New York Times Magazine article questioning adhd commonplaces (including meds)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son was diagnosed with "moderate to severe ADHD" and started meds in 5th grade. He went from failing to a straight A student. We were already a very education-oriented household who took learning seriously. He'd been tutored by me after school every day, loved to read, etc. The difference was solely the meds.

He needed them until 12th grade. By 12th grade, he was getting habituated and needed regular breaks from meds, because we couldn't increase the dose without triggering serious side effects (completely suppressed appetite, anxiety, insomnia, etc).

And now he's in college, and has been gradually tapering his dose to... nothing. In sophomore year of college, he takes nothing. He still has extended time on tests, and uses it. But no meds. It's a great relief to us that he can "function" without ADHD medication. He is often late, forgets many things... but before he could not function AT ALL without his meds! Now he can. Sort of.

My conclusion is that growing up and adolescence really does a number on kids with executive function disorder, and that meds are sometimes entirely necessary to get them through. But they don't need to use them for life.

Now I'm not saying that my son can be a homeowner, deal with chores, repairs, etc, and get married and deal with in-laws and kids and parenting, AND hold down a job successfully, all the while being unmedicated. Probably not. He will need to pare down his life and if he wants those things, he will need to disclose his limitations to any future wife so they're not left holding the bag resentfully. But he can have a low-key life that has some of those things, without meds.

As with everything in life, it's not all or nothing. You need to deeply understand the patient, his symptoms, the relief medication brings, deal with the side effects, and... know when to stop.

I think the bigger point is that society should be more accepting and forgiving of kids like your son. They should not be forced to conform to the narrow path that our culture has deemed acceptable. For example, there are cultures where being late is not a cardinal sin and being busy and productive for 12 h every single day is not admired for its intrinsic value. The expectations placed on kids are unrealistic for many of our youngsters. Perhaps we need to rethink our expectations and make sure there are many on-ramps to a successful and sustainable life rather than forcing kids to take medication and adjust to our narrow set of priorities

100% agree with this. Also maybe one reason kids are acting out in school is because school is so boring these days? I don’t have any direct experience in ADHD but I moved my kids to private for that reason.

There's not enough money in public education to change that.

To target the learning needs of kids better, so they're not bored, you'd need much smaller classes. There's too much variance in a normal large classroom. Even then, you'd still have many kids like mine that struggle with impulse control. Aids in every classroom, two in the younger years, could help for that, but both of these changed would be expensive. It's not realistic.

The answer isn't as simple as building in more active time or doing more fun projects. Even if you reduce sitting time to a couple hours a day, many kids with ADHD still can't do that without help.

Is there no money though? MCPS for example has a huge budget. But they like to spend it on a million different things. Instead, they could prioritize and choose to spend most of it on more teachers and aides so that classes could be smaller. If teachers were less overworked, they would also have more patience for the more challenging kids. Nothing will change until parents band together and send emails about what is important to them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that the medication does not help academic outcomes is mind blowing to me. Why take it especially with all the side effects?

The side effects aren't bad for all kids and the effect behavioral issues can have on a kids life is barely discussed in the article.

Agreed! My DS told me that if he hadn't gone on meds in elementary school he may not have even made it to graduation. I agree that environment can have a big impact, but if your kid can't complete a task (or even start it), disrupts the class by being off task, and is just generally impulsive they aren't going to be successful in school. No, the meds don't make you learn better or smarter, but often give you an opportunity to learn within your ability. Many children with ADHD are ostracized because of these things. Yes, they may be fun to play with, but parents shy away from kids exhibiting these behaviors. I'm grateful we did the medication route. My DS ended up at a great college and is a fully functioning independent adult with an excellent job. FYI he stopped taking medication after college and with maturity and working in a field of great interest to him, he doesn't need them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TLDR; ADHD meds keep teachers happier but don’t actually result in better learning outcomes for kids at school.

This is bull sh*t. For my kid and the other kids I know with a similar diagnosis it makes all the difference. I can't believe more parents aren't calling this out for the crap it is.

Calling out a very well reported news article based on … what exactly? The article doesn’t dispute that stimulants show an immediate impact on behavior for younger kids in the short term.

