Brits Call For Inquiry Into Child Drugging

A review has been called for in the United Kingdom because children there under the age of 4 years old, in violation of National Health Service guidelines, are being prescribed stimulants for the treatment of ADHD, according to an article in the UK Guardian, Behaviour drugs given to four-year-olds prompt calls for inquiry. Family-based therapy has recommended treatment with such drugs only if the child is over 6 and all other options have been exhausted.

The figures, based on data from 479 GPs, show prescription rates were highest for children aged six to 12, doubling to just over eight per 1,000 in the five years up to 2008. Children aged 13 to 17 had the second highest rate at six per 1,000, while those aged 25 and over had less than one per 1,000.

I would definitely worry about the rates being highest for children 6 through 12, too, as that could spell an eventually rise in overall numbers.

He [Professor Tim Kendall] said: “There are two reasons why parents go shopping for a diagnosis. The first is to improve their child’s performance at school, and the second is to get access to benefits. There are always GPs that will do it, but it’s wrong to give a child a diagnosis without also consulting schools and teachers.”

Diagnosis shopping, I like that.

You notice that there are 2 reasons given, and while the 1st reason would indicate an interest in the child’s welfare, the 2nd reason has more to do with a families living situation, and it certainly might not be about doing the best thing for the child.

Want a cause for alarm!? Look at the following.

According to Nice guidelines, between 1% and 9% of young people in the UK now have some form of ADHD, depending on the criteria used. NHS figures show a rise in all methylphenidate prescriptions across all age groups by almost 60% in five years, rising from 389,200 in 2005 to 610,200 in 2009.

We began with a rate of 8 and 6 per 1000, but here we are seeing figures that approach 1 to 9 per 100. 1 per 100 is pretty bad, but not nearly so bad as the rate of almost 10 in 100, or 9.5 % that, according to the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control, we have here in the United States. I seriously doubt Great Britain’s ADHD rate could begin to approach the high 9 % mark in most cases. The ages given for these children in the USA, where the NICE [National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence] guidelines don’t apply, is 4 to 17.

Bravo, United Kingdom! At least there is some concern there about the potential for harm in giving speed to children who have scarcely left their terrible twos. I’m still hopeful that maybe child specialists will find an expression for children who have left their terribles twos and entered their horrible fours and sixs. I have never felt that “sick” was a very good characterization for that phase in life either.

Advertisements

12 Responses

  1. Even as recently as 10 years ago you could be locked up for thinking that such a state of affairs could ever be.

    • Well, not only are kids being labeled ADHD, but they’re being labeled schizophrenic and bipolar, too. Very young kids in fact. There would have been much less of this kind of thing 10 years ago, and 20 years ago it would have been unthinkable. This means toddlers are receiving the same kind of horse tranquilizers grown ups get.

      Considering that this sort of thing could be possible might make a person apprehensive. Such apprehensiveness a mental health professional might misconstrue as paranoia. Paranoia is the excuse often used to imprison people in psychiatric institutions.

  2. The Brits have gotten a few things right, and have been ahead (at least with some of this), for the past few years.

    The Lancet and Guardian led the charge a few years back, when it was “found” (finally) that antidepressants are clinically no better than placebo. (Not exactly “news”), but at least they had the courage to print the facts.

    Some of their reporting on integrative approaches for autism and Alzheimer’s disease is pretty impressive.

    The Food for the Brain Foundation is something the Brits outta be proud of –

    http://www.foodforthebrain.org/content.asp?id_Content=1721

    The Aussies are doing some good work on nutriton for “mental illness” (we need to abolish that term!) as well, as are many other countries…
    The U.S. needs to catch up on some of this!

    IMO, just because “mental illness” isn’t a brain disease (and its NOT!), doesn’t mean that other things can’t be going on in the body… from poor absorption, to thyroid problems, insulin levels, etc…

    These conditions can be addressed (WITHOUT psychiatyry), with nutrtion, integrative medicine, and other safe and effective approaches that help people heal and get well…

    More importantly, stay well, and move on with their lives (WITHOUT the psychiatric label, drugs, and incarcerations!)… What a concept, huh?

    Those are some of my thoughts anyway.

    Duane Sherry, M.S.
    http://discoverandrecover.wordpress.com

    • I think we’re basically in agreement on these matters, Duane.

      Great Britain, together with much of continental Europe, takes a less one-sided, and more reasoned, approach to the care of people labeled “mentally ill” than the USA does.

      The Aussies may be looking at diet more, and that is good. At the same time they are racing to catch up with the USA in terms of maltreatment practices and epidemic proportions. Many of their proposed preventatives are likely to prove causative.

      Health is important, and it doesn’t help to separate “mental health” concerns from overall physical health concerns. The problem with doing so is that then you have treatments that are supposed to be good for a person’s “mental health” that destroy that person’s physical health. I can’t help but see the two as interconnected. Look after your physical health, and your mental health will take care of itself.

      The psychiatrist’s office is a place to avoid if you don’t want a psychiatric label and a bottle of pills. I happen to think healthy lifestyles can help to keep a person away from the psychiatrist’s office.

