Attention Deficit Disorder

Salon article on Ritalin

Question:

[...] Meanwhile, with regard to one of the families in Albany: The judge ruled that the parents were to keep the child on his medication OR produce a second opinion that recommended taking him off the drug.

In other words the judge said "put up, or shut up:" find *anyone* who agrees with you. If that is accurate, it seems reasonable to me. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Also note that the father had been reported to Children’s Services before (physical abuse). I don’t have the specific details but it would seem there might be more to the case than meets the eye of those not sitting in that courtroom.

Response:

Well, it’s from Salon. I check out Salon every now and then and find some things there to enjoy. But it’s still Salon. Meanwhile, with regard to one of the families in Albany: The judge ruled that the parents were to keep the child on his medication OR produce a second opinion that recommended taking him off the drug.

     I heard from a lawyer that my guess was not wildly off base.  It *DID* seem to be something akin to "If you do this, CPS has to leave you alone". He never explicitly told me that this was an accurate summation (he’s been busy) but the wording was close enough that, again, I think the judge was trying to put restrictions on what CPS could do if the parents listened to the doctors, *NOT* restrictions on what the parents could do, or he’d sic CPS on them.        This doesn’t touch on the fact that CPS probably shouldn’t have been involved at all, unless the child was obviously in danger from a lack of meds (if he’d been un-self-consciously climbing the walls of his elementary school first day off meds (some schools have bricks with enough gap that you can stuff a sneaker-toe into them; you can, in fact, climb the walls if you’re light and strong, but you *WILL* fall if you stay on ‘too long’. How long?  Long enough to fall, of course.)…)      Where was I?  Oh, yeah.  If the kid was endangering himself, maybe CPS should have been involved.  Maybe. Also note that the father had been reported to Children’s Services before (physical abuse). I don’t have the specific details but it would seem there might be more to the case than meets the eye of those not sitting in that courtroom.

     Oh, come now, you don’t want to let facts get in the way of a good rant, do you? — Everything I needed to know in life, I learned in kindergarten.  Like: Wrestling with a lion and a grizzly bear is not necessarily the best way to prove that you’re "Tuff Enuff"

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The judge ruled that the parents were to keep the child on his medication OR produce a second opinion that recommended taking him off the drug. The latter would be easy to do for a lot of people. CPS is more effective at intimidating poor or less-educated folks. Also note that the father had been reported to Children’s Services before (physical abuse). I don’t have the specific details but it would seem there might be more to the case than meets the eye of those not sitting in that courtroom. One of the stars of Survivor was reported also. Means practically nothing. Remember, these are the people who think a ritalin holiday is child abuse. But even if the father beats the son, does that mean that the school should dictate the son’s ADD medication? Makes no sense to me.

Point was:  There is likely more to the story than we know. None of the reports I read in the Albany paper gave *enough* details to make an accurate evaluation of the situation yet people don’t hesitate to let lack of information stand in their way.

Response:

Here is a Salon article by a Ritalin skeptic. A couple of excerpts. The author is not a skeptic.  We’ve discussed that recently in a.s.a-d, if you had bothered to read the newsgroup, which you clearly haven’t.  A skeptic is someone who bases decisions on objective evidence.  The author in this case is a True Unbeliever.

The author is Larry Diller ("Running on Ritalin: A Physician Reflects on Children, Society, and Performance in a Pill").  Given that Diller continues to prescribe stimulants for ADHD, why would you characterize him as a "True Unbeliever?" May I repeat my earlier question that you failed to address?  Don’t you find it painful to be as hypocritical and intellectually dishonest as you are?  Doesn’t it cause you _any_ discomfort to constantly be shading the truth?

Somehow, I don’t think it does, Dave. Joe Parsons Frequently Asked Questions for alt.support.attn-deficit and other resources for dealing with attention deficit disorder are at http://www.cyber-mall.com/asad/faq.html

Response:

May I repeat my earlier question that you failed to address?

No. Your question is inaccurate and abusive. I posted an article that I thought would be of interest to the group. If not, ignore it. As for whether the author is a "skeptic", see Joe’s comment.

Response:

Point was:  There is likely more to the story than we know. None of the reports I read in the Albany paper gave *enough* details to make an accurate evaluation of the situation yet people don’t hesitate to let lack of information stand in their way.

There is always more to the story. If the kid were your son, you would need more details for diagnosis and treatment. But, IMO, we know enough to conclude that the school, CPS, etc. should not be ordering the kid to take ritalin. Parents should have some autonomy in this area.