Dp. The article acts like the behavioral aspect is short term and therefore doesn't matter, or only matters because it causes less fighting at home.

In reality, kids face big consequences, at school and with friends, if they can't control impulsive behavior. Being labeled "the bad kid" is a big deal.

Thid is why many parents take med breaks, and/or the kid switches meds. These meds don't just have a short term affect. It's not Ritalin until the behavioral effect wears off and then there's no options for behavioral challenges. Doctors and parents are using an umbrella of meds to deal with these challenges over the course if many years, as needed, got these kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son was diagnosed with "moderate to severe ADHD" and started meds in 5th grade. He went from failing to a straight A student. We were already a very education-oriented household who took learning seriously. He'd been tutored by me after school every day, loved to read, etc. The difference was solely the meds.

He needed them until 12th grade. By 12th grade, he was getting habituated and needed regular breaks from meds, because we couldn't increase the dose without triggering serious side effects (completely suppressed appetite, anxiety, insomnia, etc).

And now he's in college, and has been gradually tapering his dose to... nothing. In sophomore year of college, he takes nothing. He still has extended time on tests, and uses it. But no meds. It's a great relief to us that he can "function" without ADHD medication. He is often late, forgets many things... but before he could not function AT ALL without his meds! Now he can. Sort of.

My conclusion is that growing up and adolescence really does a number on kids with executive function disorder, and that meds are sometimes entirely necessary to get them through. But they don't need to use them for life.

Now I'm not saying that my son can be a homeowner, deal with chores, repairs, etc, and get married and deal with in-laws and kids and parenting, AND hold down a job successfully, all the while being unmedicated. Probably not. He will need to pare down his life and if he wants those things, he will need to disclose his limitations to any future wife so they're not left holding the bag resentfully. But he can have a low-key life that has some of those things, without meds.

As with everything in life, it's not all or nothing. You need to deeply understand the patient, his symptoms, the relief medication brings, deal with the side effects, and... know when to stop.

I think the bigger point is that society should be more accepting and forgiving of kids like your son. They should not be forced to conform to the narrow path that our culture has deemed acceptable. For example, there are cultures where being late is not a cardinal sin and being busy and productive for 12 h every single day is not admired for its intrinsic value. The expectations placed on kids are unrealistic for many of our youngsters. Perhaps we need to rethink our expectations and make sure there are many on-ramps to a successful and sustainable life rather than forcing kids to take medication and adjust to our narrow set of priorities

DP here with a DS. This would put us into #boymom territory with nothing but excuses for our “lazy and wild” boys. I doubt any acceptance is happening any time soon.

DP. I don’t make medical decisions for my child based on hashtags.

As you shouldn’t. But that does not mean there will be acceptance of any behaviors. Boys who have a hard time sitting still are labeled and so are their parents.

[Anonymous]

We need a part 2 of this article. Probably too much stuff to cover in one go. I hope there is a follow up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TLDR; ADHD meds keep teachers happier but don’t actually result in better learning outcomes for kids at school.

This is bull sh*t. For my kid and the other kids I know with a similar diagnosis it makes all the difference. I can't believe more parents aren't calling this out for the crap it is.

Calling out a very well reported news article based on … what exactly? The article doesn’t dispute that stimulants show an immediate impact on behavior for younger kids in the short term.

Dp. The article acts like the behavioral aspect is short term and therefore doesn't matter, or only matters because it causes less fighting at home.

In reality, kids face big consequences, at school and with friends, if they can't control impulsive behavior. Being labeled "the bad kid" is a big deal.

Thid is why many parents take med breaks, and/or the kid switches meds. These meds don't just have a short term affect. It's not Ritalin until the behavioral effect wears off and then there's no options for behavioral challenges. Doctors and parents are using an umbrella of meds to deal with these challenges over the course if many years, as needed, got these kids.

No, the article says that the research shows the impact of medication on behavior is short term. It probably could have gone more into depth on the relative severity of “ADHD” diagnoses though. There’s a big difference between a child that is so hyperactive they cannot sit to eat or learn to read; and a kid who is merely spacey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My son was diagnosed with "moderate to severe ADHD" and started meds in 5th grade. He went from failing to a straight A student. We were already a very education-oriented household who took learning seriously. He'd been tutored by me after school every day, loved to read, etc. The difference was solely the meds.

He needed them until 12th grade. By 12th grade, he was getting habituated and needed regular breaks from meds, because we couldn't increase the dose without triggering serious side effects (completely suppressed appetite, anxiety, insomnia, etc).

And now he's in college, and has been gradually tapering his dose to... nothing. In sophomore year of college, he takes nothing. He still has extended time on tests, and uses it. But no meds. It's a great relief to us that he can "function" without ADHD medication. He is often late, forgets many things... but before he could not function AT ALL without his meds! Now he can. Sort of.

My conclusion is that growing up and adolescence really does a number on kids with executive function disorder, and that meds are sometimes entirely necessary to get them through. But they don't need to use them for life.

Now I'm not saying that my son can be a homeowner, deal with chores, repairs, etc, and get married and deal with in-laws and kids and parenting, AND hold down a job successfully, all the while being unmedicated. Probably not. He will need to pare down his life and if he wants those things, he will need to disclose his limitations to any future wife so they're not left holding the bag resentfully. But he can have a low-key life that has some of those things, without meds.

As with everything in life, it's not all or nothing. You need to deeply understand the patient, his symptoms, the relief medication brings, deal with the side effects, and... know when to stop.

I think the bigger point is that society should be more accepting and forgiving of kids like your son. They should not be forced to conform to the narrow path that our culture has deemed acceptable. For example, there are cultures where being late is not a cardinal sin and being busy and productive for 12 h every single day is not admired for its intrinsic value. The expectations placed on kids are unrealistic for many of our youngsters. Perhaps we need to rethink our expectations and make sure there are many on-ramps to a successful and sustainable life rather than forcing kids to take medication and adjust to our narrow set of priorities

DP here with a DS. This would put us into #boymom territory with nothing but excuses for our “lazy and wild” boys. I doubt any acceptance is happening any time soon.

DP. I don’t make medical decisions for my child based on hashtags.

As you shouldn’t. But that does not mean there will be acceptance of any behaviors. Boys who have a hard time sitting still are labeled and so are their parents.

Ok. It still doesn’t follow that they need to be medicated or that medication would prevent labeling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TLDR; ADHD meds keep teachers happier but don’t actually result in better learning outcomes for kids at school.

This is bull sh*t. For my kid and the other kids I know with a similar diagnosis it makes all the difference. I can't believe more parents aren't calling this out for the crap it is.

Calling out a very well reported news article based on … what exactly? The article doesn’t dispute that stimulants show an immediate impact on behavior for younger kids in the short term.

Dp. The article acts like the behavioral aspect is short term and therefore doesn't matter, or only matters because it causes less fighting at home.

In reality, kids face big consequences, at school and with friends, if they can't control impulsive behavior. Being labeled "the bad kid" is a big deal.

Thid is why many parents take med breaks, and/or the kid switches meds. These meds don't just have a short term affect. It's not Ritalin until the behavioral effect wears off and then there's no options for behavioral challenges. Doctors and parents are using an umbrella of meds to deal with these challenges over the course if many years, as needed, got these kids.

No, the article says that the research shows the impact of medication on behavior is short term. It probably could have gone more into depth on the relative severity of “ADHD” diagnoses though. There’s a big difference between a child that is so hyperactive they cannot sit to eat or learn to read; and a kid who is merely spacey.

The article discusses one study on Ritalin, saying:

"But by 36 months, that advantage had faded completely..."

I don't see anything further about trying other drugs after one stops being effective and that those other drugs are not effective.

[Anonymous]

The "changing the environment" argument is just a modern version of "the world needs ditchdiggers too".

They're saying some kids cant' concentrate in some environments, so instead of medicating them and giving them a chance to concentrate, we should put them in remedial classes and find jobs for them that don't require concentration. A small percentage will make it in unique jobs that value unstructured thought and don't penalize disorganization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TLDR; ADHD meds keep teachers happier but don’t actually result in better learning outcomes for kids at school.

This is bull sh*t. For my kid and the other kids I know with a similar diagnosis it makes all the difference. I can't believe more parents aren't calling this out for the crap it is.

Calling out a very well reported news article based on … what exactly? The article doesn’t dispute that stimulants show an immediate impact on behavior for younger kids in the short term.

Dp. The article acts like the behavioral aspect is short term and therefore doesn't matter, or only matters because it causes less fighting at home.

In reality, kids face big consequences, at school and with friends, if they can't control impulsive behavior. Being labeled "the bad kid" is a big deal.

Thid is why many parents take med breaks, and/or the kid switches meds. These meds don't just have a short term affect. It's not Ritalin until the behavioral effect wears off and then there's no options for behavioral challenges. Doctors and parents are using an umbrella of meds to deal with these challenges over the course if many years, as needed, got these kids.

No, the article says that the research shows the impact of medication on behavior is short term. It probably could have gone more into depth on the relative severity of “ADHD” diagnoses though. There’s a big difference between a child that is so hyperactive they cannot sit to eat or learn to read; and a kid who is merely spacey.

The article discusses one study on Ritalin, saying:

"But by 36 months, that advantage had faded completely..."

I don't see anything further about trying other drugs after one stops being effective and that those other drugs are not effective.

I took ritalin for about 36 months, it seemed to fade in its effectiveness and then was put on another non-ritalin drug, took that for 20 years until it stopped becoming available, and moved around and eventually wound up on Concerta (a Ritalin-related drug) which has worked wonderfully for 5+ years.

In the process of switching drugs I found that Adderall was ineffective for me and the side effects were deeply unpleasant, even though it was in the same family as the drug I took after stopping Ritalin, and Concerta was amazing, despite Ritalin previously seeming to have lost its effectiveness. Not all drugs work in all people the same way, and that seems like a very basic error in the reporting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TLDR; ADHD meds keep teachers happier but don’t actually result in better learning outcomes for kids at school.

This is bull sh*t. For my kid and the other kids I know with a similar diagnosis it makes all the difference. I can't believe more parents aren't calling this out for the crap it is.

Calling out a very well reported news article based on … what exactly? The article doesn’t dispute that stimulants show an immediate impact on behavior for younger kids in the short term.

Dp. The article acts like the behavioral aspect is short term and therefore doesn't matter, or only matters because it causes less fighting at home.

In reality, kids face big consequences, at school and with friends, if they can't control impulsive behavior. Being labeled "the bad kid" is a big deal.

Thid is why many parents take med breaks, and/or the kid switches meds. These meds don't just have a short term affect. It's not Ritalin until the behavioral effect wears off and then there's no options for behavioral challenges. Doctors and parents are using an umbrella of meds to deal with these challenges over the course if many years, as needed, got these kids.

No, the article says that the research shows the impact of medication on behavior is short term. It probably could have gone more into depth on the relative severity of “ADHD” diagnoses though. There’s a big difference between a child that is so hyperactive they cannot sit to eat or learn to read; and a kid who is merely spacey.

My kid who has been on a different adhd med, completely disagrees with the article. He has been on a specific med for years and it is still very effective. He is an advocate for people with disabilities and the young adults who are his friends and involved are very upset by the article. They feel so much of it has missed the mark and they are concerned about anything that would make it harder to get the medicines they need to function. The posters who refer to this as being hopped up on speed are stupid. That is not how the medication affects kids who actually have adhd.

The article also didn't say much about all the comorbidities that often go along with adhd. Being unable to tease these out in the kids used in the tests could screw up the test results. I hate that this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TLDR; ADHD meds keep teachers happier but don’t actually result in better learning outcomes for kids at school.

This is bull sh*t. For my kid and the other kids I know with a similar diagnosis it makes all the difference. I can't believe more parents aren't calling this out for the crap it is.

Calling out a very well reported news article based on … what exactly? The article doesn’t dispute that stimulants show an immediate impact on behavior for younger kids in the short term.

Dp. The article acts like the behavioral aspect is short term and therefore doesn't matter, or only matters because it causes less fighting at home.

In reality, kids face big consequences, at school and with friends, if they can't control impulsive behavior. Being labeled "the bad kid" is a big deal.

Thid is why many parents take med breaks, and/or the kid switches meds. These meds don't just have a short term affect. It's not Ritalin until the behavioral effect wears off and then there's no options for behavioral challenges. Doctors and parents are using an umbrella of meds to deal with these challenges over the course if many years, as needed, got these kids.

