> it's an open secret in that industry that Ritalin and other behavioural drugs are administered for the benefit of the teacher and other students in the class - not necessarily for the child receiving it.
Not necessarily does not mean never, so be careful of a claim like that, and maybe back it up. I have a daughter, now an adult, which Ritalin and/or Adderall provided real benefit. The only thing in question was how to find the right one and right dosage to minimize the side effects )lack of appetite and sometimes stomach aches). The difference was very clear, and was exhibited multiple times. For example when we let her go off it at her request during the middle of her sophomore year in high school, and she went from getting B's and C's to getting flunking a quarter of four of six classes, and then going back to not flunking anything and getting mostly B's by the end of the year when she went back on the medication. This was not an isolated incident, it happened 2-3 times over junior high and high school.
That's the thing about medication. Different people respond to it in different ways. That's why studies look for statistical significance, not "guaranteed to do what it says".
Edit: The language of the original comment has since been softened to no longer imply that's the only or main reason, which I appreciate.
In my case, it "worked" by making me far more anxious of failure and the judgement of others. For 8 years. I had never previously had suicidal thoughts but I did less than a year after starting the "meds." Then I got in trouble for discussing suicide with another student. The whole situation is more hellishly dystopian than a grimdark fiction writer could imagine. It's no mystery why gen Z are often aggressive doomers. Maybe we could re-evaluate the school system instead of drugging kids to be more scared and spineless? Once I quit the meds and went to college (and did fine btw but maybe because my brain was already permanently altered), it took about a decade for me to realize most people are pretty cool and don't expect you to bend to every whimsical demand of any size, and you don't need to be terrified of everyone around you who could tell you to do anything at any time and you'll get in massive trouble if you don't.
> I did less than a year after starting the "meds." Then I got in trouble for discussing suicide with another student
I'm sorry to hear that. I believe that's why we had mandated psychiatric visits while my daughter was on the medication. We couldn't get refills without meeting with the doctor to discuss how it was going. It definitely sounds like it wasn't working well for you, either because of how the medication expressed itself in your case or your specific school situation, or a combination thereof.
> Maybe we could re-evaluate the school system instead of drugging kids to be more scared and spineless?
While I'm not going to argue that school couldn't do with a bit of change, I'm not sure it's fair to extrapolate what everyone's experience is from what happened to you.
As an example, I remember an incident early in seventh grade there was an incident in gym class when we were being taught the fundamentals of wrestling, where after one match and unfortunate classmate earned himself the nickname 'boner' and the ridicule to go with it, which lasted a few years. This undoubtedly made his life much harder. A number of lessons could be taken away from that situation, but "we should stop teaching wrestling in gym class" is probably not one of the better ones.
Should we stop medicating students? Maybe. That probably depends on quite a lot of factors, most of which I don't know enough about. But I would hope that a better solution where those that the medication helps take it and those that it doesn't or the problems associated with it are enough to make it a bad choice don't is an achievable outcome that we should strive for.
> I'm not sure it's fair to extrapolate what everyone's experience is from what happened to you.
But the problem is generic. USA schools have all the code smells: employees who are “just doing their job Ma’am”, or reacting knee-jerk, politics being involved leading to no solving issues but communicating a lot on them; no-xyz policies (replace with any CNN topic of the time) which leads to extreme response to normal youth events (overreaction to suicide or misbehavior, police in schools, searches come to my mind, but there is worse), competition between children, not only in curriculum but also in who’s the most popular and the most bully, drugs… And finally, the prevalence of psychologists compared to other countries, but psychologists that prescribe Aderall (US schools are world-famous abroad for threatening to curb energy with drugs on, mostly, boys) instead of working with teachers to better alternate recess/manual classes/theoretical lessons.
Of course it’s easy to tell from abroad that something is wrong, but less easy to tell how to setup different social dynamics that would result in a better system (and France certainly has its own problems with schools). It might even be as subtle as too much sugar in kid’s food, which changes behaviors a lot.
In the US, we were told our son had too much energy and would be medicated when he gets older. We moved to the NL and the teachers say he’s perfectly normal, despite having more energy. She said it would only be an issue if he wasn’t learning; which might indicate an issue with focusing. It turns out, you can still have energy and learn at the same time.