Response:

Roger, I have read the whole article.  Because it is a partial anecdote written  to push an agenda the facts of the situation are unclear. The idea that the state would, against the will of the parents, force medication on a child who has problems with certain teaching styles is anathema to anyone who believes in freedom and democracy.  Any true liberal would stand up against such an idea. It is an Orwellian concept. Aloha, George – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Here is a Salon article by a Ritalin skeptic. A couple of excerpts.  At least two families with children in schools near Albany,  N.Y., recently were reported by school officials to local CPS  offices when the parents decided, independently, to stop giving  their children medication for attention-deficit hyperactivity  disorder. (The parents of one student pulled him from school;  the others decided to put their boy back on medication so that  he could continue at his school.)  Many doctors and educators would agree that withholding  medication can be viewed as a form of child abuse or neglect.  Dr. Harold Koplewicz, vice chairman of the New York  University Child Study Center, said on "Good Morning  America" last month that he felt a CPS referral was justified  when a family refused to medicate a child for whom a diagnosis  of ADHD had been made by an experienced evaluator. "Ritalin  is simply the best treatment for this disorder," he said.  I can’t agree. … http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/09/25/medicate/index.html

Before you buy.

Response:

If you actually bothered to read the newsgroup, you’d be aware that someone else has already posted this reference.  And Diller is not a "Ritalin skeptic", he’s an "abuse of power by school officials and child protection agencies skeptic". — — —John reply to jclarke at eye bee em dot net

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Here is a Salon article by a Ritalin skeptic. A couple of excerpts.  At least two families with children in schools near Albany,  N.Y., recently were reported by school officials to local CPS  offices when the parents decided, independently, to stop giving  their children medication for attention-deficit hyperactivity  disorder. (The parents of one student pulled him from school;  the others decided to put their boy back on medication so that  he could continue at his school.)  Many doctors and educators would agree that withholding  medication can be viewed as a form of child abuse or neglect.  Dr. Harold Koplewicz, vice chairman of the New York  University Child Study Center, said on "Good Morning  America" last month that he felt a CPS referral was justified  when a family refused to medicate a child for whom a diagnosis  of ADHD had been made by an experienced evaluator. "Ritalin  is simply the best treatment for this disorder," he said.  I can’t agree. … http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/09/25/medicate/index.html

Response:

Here is a Salon article by a Ritalin skeptic. A couple of excerpts. The author is not a skeptic.  We’ve discussed that recently in a.s.a-d, if you had bothered to read the newsgroup, which you clearly haven’t.  A skeptic is someone who bases decisions on objective evidence.  The author in this case is a True Unbeliever.

Actually, the author is a physician who prescribes Ritalin or whatever other med fills the bill when he deems it appropriate.  But he is also the cautious type who wants to make sure that what he’s seeing is in fact ADHD and not an artifact. — — —John reply to jclarke at eye bee em dot net

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Here is a Salon article by a Ritalin skeptic. A couple of excerpts. The author is not a skeptic.  We’ve discussed that recently in a.s.a-d, if you had bothered to read the newsgroup, which you clearly haven’t.  A skeptic is someone who bases decisions on objective evidence.  The author in this case is a True Unbeliever. The author is Larry Diller ("Running on Ritalin: A Physician Reflects on Children, Society, and Performance in a Pill").  Given that Diller continues to prescribe stimulants for ADHD, why would you characterize him as a "True Unbeliever?" I consider Diller a mostly reasonable person; I should not have characterized him as a True Unbeliever.  I was misled by Roger’s selective misquoting of the article into believing it was _another_ article that appeared recently in Salon.  My apologies.

To Diller and not Roger, I presume? Mark Probert A vote for Pat Buchanan is a vote for America’s First Fuhrer!

Response:

As for whether the author is a "skeptic", see Joe’s comment.

Read Joe’s comment again. Note that he DOES NOT agree that Diller is a skeptic. However, you did make that comment. Care to retract? Mark Probert A vote for Pat Buchanan is a vote for America’s First Fuhrer!

Response:

… but the wording was close enough that, again, I think the judge was trying to put restrictions on what CPS could do if the parents listened to the doctors, *NOT* restrictions on what the parents could do, or he’d sic CPS on them. Who do you want making the final decision — school, CPS, psychologist, physician, or parents?

     (John goes back, re-reads what he said.  Looks up.  Looks back down, and re-reads again.)        Just curious: doesn’t tradition dictate that you start such a question with "are you now, or have you ever been…"?  I mean, questions where it’s obvious that you’re trying to trap someone into a damaging statement?        Sorry.  I won’t give more material to a person who works so hard to strip context.      Just for giggles, though…. it might also be child abuse to give ritalin

      Looks really good, doesn’t it? — Everything I needed to know in life, I learned in kindergarten.  Like: Wrestling with a lion and a grizzly bear is not necessarily the best way to prove that you’re "Tuff Enuff"

Response:

Point was:  There is likely more to the story than we know. None of the reports I read in the Albany paper gave *enough* details to make an accurate evaluation of the situation yet people don’t hesitate to let lack of information stand in their way. There is always more to the story. If the kid were your son, you would need more details for diagnosis and treatment. But, IMO, we know enough to conclude that the school, CPS, etc. should not be ordering the kid to take ritalin.

