenal difference within hours of starting medication. 3 years later our child has a ton of friends, awesome grades, is confident, proud and overall happy.
We kick ourselves for not trying meds sooner.
I think everyone's journey is different and part of me envies those parents that have found success with alternative therapies, but I don't regret this decision at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Can I ask if you were to suffer from depression would you avoid medication?

I have been through depression. I find that life ebbs and flows in such a way that we all have depressive moments, anxious moments, and then times when we experience joy and ease in our lives. I've never medicated for any of my highs or lows. No need since the moments seem to pass as suddenly as they come on.

[Anonymous]

I think what some of us were upset about, and feeling "censored" over was that we were addressing a real and germane issue of the OP's actual post, which is that her husband's POV deserved more consideration and that the OP was wrong to just dismiss his opinion, especially considering that

a: he has experience working for pharmaceutical industry
b. many posters wanted to know more about the situation (ie to what extent did OP consider non-medical approaches first before considering medical in order to help inform discussion on how best to approach her husband)
and
c. yes, some posters feel strongly that medicine is a last resort and that, yes, some folks were questioning the use of medicine at all.

What bothered me about the thread is that Jeff does NOT intervene in similar threads. Say we replaced the issue with one of the all too familiar MIL debates and OP said:

Husband and wife disagree about allowing MIL to watch children - she allows too much TV and we don't, so I want not to allow kids at her house. I don't want to hear about whether or not my approach is the right one, I only want opinions on how to get my husband to see things my way.

Would Jeff ever intervene here?

Let's say the issue was:

Need help convincing husband we should devote money to our kids 429 even though we are not maxing our our 401K (or vice versa).

Would Jeff limit the discussion ONLY to strategies to persuade the husband? The thing about DCUM is, ask a question, get an answer and it's not always the one you want and it is not always the one that addresses the question you asked. I have seen him intervene here only when the issue is really polarizing, like someone asking for medical info on abortion to save her life, and he blocks the people who say "you're going to hell for aborting." But there's a huge difference, because in this case, people are trying in good faith to tell OP that her husband might have a point, and that her framing of the question as "how do I convince my husband to medicate" is pretty limited, and she's getting answers from folks who identify with the husband in this equation. Or answers from folks who just have BTDT and want, in best faith, to tell OP things she may not have considered.

YES, there is an unfortunate undercurrent of "don't zombie out your kids," which sucks, because obviously nobody on these boards wants to do this. But damn, ADHD is a huge problem, and many of us are hard-pressed to think that the ONLY answer is medicating.

FWIW, I think there is absolutely a place for medication. But, it's interesting, someone asked if I'd forgo medication for depression. The answer to that is, it depends. There are many legitimate approaches to depression. There is a place for medication and there is a place for therapy; not everybody benefits from both. I would never tell someone based on a paragraph on DCUM that they should go take an anti-depressant, or that they should NOT take the anti-depressant. I'd simply say "here are some things you might want to try before you take that step." If I said to the board:

I am having major anxiety and am thinking about going on an antidepressant. Which one is the best?, would Jeff bar people from suggesting a great cognitive behavior therapist that worked wonders for them? Or ask me about my sleep, my caffeine intake, etc? Suggest some diet changes that worked for them? I'd figure on getting both direct answers, "Do not pass go, go directly to Lexapro and don't look back" and I'd expect the whole "too many people are drugging themselves out of having real emotions sadness" type of posts - both extremes kind of ignorant, in my opinion. But in between, there would be nuanced conversation that, IMHO, is worthy of discussing.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
What bothered me about the thread is that Jeff does NOT intervene in similar threads. Say we replaced the issue with one of the all too familiar MIL debates and OP said:

Husband and wife disagree about allowing MIL to watch children - she allows too much TV and we don't, so I want not to allow kids at her house. I don't want to hear about whether or not my approach is the right one, I only want opinions on how to get my husband to see things my way.

Would Jeff ever intervene here?