Exactly this. This is one reason we homeschool. Public school in the US was so incredibly oppressive (cops patrolling the halls and writing lewd conduct tickets for kids cussin'???), I was frankly shocked that most kids and parents put up with it.
Ritalin (methylphenidate) has an effect on one type of serotonin receptors. Most physicians are unaware of this, and, indeed, many think that methylphenidate is an amphetamine derivative, which is not the case.
For many people, d-amphetamine or cannabis are better treatments with less side effects.
Ritalin displays no significant activity on 5HT receptors, in contrast to dexamphetamine, which does have significant serotogenic effects.
Yes, they are not related, but both are taken for their dopaminergic effects, though they achieve this by different methods (reuptake inhibitor vs agonist).
Generally, in the course of treatment for ADHD, patients will get to try both to see which one they respond to better. They often exhibit strong preference for one over the other (personally, dex does nothing for me, even at recreational doses of 50mg).
Their risk profiles are very similar, and one cannot be said to have "less side effects", unless referring to a specific individual's response.
Yes, I smoked weed for about 10 years after, partially because it was nice to relax for once even if it made me really dumb while high, and partially because "my brain is already ruined by drugs, what does it even matter at this point?"
Its wild that THAT is where the line is wrt giving drugs to children, particularly in the context of giving kids incredibly powerful, schedule-class stimulants
Yes. One difference is that a number of legitimate studies have linked consumption of THC by those in certain developmental stages with functional deficits in later life (as with alcohol, and FES is definitely a thing). Of course, a rigourous scientific experiment would give definitive proof but would be unethical.
Are there similar studies regarding the ADHD meds?
I suspect the kind of poorly-controlled, correlative studies done for THC would also show correlation between ADHD meds in childhood and a variety of functional problems later in life. (The known comorbities of ADHD alone should account for that.)
>The whole situation is more hellishly dystopian than a grimdark fiction writer could imagine. It's no mystery why gen Z are often aggressive doomers.
Ah yes gen z are the only ones... the only ones to be sad and mad.
Never mind the generation having to be drafted and die in Vietnam. Never mind the generation having to fight in WW2. Never mind the generation having to take care of your ass.
I had breakdowns from social anxiety everyday in 7th grade in 2003. I got nothing. I would have rather have drugs.
the zoom zoom is showing. Go to bed please its past your bedtime.
I could have explicitly acknowledged that sometimes the child's welfare is the primary concern. I could have used weaker language, too. I've updated my comment a bit to more accurately reflect my understanding.
I find we often project or minimize opinions and positions that don't account for our pet emphases. I agree with your take.
Take an example of someone who posts solely facts in a controversial topic. Folks that disagree with the direction the facts point will ascribe all manner of negative projection to said poster. But does that reflect on the facts-poster, or on the interpreters?
> does not discount the experience you're describing
It's not about saying it's not possible, it's about setting expectations, and scaring people away from a medication which may be helpful.
>> Ritalin and other behavioural drugs are administered for the benefit of the teacher and other students in the class - not necessarily for the child receiving it.
That clearly states the reason it's administered is not primarily for the child's benefit. While it doesn't discount that the child may benefit, it clearly sets the expectation that it's not the child's well being that's being considered. The natural extension of accepting that is to wonder if there's any actual benefit to the child or if that part is just in service to "the secret".
Implying that the reason a specific medicine is prescribed is not actually for the benefit of the patient might have real repercussions if it scares away someone that it could have haloed. At a minimum, I think a statement like that should be backed up in some manner.
I'm sorry, we cannot easily back this up. It would take confession of an intent, which most prescribers aren't even aware of.
A single mom, exhausted with 2 part time jobs and 3 young kids put them in front of tele tubies all day long. Is that for her own benefit or for the benefits of the children? We don't even have clear evidence of the overall impart of such educating programs on child development. But we have to use common sense and agree it benefits carers if they want to get more time for themselves. It doesn't imply careless attitude, or consciousness of the motive, the kids appear to enjoy anyway. I think the comment was made out of common sense: attention deficit of just one student can cause serious classroom management issues, it isn't naive or prejudicial to point out what we don't hear very often: the prescription isn't for the child own' benefit.
>Not necessarily does not mean never, so be careful of a claim like that, and maybe back it up.
That's definitely correct. It can be a great help for some children, and some teachers (maybe even the majority) do make carefully considered decisions where the primary concern is for the welfare of the child receiving the drugs.
