I’m disgusted that these children’s parents won’t make the sacrifice of taking all the drugs for themselves, I do it for my child. I am a good parent. Wait- what was that lightnoise?
1 Like
Yeah, I get that there are patients that game the system, but the topic is really little kids. Sure, every behavior has an overtone of psychopathy, but anti-psychotics are not an acceptable solution to a kid being overtired, hungry, dirty-pants, over-stimulated or under-stimulated. If a parent can’t figure out which of the relatively few options that send toddlers off the rails, it’s time to prescribe parenting classes, not drugs for the little ones.
Our pediatrician basically told us to suck it up, we did, and our son is coming along just fine, thankyouverymuch.
5 Likes
It’s hard to say, I would have thought that time was now until right now. They used to sell a kiddie antihistamine to promote sleep but it’s been illegal since before mine (7&5) so as far as I was aware the only drugs actively marketed at soothing children are paracetamol and ibuprofen. And they are generally indicated for physical pain and fevers.
I am gobsmacked at this.
Not enough harts to give. Right to the point.
The article begins:
Andrew Rios’s seizures began when he was 5 months old and only got worse.
Only after that do they begin medicating. Not quite normal toddler problems. Later, the article continues (with my emphasis):
In interviews, a dozen experts in child psychiatry and neurology said that they had never heard of a child younger than 3 receiving such medication, and struggled to explain it. They presumed that parents and doctors, probably desperate and well meaning, were trying to alleviate thrashing temper tantrums — the kind that get children kicked out of day care — or an overly depressed disposition, like being strikingly inhibited, nonverbal or lethargic.
To me, the article sounds like a completely unwarranted jump to conclusions. Those experts just guessed; for all we (or they) know, all of those kids have severe problems.
1 Like
And if you don’t, we can stick a needle in your arm.
This might be a bridge too far. There are a few drugs on the market for which no one really knows the mechanisms. The FDA doesn’t require it to approve a drug, unless they’ve changed that in the last five years.
1 Like
20,000 is a good start, but we can do better. If we can’t get rid of this stockpile I’ll have to write it off and explain the loss to upper management. Is there any way to administer these drugs in-utero?
Get in touch with your man at the APA, we need “intermittent kicking disorder” written in to the next edition of the DSM.
2 Likes
Fucking hell. At that rate of pay, my parents would have been bankrupt by the time I was twelve.
2 Likes
Fair point, and if we’re talking psych meds in general, I agree. Lithium has been in use for decades and only in the last twenty years have researchers been able to assess what it’s actually doing in the brain. Amantadine is still a mystery.
However, the mechanisms of most antipsychotics (first, second, and third generation) are well-known and these drugs are increasingly being used off-label to address behavior problems in children. Given the long-term risks of such antidopaminergic agents (e.g. permanent tardive dyskinesia) and dopamine’s neurotrophic role in brain development, such a trend warrants enough concern to impose on doctors what might otherwise be an unfair demand.
3 Likes
When it comes to dangerous things for kids, screens are very, very low on the list, in terms of measurable risk.
1 Like
Our 2.5 year old loves our phones and her half dozen or so items that she walks around imitating daddy talking on in toddler gibberish. Phone/screen “addiction” is bunk. Take it away, limit time of use, monitor, etc…
Teach your children well. Shielding them from technology would certainly limit their potential in this world unless you plan to live “off the grid” and never use a phone. If so, best of luck on that!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