Here is the question posed by the original poster of the other thread:

"If you and your spouse disagreed on medicating your child, how did you get on the same page?"

In subsequent messages, she was quite clear that she did not want to have a debate about medication itself. I was -- and still am -- sympathetic to the original poster because I have seen countless threads on the topic of drugs turn into useless flamewars. I have not prevented you from expressing your opinion as this thread amply demonstrates. If you feel "censored" because you were prevented from hijacking a thread, it is simply because you consider your own need to confront another poster to be more important than that poster's desire to receive the information she is seeking. This is a common trait of zealots of all stripes.

As for your example above, you are really asking the wrong question. The real question is not whether I would have intervened, but whether I would have intervened had disruptive posts in the thread been reported to me? Someone took the initiative to report posts in the other thread and to specifically request that I keep an eye on it. Have you ever reported a post to me and fail to notice any response? You are asking a lot to expect one individual to react with perfect consistency with regard to every single thread on this website.

[Anonymous]

In response to 16:45 - there is a huge difference in cultures and norms of the GP/Off Topic and the SN forums. Going off topic in those forums, being judgmental or offering an over-the-top dissenting opinion is more acceptable than it is on SN. The posts in the other thread were not helpful, particularly after OP indicated her DH had done no research on ADHD, even though he has a background in pharmaceutical research. Had they been in the vein of 'we did X and had good success, you might think about it' or 'before trying medication, what other approaches have you tried'. Instead, we got "Anything else is, in my opinion, completely irresponsible." "Hello sane person" (implying the rest of us are insane). "ding da-ding da-ding ding ding!" "Your child is 5 or 6. How can you possibly have tried "everything" in that short amount of time? How can you be so certain that your child is going to "fail out of school" etc. when your child has only been in K for 3 months?"

The examples you provide are also not analogous to the other OP's question. You were hijacking the other thread and were warned. I'm sorry if you can't understand why many of us thought it unacceptable. It's not that we're anti-alternative treatment, we're anti-judgment, anti-insult and anti-hijack. I don't know why you continued to insist on posting when it was clear that posts such as yours were not what the OP was looking for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In response to 16:45 - there is a huge difference in cultures and norms of the GP/Off Topic and the SN forums. Going off topic in those forums, being judgmental or offering an over-the-top dissenting opinion is more acceptable than it is on SN. The posts in the other thread were not helpful, particularly after OP indicated her DH had done no research on ADHD, even though he has a background in pharmaceutical research. Had they been in the vein of 'we did X and had good success, you might think about it' or 'before trying medication, what other approaches have you tried'. Instead, we got "Anything else is, in my opinion, completely irresponsible." "Hello sane person" (implying the rest of us are insane). "ding da-ding da-ding ding ding!" "Your child is 5 or 6. How can you possibly have tried "everything" in that short amount of time? How can you be so certain that your child is going to "fail out of school" etc. when your child has only been in K for 3 months?"

The examples you provide are also not analogous to the other OP's question. You were hijacking the other thread and were warned. I'm sorry if you can't understand why many of us thought it unacceptable. It's not that we're anti-alternative treatment, we're anti-judgment, anti-insult and anti-hijack. I don't know why you continued to insist on posting when it was clear that posts such as yours were not what the OP was looking for.

You have to admit, it got interesting when the OP of that thread let out that her DH has worked in the pharmaceutical industry and had reservations about ADHD medications. That cracked me up...."my husband wont believe me over his CARREER EXPERIENCE, so help me find another way to convince him"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You have to admit, it got interesting when the OP of that thread let out that her DH has worked in the pharmaceutical industry and had reservations about ADHD medications. That cracked me up...."my husband wont believe me over his CARREER EXPERIENCE, so help me find another way to convince him"

You're putting words into the other OP's mouth - words that support your bias. Her DH has worked in the pharmaceutical field but that's pretty far ranging. He could have been a sales rep (obviously not for ADHD drugs since OP said he's not familiar with them), he could have been an accountant for a drug company, he could have been someone that proposes names for new medicines - it could have been a lot of different things. Here's OP's quote

" I am the one that has done all of the research and my husband has done zero. His area was not related to ADHD (not even close),"

My husband thinks he is just way too young to medicate, and not that I disagree entirely, but I also feel like we've exhausted options

There is absolutely NOTHING in that OP's posts that would indicate her DH's opposition is in any way related to what he knows, what he's learned in his career, what he's learned in his PhD program or through his research. It sounds like her DH is stonewalling rather than in engaging in rational discussion about what the best course of action is for their child. He's not even observed his DS in the classroom. OP also handles most of the homework because her DH doesn't know enough to deal with the problems of ADHD and homework

My husband is just not as patient (mostly because he has not read anything about ADHD so he doesn't know the right techniques to use). On the occasions when he does do it, it usually becomes a battle and I have to intervene.

Why do you feel the need to twist words? Don't you realize that it really diminishes your message? When I see posts like yours, I can't help but dismiss the message because of the messenger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You have to admit, it got interesting when the OP of that thread let out that her DH has worked in the pharmaceutical industry and had reservations about ADHD medications. That cracked me up...."my husband wont believe me over his CARREER EXPERIENCE, so help me find another way to convince him"

You're putting words into the other OP's mouth - words that support your bias. Her DH has worked in the pharmaceutical field but that's pretty far ranging. He could have been a sales rep (obviously not for ADHD drugs since OP said he's not familiar with them), he could have been an accountant for a drug company, he could have been someone that proposes names for new medicines - it could have been a lot of different things. Here's OP's quote

" I am the one that has done all of the research and my husband has done zero. His area was not related to ADHD (not even close),"

My husband thinks he is just way too young to medicate, and not that I disagree entirely, but I also feel like we've exhausted options

There is absolutely NOTHING in that OP's posts that would indicate her DH's opposition is in any way related to what he knows, what he's learned in his career, what he's learned in his PhD program or through his research. It sounds like her DH is stonewalling rather than in engaging in rational discussion about what the best course of action is for their child. He's not even observed his DS in the classroom. OP also handles most of the homework because her DH doesn't know enough to deal with the problems of ADHD and homework

My husband is just not as patient (mostly because he has not read anything about ADHD so he doesn't know the right techniques to use). On the occasions when he does do it, it usually becomes a battle and I have to intervene.

Why do you feel the need to twist words? Don't you realize that it really diminishes your message? When I see posts like yours, I can't help but dismiss the message because of the messenger.

And yet you forgot to post a pretty important quote from her original statement....."He also used to be in the pharmaceutical field and thinks the ADHD drugs are partly a money-making scheme."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
If I ever developed cancer, I would only pursue natural/alternative methods. I'd never do chemo or radiation. Once you've submersed yourself in the alternative community, you realize that there are soooo many success stories regarding people who the medical community had only given a few weeks to live. There are many ways to cure cancer and disease that the medical community will never allow into the public awareness with ease. They can't eliminate freedom of speech, so you can find the information if you look for it. But, you wont find it in U.S. Weekly, Southern Living Magazine, or on the evening news.

Southern Living Magazine? Huh? I was going to respond to the malarky about cancer. (We have a word for people with cancer who forego chemo and radiation . . . dead.) But then I saw you correctly point out that we shouldn't be getting our medical advice from Souther Living Magazine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Can I ask if you were to suffer from depression would you avoid medication?

I have been through depression. I find that life ebbs and flows in such a way that we all have depressive moments, anxious moments, and then times when we experience joy and ease in our lives. I've never medicated for any of my highs or lows. No need since the moments seem to pass as suddenly as they come on.

Sorry, this in no way describes clinical depression.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for starting another thread. I was a surprised at how the last thread was censored. Usually I don't bother to respond to these ADHD medication debates because this board leans firmly on the side of pro-medication.

Some of the posts from the pro-medication crowd made on the censored post that I wanted to respond to before we were told to stop the discussion:

"There are quite a few articles that have been published in the last couple years that show the kids with ADHD who take medication have better academic and social outcomes."

Where are the studies that show long-term social and academic benefits? You won't find them. There are some studies that show small, immediate gains but nothing showing lasting, long-term benefits.

"These are not new medications, they have been in use for decades and are quite safe. What isn't safe is leaving ADHD untreated because it has been demonstrated over and over again that kdis with undtreated ADHD develop substance abuse issues at elevated rates. They self-medicate."

Research has not show "over and over again" that un-medicated kids go on to develop substance abuse issues at higher rates. There have been few studies and the results are contradictory; some research has also shown that even a short exposure to stimulant medication in childhood is correlated with later substance abuse.

You are quoting me and yes there are many studies about all the things I said. the evidence shows that kids with moderate to severe ADHD do better in life if they have been treated with meds than without. Yes pharmaceuticals are involved in meds, in every medication for every condition and yes they have a vested financial in every medication so if that is your argument you would have to take the same stance against every medication. You can argue conspiracy theories and money making pharmaceuticals to your hearts content but it doesn't chance the evidence. The fact you won't read them or aren't very aware of research doesn't mean they don't exist. Methylphenidate has been in use for 50+ years. Long term effects have been well studied. Is there on going debate - of course, there is in pretty much every field of medicine.

I am pro ADHD meds the same way I am pro asthma meds, pro heart meds, pro insulin, pro antibiotics. I think every decision about meds should be made in every case based on the individual and their presentation. Meds are not the answer for every child. Meds are the answer for some kids and for those kids, when parents refuse meds because they want to make a point or want to be an anti-med activitist or feel somehow they are a better parent for not giving meds, the child suffers. Others don't believe in blood products, or in chemo or in antibiotics - doesn't mean just because you or they believe in withholding treatment that it is the best interest of the child medically.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What bothered me about the thread is that Jeff does NOT intervene in similar threads. Say we replaced the issue with one of the all too familiar MIL debates and OP said:

Husband and wife disagree about allowing MIL to watch children - she allows too much TV and we don't, so I want not to allow kids at her house. I don't want to hear about whether or not my approach is the right one, I only want opinions on how to get my husband to see things my way.

Would Jeff ever intervene here?

Here is the question posed by the original poster of the other thread:

"If you and your spouse disagreed on medicating your child, how did you get on the same page?"

In subsequent messages, she was quite clear that she did not want to have a debate about medication itself. I was -- and still am -- sympathetic to the original poster because I have seen countless threads on the topic of drugs turn into useless flamewars. I have not prevented you from expressing your opinion as this thread amply demonstrates. If you feel "censored" because you were prevented from hijacking a thread, it is simply because you consider your own need to confront another poster to be more important than that poster's desire to receive the information she is seeking. This is a common trait of zealots of all stripes.

As for your example above, you are really asking the wrong question. The real question is not whether I would have intervened, but whether I would have intervened had disruptive posts in the thread been reported to me? Someone took the initiative to report posts in the other thread and to specifically request that I keep an eye on it. Have you ever reported a post to me and fail to notice any response? You are asking a lot to expect one individual to react with perfect consistency with regard to every single thread on this website.

WTF is up with you, Jeff? Is there something particularly offensive about what I wrote that you need to call me a zealot or say I personally felt "my own need to confront another poster" to be more important than her desire to get info? First of all, I didn't realize the two things were mutually exclusive. Second, I didn't even say anything on that post - I just pointed out that you censored it. So why not go ahead and look and see how I did NOT confront her. I confronted you, for censoring. This response is defensive and uncalled for, completely. Way to stoop to name-calling as a response to what I thought was a fairly thoughtful post. Oh well. I guess you're allowed to have bad days too, but this is disappointing.