  3. They’ll be diagnosing embryos with psychoses and even personality disorders before long.

    • Linking schizophrenia with DNA sequences is a way of doing just that, and although the suggestion hasn’t been made for personality disorders, you can be certain it’s coming. Much of the research today is being conducted from a biological medical model perspective, and starting from biological medical model premises. What people don’t tend to realize is that this is just one theory pertaining to the source of what are commonly referred to as “mental illnesses” among many others, and that, given any reliable and strenuous research techniques, much of these premises are likely to be overthrown in the long haul. Also, so long as these studies aren’t 100 % accurate, there is no way you can call this research an exact science. If a % of people characterized as psychotic have the same set of genes, that doesn’t mean that a % characterized as psychotic don’t have the same set of genes. Now explain the exceptions. These “scientists” say “mental illnesses” are 60 – 70 % determined by genetics. This is all speculation based on theory, and there is absolutely no real basis for these figures. One could come up with the same sort of % guesstimates for environmental and social factors. Now they can go on forever attempting to prove it. Proving it for real is another matter. (The scientific method, as you may be aware, is actually about disproving.) The thing I want people to understand is that much of this research is not being approached from an open minded scientific perspective, it is instead a matter of research being guided by a certain theory, and the premises that attend that theory.

  4. I agree.
    In fact, a friend of mine once said, “take care of the body, and the brain will follow.”

    Of course, there’ s not a lot of money to be made in giving people good information on the benefits of nutients for the brain, the benefits of exercise, deep relaxation, etc.

    In fact, doing so would put a lot of “professionals” out of business!

    Thanks for the post.

    Duane

  5. Everyone believed in witches so they found them.
    “all witches were in league with the devil – a common European belief, which was enshrined in Law in England and Wales in 1601” wikipedia quote.
    In psychiatry, using psychiatric language, they believe there is an “us” and “them”, so there is an us and them.
    Psychiatry is the same as Phrenology.
    Phrenology: measurements of the human skull to predict behaviour.
    Psychiatry: measurements of human thoughts to predict behaviour.

    Children misbehave, that is the nature of children. They scream, cry and run about. Maybe eat too much ice cream and chocolate if given the chance.
    Children are undisciplined , thats why they are called children and are children under the law.
    I assume the parents are the insane ones and need psychiatry to help them control their children.

    And psychiatry, being the beast it is , will supply a solution to get the money the parents have.

  6. Mark,

    I believe that psychiatry has an evil past, with eugenics, and horrific methods.
    I also believe that it hasn’t changed much in recent years.
    In many ways, the methods are just as harmful as they ever were.

    From the psychiatric labels, to placing people on mind-altering drugs for the long-haul, to ECT, incarcerations without due process.

    I don’t believe that each and every psychiatrist is an evil person, but I do believe that the profession itself is evil in many ways. And I wonder about the silence of this profession… Silence everywhere.

    The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has 38,000 members, and only a handful have spoken out… The vast majority have had NOTHING to say as psychiatry has expanded its market, targeting children in Medicaid and foster care programs in the states, drugged military service members in the war theater, and placed elderly in nursing homes on these harmful drugs… The vast majority have simply sat back, and said NOTHING!

    Is each and every psychiatrist evil?
    No.

    Is psychiatry an evil profession?
    Not only yes, but HELL YES!

    Duane Sherry

  7. “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing.”
    – Edmund Burke

    Any “good men (or women)” that psychiatry might have are doing a lot of NOTHING, in terms of standing up, and speaking out….

    Which is precisely why I boldly call psychiatry an evil profession.

    A challenge to any psychiatrist: “Do something!”

    Duane Sherry

    • It’s a big problem. Psychiatry as a profession has blinders on. I know. I keep trying to talk to mental health professionals about the havok, in terms of death and damage, they are wreaking through the use these pharmaceutical products. I’ve seen it first hand. I get some person in authority who says I don’t think the ‘no meds’ thing will go over here. They had rather hear some posterboard mental patient, some compliant consumer type, regurgitate jargon, and congratulate them on the excellent job they are doing. He or she will tell them what they want to hear, word for word, and it won’t have anything to do with what’s actually occurring. If I can’t be direct, I can be indirect, and so I do the next best thing, pitch an alternative that doesn’t involving drugging people into oblivion. I have to be “diplomatic” and “negotiate”. This is an awkward situation I shouldn’t be in, and all because psychiatrists aren’t receptive to any other ways of thinking about the matter. When it comes to those “negotiations”, I know very well that we’re natural enemies, and I’m from what to them would seem a “hostile” territory. Friendly psychiatrists are few and far between, and they don’t tend to inhabit University residency programs. The plain truth, I’m there because I want to see more survivors of psychiatry, and fewer casualties. When I look at the situation that surrounds me today, what with the drug companies peddling their wares right, left, and center, I see a situation that is getting worse all the time. I will speak to anyone who will listen, but I speak the truth. It is very annoying to me that it is a truth psychiatrists can’t comprehend.

  8. You wrote:

    “The plain truth, I’m there because I want to see more survivors of psychiatry, and fewer casualties.”

    You’re doing some good. Remember that. Remember the saying, “If a man saves one life, he saves humanity.”

    My best,

    Duane

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: