Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because there are other options doctors refuse to try first.

I also refused to take medication for an issue I was having, did the research and changed my diet and my 2 year medical condition was resolved. I talked to the doctor about it and he said, "Most people are not that disciplined so I don't suggest it."

How about this ... suggest it, and let the patient decide.

Also, my son has a 3.3 GPA, he is happy, he is healthy, he is on 2 Varsity sports (as a Freshman) and volunteers with the Special Olympics. Why would I give him drugs?

Because think of how much better he would be if be weren't limited by his condition. If your son was missing a leg, would you let him crawl around without crutches and then ask why should you give him crutches?

If your son is missing a leg, why would you give him a drug that lets him pretend that his leg is just fine while ruining the rest of his health, instead of getting him the external supports that he needs to manage his condition?

NP. It comparison isn't the same and the consequences are not always immediate. I have a condition since childhood where if I did not take medication, I'll be blind. I'm very happy that my parents gave me meds so that I can still read and drive and let me keep my vision even though some of the medications I've taken over the years had lots unpleasant side effects.

Since the consequences for not giving the kid ADHD meds isn't so immediate, many parents seem to wait until their kid's situation at home and/or school become unbearable and that's an option for some.

Anonymous wrote:Wasn't there a study just published that said the medicated kids did better in school but earned less as adults, and the non-medicated kids did worse in school but made more $$ as adults?

The report stated this in regards to adults medicated as children, not adults treated as adults which your statement alludes to:

Results pertaining to childhood medication treatment were quite interesting. Adults with ADHD who had not received medication treatment as children (n=329) were over three times as likely to be unemployed than those who had (n=75). This finding remained even when educational attainment was controlled for.

Adults who had not been treated with medication in childhood also reported significantly higher rates of anxiety and depressive symptoms.

http://www.add.org/page/doesadhdmedication/?terms=%22research+update%22

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because there are other options doctors refuse to try first.

I also refused to take medication for an issue I was having, did the research and changed my diet and my 2 year medical condition was resolved. I talked to the doctor about it and he said, "Most people are not that disciplined so I don't suggest it."

How about this ... suggest it, and let the patient decide.

Also, my son has a 3.3 GPA, he is happy, he is healthy, he is on 2 Varsity sports (as a Freshman) and volunteers with the Special Olympics. Why would I give him drugs?

Because think of how much better he would be if be weren't limited by his condition. If your son was missing a leg, would you let him crawl around without crutches and then ask why should you give him crutches?

If your son is missing a leg, why would you give him a drug that lets him pretend that his leg is just fine while ruining the rest of his health, instead of getting him the external supports that he needs to manage his condition?

Wasn't there a study just published that said the medicated kids did better in school but earned less as adults, and the non-medicated kids did worse in school but made more $$ as adults?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because there are other options doctors refuse to try first.

I also refused to take medication for an issue I was having, did the research and changed my diet and my 2 year medical condition was resolved. I talked to the doctor about it and he said, "Most people are not that disciplined so I don't suggest it."

How about this ... suggest it, and let the patient decide.

Also, my son has a 3.3 GPA, he is happy, he is healthy, he is on 2 Varsity sports (as a Freshman) and volunteers with the Special Olympics. Why would I give him drugs?

Because think of how much better he would be if be weren't limited by his condition. If your son was missing a leg, would you let him crawl around without crutches and then ask why should you give him crutches?

Do you understand that for some kids -- many, in fact -- this kind of GPA is really good, and that not everyone is cut out to be a 4.0 student? Posts like this reinforce the idea that some parents medicate their kids to give them an edge in performance.

That's like saying, for some people 50/50 vision is really good, and not everyone deserves to have 20/20 vision. Do you believe that?

I believe that different people differ in their inherent abilities, as well as skills and interests, and that not everyone is cut out to be at the very top of their class. That's the way it works in life.

I am hesitant about ADHD medication and I worry that too many people just get a prescription with out the serious testing and evaluations.

When my son was in 2nd grade we had him evaluated for ADHD, his teacher kept pushing it b/c he didn't sit still in class, was always jumping around, vibrating in place, was always calling out answers (they were right, she admitted)and would get distracted and lost in a book for a long time), after talking with the psychologist, OT, and others it was determined he had ADHD, we waited, talked to the pediatrician, waited, and finally after the teacher and principal kept pressing, we medicated.

We tried lots of other stuff first, low sugar, clean eating, no artificial colors or flavors, very little TV, he had a good sleep schedule (10.5/11 hrs a night), lots of exercise, fish oil supplements, behavior charts.

My son had very bad reactions to the meds we tried over the course of a year (Concerta and a Focalin/ritalin combo). He became moody, violent, manic, tried pushing me and his younger brother down the stairs on several occasions, he would have hysterical, angry outbursts over very small things, and was inconsolable and took hours to calm down, he could not sleep and would cry, I am so tired, but my brain won't turn off and let me sleep. Our home situation became unbearable, like we were living in a war zone. He lost a lot of weight from his already slight frame, we had to give him sleeping pills so he could sleep, he wouldn't go out in the sun and only wanted to stay inside, by himself and play alone, which was completely the opposite of his personality.

When I mentioned these things to his teacher, she said, oh, but he is doing so well in my class, so it's worth it. When I mentioned these things to the pediatrician, he basically said, that's not what is in the literature.

After one year of this I took him off the medication and went to a low carb, low sugar diet, strict consequence chart and managed it that way. He did not get in as much trouble in school the next 2 years.

He is in 6th grade now, on swim team and an A/B student and is doing ok. He has a 504 plan that allows for movement, preferential seating and extended test time.

His personality seems a little bit altered, not the easy going kid he was, his sleep never got back to normal, he takes melatonin every couple of days.

We will probably have to revisit the medication aspect right before high school, at least that is what was suggested by his 5th grade math teachers, but for now, no.

Also, I tried to live by the if he had diabetes, I'd give him insulin right? But if anything that I was giving my child to make him "better" was destroying the great kid I knew, I would stop it and find another avenue.

Several of my friends kids are on medication for ADD/ADHD and they are not having the side effects my son had, do I think they are lazy parents? No, it's working for their child and their family and I am glad for them.

My big concern is that we do not know what the long term effects of these drugs on very young brains is. Yes, several of the drugs have been around for decades, but only recently have very young children (under age 8, and increasingly, under age 5) been prescribed these drugs. So, the youngest children are essentially guinea pigs in this experiment. We won't know for 20 or 30 years what the results are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because there are other options doctors refuse to try first.

I also refused to take medication for an issue I was having, did the research and changed my diet and my 2 year medical condition was resolved. I talked to the doctor about it and he said, "Most people are not that disciplined so I don't suggest it."

How about this ... suggest it, and let the patient decide.

Also, my son has a 3.3 GPA, he is happy, he is healthy, he is on 2 Varsity sports (as a Freshman) and volunteers with the Special Olympics. Why would I give him drugs?

Because think of how much better he would be if be weren't limited by his condition. If your son was missing a leg, would you let him crawl around without crutches and then ask why should you give him crutches?

Do you understand that for some kids -- many, in fact -- this kind of GPA is really good, and that not everyone is cut out to be a 4.0 student? Posts like this reinforce the idea that some parents medicate their kids to give them an edge in performance.

That's like saying, for some people 50/50 vision is really good, and not everyone deserves to have 20/20 vision. Do you believe that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because there are other options doctors refuse to try first.

I also refused to take medication for an issue I was having, did the research and changed my diet and my 2 year medical condition was resolved. I talked to the doctor about it and he said, "Most people are not that disciplined so I don't suggest it."

How about this ... suggest it, and let the patient decide.

Also, my son has a 3.3 GPA, he is happy, he is healthy, he is on 2 Varsity sports (as a Freshman) and volunteers with the Special Olympics. Why would I give him drugs?

Because think of how much better he would be if be weren't limited by his condition. If your son was missing a leg, would you let him crawl around without crutches and then ask why should you give him crutches?

Do you understand that for some kids -- many, in fact -- this kind of GPA is really good, and that not everyone is cut out to be a 4.0 student? Posts like this reinforce the idea that some parents medicate their kids to give them an edge in performance.

Anonymous wrote:Because there are other options doctors refuse to try first.

I also refused to take medication for an issue I was having, did the research and changed my diet and my 2 year medical condition was resolved. I talked to the doctor about it and he said, "Most people are not that disciplined so I don't suggest it."

How about this ... suggest it, and let the patient decide.

Also, my son has a 3.3 GPA, he is happy, he is healthy, he is on 2 Varsity sports (as a Freshman) and volunteers with the Special Olympics. Why would I give him drugs?

Because think of how much better he would be if be weren't limited by his condition. If your son was missing a leg, would you let him crawl around without crutches and then ask why should you give him crutches?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We put off going on meds after getting the diagnosis because I didn't think it necessary (yet) and I was concerned about the side effects, primarily on appetite and sleep. We finally went on meds when it was clear that she wasn't learning as much as she should be despite many, many accommodations. We haven't experienced any side effects and two days after starting meds she started to read for the first time.

For us, meds were a total win-win and I regret not doing it earlier.

You haven't experienced any side effects that you know about now. And for your child's sake, I hope that continues to be the case.