His point is precisely that you do not have enough information to form this opinion based on facts. The fact that the guy has been investigated before is relevant because it makes it more likely that the parent is not acting in the child’s best interest, as evidenced by past behavior. There is a big difference between concerned parents deciding that Ritalin is not best for their child and an abusive neglectful parent who can’t be bothered to deliver needed medication. The news reports do not give enough information to let us know which is the case, nor should they. Parents should have some autonomy in this area.

The operative word being "some." I would go further and say "most" or "almost all" but not so far as to say "complete." — CBI, M.D. Please note: It is impossible to accurately diagnose medical problems without seeing the patient and reviewing the entire history. These posts are intended to be helpful and informative. Always check with your doctor before following any advice given.

Response:

One would think that any reasonable opinion would be able to find at least one other supporter. — CBI, M.D. Please note: It is impossible to accurately diagnose medical problems without seeing the patient and reviewing the entire history. These posts are intended to be helpful and informative. Always check with your doctor before following any advice given.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [...] Meanwhile, with regard to one of the families in Albany: The judge ruled that the parents were to keep the child on his medication OR produce a second opinion that recommended taking him off the drug. In other words the judge said "put up, or shut up:" find *anyone* who agrees with you. If that is accurate, it seems reasonable to me. Also note that the father had been reported to Children’s Services before (physical abuse). I don’t have the specific details but it would seem there might be more to the case than meets the eye of those not sitting in that courtroom.

Response:

Who do you want making the final decision — school, CPS, psychologist, physician, or parents?

Is it your contention that all parents, without a single exception, are the best judges of what is best for their children? If not, who should step in when they are not? — CBI, M.D. Please note: It is impossible to accurately diagnose medical problems without seeing the patient and reviewing the entire history. These posts are intended to be helpful and informative. Always check with your doctor before following any advice given.

Response:

But, IMO, we know enough to conclude that the school, CPS, etc. should not be ordering the kid to take ritalin. His point is precisely that you do not have enough information to form this opinion based on facts.

Then he’s wrong. I have heard enough to form my opinion. I do not believe that schools and other authorities should be forcing kids to take mind-altering and dangerous drugs over the parents’ objections and in response to a behavior problem at school and a subjective diagnosis of ADD by a school psychologist. The fact that the guy has been investigated before is relevant because it makes it more likely that the parent is not acting in the child’s best interest, as evidenced by past behavior.

You obviously don’t believe in "innocent until proven guilty". Anyone can make allegations. It means nothing. You’re the one who thinks that parents are probably guilty if they act defensively when you threaten to turn them into CPS.

Response:

One would think that any reasonable opinion would be able to find at least one other supporter.

Perhaps if one also thought that ADD kids were 2nd class citizens who are subject to being drugged by the medical elite, as if the kids were inmates in a mental asylum.

Response:

But, IMO, we know enough to conclude that the school, CPS, etc. should not be ordering the kid to take ritalin. His point is precisely that you do not have enough information to form this opinion based on facts. Then he’s wrong. I have heard enough to form my opinion. I do not believe that schools and other authorities should be forcing kids to take mind-altering and dangerous drugs over the parents’

Ritalin is neither mind altering or dangerous. objections and in response to a behavior problem at school and a subjective diagnosis of ADD by a school psychologist.

Where did this one come from? Your imagination? No one said anything about the diagnosis being made by a school psychologist. If you stuck to your original point, you would have retained some credibility. Saldy, you blather on and on and make yourself into a fool. BTW, a properly conducted diagnostic protocol for ADHD is not subjective. The fact that the guy has been investigated before is relevant because it makes it more likely that the parent is not acting in the child’s best interest, as evidenced by past behavior. You obviously don’t believe in "innocent until proven guilty". Anyone can make allegations. It means nothing.

It has some bearing. If he has a record in the area, he should be given a closer look. You’re the one who thinks that parents are probably guilty if they act defensively when you threaten to turn them into CPS.

Wrong. Mark Probert A vote for Pat Buchanan is a vote for America’s First Fuhrer!

Response:

But, IMO, we know enough to conclude that the school, CPS, etc. should not be ordering the kid to take ritalin. His point is precisely that you do not have enough information to form this opinion based on facts. Then he’s wrong. I have heard enough to form my opinion.

Yes, but based on not nearly enough facts. I do not believe that schools and other authorities should be forcing kids to take mind-altering and dangerous drugs over the parents’ objections and in response to a behavior problem at school and a subjective diagnosis of ADD by a school psychologist.