Other times, though, they just want some ratbag kid to STFU so they can get on with their job.
I distinctly remember overhearing a conversation where a teacher wanted to (in her words) "sedate" a problem child so that they don't disrupt the rest of the classroom.
> some teachers (maybe even the majority) do make carefully considered decisions
In the United States, teachers do not prescribe medications. They may make a recommendation that parents seek the guidance of a doctor, and a qualified medical professional (usually a psychiatrist) will diagnose the child, and the parent may choose to pursue medicating or not. In our case, we had regular checkup appointments with a psychiatrist where our daughter and us were present at the same time, and a later point in the session where the parents were asked to leave so the psychiatrist could speak with her privately.
> I distinctly remember overhearing a conversation where a teacher wanted to (in her words) "sedate" a problem child so that they don't disrupt the rest of the classroom.
Unless the laws have changed since then in Australia, Ritalin is a controlled substance, according to this, and it's not even guaranteed a general practitioner can prescribe it, and a psychiatrist is preferred.[1] Maybe you misheard, or maybe the teacher misunderstood what their capabilities were?
>Unless the laws have changed since then in Australia, Ritalin is a controlled substance, according to this, and it's not even guaranteed a general practitioner can prescribe it, and a psychiatrist is preferred.[1] Maybe you misheard, or maybe the teacher misunderstood what their capabilities were?
Just like in the US, teachers here can make recommendations for parents to seek medical treatment. Said recommendations can include comments like "I suspect your child has ADHD". While nothing is guaranteed, if the parent follows up on it there's a good chance the child will be medicated.
> if the parent follows up on it there's a good chance the child will be medicated.
You say that, but we went through three recommendations over 5 years or so and following doctors visits where we were told initially that it was hard to tell because she was young, and that she might grow out of it, and the doctors did not recommend medication at that time (so we didn't, until on the last one where that diagnosis and recommendation changed based on her age and behavior).
The problem with statements like "there's a good chance" is that it's likely based on your understanding of things and not actual statistics or hard data, and meanwhile I have my understanding of things based on my singular experience (anecdote) that's also not based on hard data, so without any of that data all I'd agree with you on is that sure, some parents might end up with medicated children that don't need it based on a teacher recommendation, but I'm not sure whether it's a "good chance" or not, and unless you have more info you haven't disclosed, I'm not sure whether you know that either.
>The problem with statements like "there's a good chance" is that it's likely based on your understanding of things and not actual statistics or hard data
That's a fair comment. I'd be interested to hear directly from someone who does have hard data, or at least a teacher who's actually done this multiple times.
> Just like in the US, teachers here can make recommendations for parents to seek medical treatment. Said recommendations can include comments like "I suspect your child has ADHD". While nothing is guaranteed, if the parent follows up on it there's a good chance the child will be medicated.
Ritalin absolutely is a controlled substance in Australia and requires a psychiatrist or paediatrician to prescribe it. I've never heard of a GP prescribing it (unless they're also appropriately qualified as one of the above).
GP can prescribe it if the patient has been diagnosed by a specialist (like the psychiatrist/paediatrician you mentioned). They can't prescribe it if you have not been diagnosed. This is just so the patients can get repeats on their meds without having to see the specialists all the time.
Every `ratbag kid` is someones child, someone who's brain who has been at odds with the expectations foisted upon them their entire life, and who may be tired of failing but can't figure out how not do.
Not necessarily does not mean never, so be careful of a claim like that, and maybe back it up. I have a daughter, now an adult, which Ritalin and/or Adderall provided real benefit. The only thing in question was how to find the right one and right dosage to minimize the side effects )lack of appetite and sometimes stomach aches). The difference was very clear, and was exhibited multiple times. For example when we let her go off it at her request during the middle of her sophomore year in high school, and she went from getting B's and C's to getting flunking a quarter of four of six classes, and then going back to not flunking anything and getting mostly B's by the end of the year when she went back on the medication. This was not an isolated incident, it happened 2-3 times over junior high and high school.
That's the thing about medication. Different people respond to it in different ways. That's why studies look for statistical significance, not "guaranteed to do what it says".
Edit: The language of the original comment has since been softened to no longer imply that's the only or main reason, which I appreciate.