Why, yes. Also, we take car trips and haven't yet gotten into an accident and hope we don't in the future. We also go outside and haven't yet gotten hit by a bus and hope that we don't in the future.

In all aspects of parenting, I make the best decisions at the time with the information I have and re-evaluate as necessary. Meds are no different.

Anonymous wrote:I have a first grader with ADHD and his on the lowest dosage possible of Ritalin and he has been for 6 months. I have concerns about increasing his dosage, even though it appears as if he is outgrowing the amount and it is losing its effectiveness. Part of my concern is that I think that the medication works for a couple of years and then loses its effectiveness. He is only 7 and if we keep increasing and increasing it, I am afraid of the side effects but of also having nothing left in our "arsenal" when he really needs it in middle school/high school. So, we are very very conservative with the medication. We are focusing on organization, social and life skills that he will need if he decides to stop taking medication (which happens frequently, I'm told, once kids hit teen years) or it loses it efficacy.

Have you looked into strattera? It is generally used on you get children. My seven yr old is on it. Non addictive.

Anonymous wrote:
What is the harm in trying meds and then stopping if they don't help? Genuinely curious, since we are new to all this.

If you are against them, is it because you tried and they didn't help? Or is there more too it?

I am not "against them" and we may end up using them in the future. But we are trying absolutely everything else within our power because 1) my child has other issues, especially severe anxiety as well as sleep and weight issues, which are likely to make it impossible to use stimulants anyway 2) I have read numerous studies in the US and other countries that indicate that years down the road, there is little difference between the medicated and unmedicated ADHD patient 3) I have seen firsthand how incredibly complicated the medication question can be, especially with the "complex" kids like mine.

I have several friends and family members whose kids are taking medication for ADHD. In one case, the child has taken several medications. At the start, each seems to help a tiny bit, enough to put up with adverse side effects until, all of a sudden, the medication stops working. They up the dose, the side effects become unbearable, and they have to switch the medication. They have now switched to a non-stimulant, which works a little for the impulsiveness but not so much for the attention... but this isn't a go-to gold standard med that has been used by children for years so they are worried about longterm effects. They have been at it for years.

Another child I know, a relative, started with a stimulant. It really worked for school/homework so they want to keep using it despite the fact that it has increased his anxiety and aggression so much that he now also has to take an SSRI and Risperdal (!) as well as something else for sleep. This evolving process has lasted years as well but instead of deciding that the side effects are not tolerable, they are adding medications to manage them.

I also know several people whose kids take a stimulant and it has helped and is no big deal. But those kids tend to be the less severe, not multiple diagnosis type. If my kid did not have multiple things going on, I might be more open to experimenting. But I think the medication question is much more complicated than trying and stopping.

Instead we have really radically changed our lives, my career, child's school, how much time we move and exercise every day, and added costly non-medical interventions like OT and neurofeedback. I am lucky to have been able to make these changes and am incredibly thankful that they are helping. I absolutely do not rule out meds in the future.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.nature.com/news/medication-the-smart-pill-oversell-1.14701

From the article:

"For most people with ADHD, these medications — typically formulations of methylphenidate or amphetamine — quickly calm them down and increase their ability to concentrate. Although these behavioural changes make the drugs useful, a growing body of evidence suggests that the benefits mainly stop there. Studies indicate that the improvements seen with medication do not translate into better academic achievement or even social adjustment in the long term: people who were medicated as children show no improvements in antisocial behaviour, substance abuse or arrest rates later in life, for example. And one recent study suggested that the medications could even harm some children1.

After decades of study, it has become clear that the drugs are not as transformative as their marketers would have parents believe. “I don't know of any evidence that's consistent that shows that there's any long-term benefit of taking the medication,” says James Swanson, a psychologist at the University of California, Irvine."

Precisely. And there could definitely be long-term harm.

http://www.nature.com/news/medication-the-smart-pill-oversell-1.14701

From the article:

"For most people with ADHD, these medications — typically formulations of methylphenidate or amphetamine — quickly calm them down and increase their ability to concentrate. Although these behavioural changes make the drugs useful, a growing body of evidence suggests that the benefits mainly stop there. Studies indicate that the improvements seen with medication do not translate into better academic achievement or even social adjustment in the long term: people who were medicated as children show no improvements in antisocial behaviour, substance abuse or arrest rates later in life, for example. And one recent study suggested that the medications could even harm some children1.

After decades of study, it has become clear that the drugs are not as transformative as their marketers would have parents believe. “I don't know of any evidence that's consistent that shows that there's any long-term benefit of taking the medication,” says James Swanson, a psychologist at the University of California, Irvine."