IOW you did not need to hear the facts because your mind was made up beforehand. The fact that the guy has been investigated before is relevant because it makes it more likely that the parent is not acting in the child’s best interest, as evidenced by past behavior. You obviously don’t believe in "innocent until proven guilty". Anyone can make allegations. It means nothing.

I do believe in innocent until proven guilty. Keep in mind that there is no such thing as absolute proof of anything. When we say a person has been proven guilty we really mean that it is sufficiently likely that he is guilty that we will take action. I think that a past record of guilt makes it more likely that the current accusation is true, however, is not sufficient proof all by itself. You’re the one who thinks that parents are probably guilty if they act defensively when you threaten to turn them into CPS.

I do? When did I say, or think, that? — CBI, M.D.

Response:

One would think that any reasonable opinion would be able to find at least one other supporter. Perhaps if one also thought that ADD kids were 2nd class citizens who are subject to being drugged by the medical elite, as if the kids were inmates in a mental asylum.

Is the above an English sentence? I seem to be missing something. — CBI, M.D.

Response:

Here is a Salon article by a Ritalin skeptic. A couple of excerpts.

Fine, I already have a pointer to the complete article and I read it. Do you have any comments???? The big problem I have with this article is that most of it is anecdotal. It also repeats some misleading, if not false, statements, such as "700 percent increase in the use of Ritalin since 1990" and "a country where we use 80 percent of the world’s stimulants" (and 80% of every other resource!!!) Diller talks about "do not always explore fully the other options available to deal with learning and behavioral problems" but never shows that any of them work, which I don’t believe. He does various things to insinuate that lots of schools are pressuring parents to put kids on Ritalin, but neatly sidesteps any numerical claims. It is not a factual article or one which can be used as a source of evidence.

Response:

… but the wording was close enough that, again, I think the judge was trying to put restrictions on what CPS could do if the parents listened to the doctors, *NOT* restrictions on what the parents could do, or he’d sic CPS on them.

Who do you want making the final decision — school, CPS, psychologist, physician, or parents? Keep in mind that if it is child abuse to deny ritalin when some do-gooder bureaucrat thinks it is needed, then it might also be child abuse to give ritalin when the authorities decide that it is not absolutely necessary.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Here is a Salon article by a Ritalin skeptic. A couple of excerpts. Fine, I already have a pointer to the complete article and I read it. Do you have any comments???? The big problem I have with this article is that most of it is anecdotal. It also repeats some misleading, if not false, statements, such as "700 percent increase in the use of Ritalin since 1990" and "a country where we use 80 percent of the world’s stimulants" (and 80% of every other resource!!!) Diller talks about "do not always explore fully the other options available to deal with learning and behavioral problems" but never shows that any of them work, which I don’t believe. He does various things to insinuate that lots of schools are pressuring parents to put kids on Ritalin, but neatly sidesteps any numerical claims. It is not a factual article or one which can be used as a source of evidence.

Well, it’s from Salon. I check out Salon every now and then and find some things there to enjoy. But it’s still Salon. Meanwhile, with regard to one of the families in Albany: The judge ruled that the parents were to keep the child on his medication OR produce a second opinion that recommended taking him off the drug. Also note that the father had been reported to Children’s Services before (physical abuse). I don’t have the specific details but it would seem there might be more to the case than meets the eye of those not sitting in that courtroom.

Response:

The judge ruled that the parents were to keep the child on his medication OR produce a second opinion that recommended taking him off the drug.

The latter would be easy to do for a lot of people. CPS is more effective at intimidating poor or less-educated folks. Also note that the father had been reported to Children’s Services before (physical abuse). I don’t have the specific details but it would seem there might be more to the case than meets the eye of those not sitting in that courtroom.

One of the stars of Survivor was reported also. Means practically nothing. Remember, these are the people who think a ritalin holiday is child abuse. But even if the father beats the son, does that mean that the school should dictate the son’s ADD medication? Makes no sense to me. The article said that there are 2 Albany CPS ritalin cases. Sounds like Albany NY CPS is out of control.

Response:

Here is a Salon article by a Ritalin skeptic. A couple of excerpts.  At least two families with children in schools near Albany,  N.Y., recently were reported by school officials to local CPS  offices when the parents decided, independently, to stop giving  their children medication for attention-deficit hyperactivity  disorder. (The parents of one student pulled him from school;  the others decided to put their boy back on medication so that  he could continue at his school.)  Many doctors and educators would agree that withholding  medication can be viewed as a form of child abuse or neglect.  Dr. Harold Koplewicz, vice chairman of the New York  University Child Study Center, said on "Good Morning  America" last month that he felt a CPS referral was justified  when a family refused to medicate a child for whom a diagnosis  of ADHD had been made by an experienced evaluator. "Ritalin  is simply the best treatment for this disorder," he said.  I can’t agree. … http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/09/25/medicate/index.html

Response:

Filed under: Attention Deficit Disorder

Related Posts