No, the article says that the research shows the impact of medication on behavior is short term. It probably could have gone more into depth on the relative severity of “ADHD” diagnoses though. There’s a big difference between a child that is so hyperactive they cannot sit to eat or learn to read; and a kid who is merely spacey.

My kid who has been on a different adhd med, completely disagrees with the article. He has been on a specific med for years and it is still very effective. He is an advocate for people with disabilities and the young adults who are his friends and involved are very upset by the article. They feel so much of it has missed the mark and they are concerned about anything that would make it harder to get the medicines they need to function. The posters who refer to this as being hopped up on speed are stupid. That is not how the medication affects kids who actually have adhd.

The article also didn't say much about all the comorbidities that often go along with adhd. Being unable to tease these out in the kids used in the tests could screw up the test results. I hate that this

How can you advocate against the research summarized in the article?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:TLDR; ADHD meds keep teachers happier but don’t actually result in better learning outcomes for kids at school.

This is bull sh*t. For my kid and the other kids I know with a similar diagnosis it makes all the difference. I can't believe more parents aren't calling this out for the crap it is.

Calling out a very well reported news article based on … what exactly? The article doesn’t dispute that stimulants show an immediate impact on behavior for younger kids in the short term.

Dp. The article acts like the behavioral aspect is short term and therefore doesn't matter, or only matters because it causes less fighting at home.

In reality, kids face big consequences, at school and with friends, if they can't control impulsive behavior. Being labeled "the bad kid" is a big deal.

Thid is why many parents take med breaks, and/or the kid switches meds. These meds don't just have a short term affect. It's not Ritalin until the behavioral effect wears off and then there's no options for behavioral challenges. Doctors and parents are using an umbrella of meds to deal with these challenges over the course if many years, as needed, got these kids.

No, the article says that the research shows the impact of medication on behavior is short term. It probably could have gone more into depth on the relative severity of “ADHD” diagnoses though. There’s a big difference between a child that is so hyperactive they cannot sit to eat or learn to read; and a kid who is merely spacey.

The article discusses one study on Ritalin, saying:

"But by 36 months, that advantage had faded completely..."

I don't see anything further about trying other drugs after one stops being effective and that those other drugs are not effective.

I took ritalin for about 36 months, it seemed to fade in its effectiveness and then was put on another non-ritalin drug, took that for 20 years until it stopped becoming available, and moved around and eventually wound up on Concerta (a Ritalin-related drug) which has worked wonderfully for 5+ years.

In the process of switching drugs I found that Adderall was ineffective for me and the side effects were deeply unpleasant, even though it was in the same family as the drug I took after stopping Ritalin, and Concerta was amazing, despite Ritalin previously seeming to have lost its effectiveness. Not all drugs work in all people the same way, and that seems like a very basic error in the reporting.

Did you read the part in the article where they discussed how people believe that they are functioning better on stimulants, but actually are not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish the article/studies had addressed the idea that some kids need meds to be able to benefit from social skills coaching and other therapies. Not to complete worksheets in grade school, but to learn real skills that do impact long term outcomes.

Given that the meds don’t improve academic learning, I don’t see why they would improve social skills, except to the extent that they make kids appear calmer in the moment. Lots of anecdotes about this, would be good to have actual research.

I agree, it would be good to have more research on this. But anecdotally I can share that my son went from impulsively touching/hitting/bothering his peers and being a social outcast in his class with a teacher who clearly disliked him, to having friends and no longer being thought of as the bad kid. That 100% improved his social life (and his depression).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The "changing the environment" argument is just a modern version of "the world needs ditchdiggers too".

They're saying some kids cant' concentrate in some environments, so instead of medicating them and giving them a chance to concentrate, we should put them in remedial classes and find jobs for them that don't require concentration. A small percentage will make it in unique jobs that value unstructured thought and don't penalize disorganization.

In my kids' case, switching from schools that used the workshop model, where there was a lot of humm and buzz and working in small groups and laptops insufficiently guarded to prevent kids from wandering off into the depths of the internet, to one where there was a lot more sitting in rows, listening to the teacher, and writing with pen and paper, significantly improved their learning experience. The work they're doing now doesn't seem at all remedial.