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.
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.
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.
For many people, d-amphetamine or cannabis are better treatments with less side 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.
Are there similar studies regarding the ADHD meds?
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.
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?
Online communication is such an odd thing.
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.
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.
I held off a long time. But finally relented. Night and day difference. Rolling around on the floor endlessly to top of class.
I haven’t found one my body can tolerate for long. But it was so weird to feel normal and not this horrific agony at trying to stay on task.
I do have an actual diagnosis and doctor for ADHD
You can be a horribly depressed empty shell pf a human, but still "function" in society.
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.
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?
1: https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/pharmaceutical/patients/Pages/...
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.
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.
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.
Sounds like the system works then!
It makes me sad to read comments like this.
My takeaway - don’t just stop taking these even if you think it’s just for adults benefit - there has to be a way to come off them more slowly
In more brutal prior days, they'd be expelled and become the parent's problem. Now, they get medicated into compliance. It isn't fair to anyone, neither that child nor the others, that they get streamed in with everyone and everyone has to figure out how to cope.
I don't know what the right answer is, but pretending there isn't a problem in the first place is definitely not the beginning of an answer.
Personally, I’ll take the memories of violence over being medicated for life any day of the week.
Oh, and it generally worked - fear of retribution is quite the motivator.
Having spent my formative years being motivated by avoiding beatings, rather than seeking praise, made it very difficult to adjust to adulthood in a world that relies on positive reinforcement for motivation.
For every "...and I turned out just fine", there are many who didn't. Your "memories of violence" aren't the alternative to "being medicated for life", they're often the very cause of it.
Not that current time is perfect, but statistically it has better results.
Hard to judge quantitatively - but TBH as fucked up as my childhood was I wouldn't want to grow up in the modern system and working with the zoomer generation I'm not impressed with the outcome.
> if your only goal is to prevent negative outcomes might as well put everyone in a coma and tube feed them - bound to get 0% crime, violence, addiction.
This is fairly absurd jump.
Also, beating kids into obeisance makes them more likely to beat others onto obeisance. Which has no repercussions if against a kid, but has large ones if against adults. And even if not physical, leads to bullies. The more authority they get, the more coercive bullying happen.
But my point was more about comparing generations, I feel like a lot of struggles like having to learn how to control your temper or focus, are wiped away with drugs, and in general society is very good at removing historic hardships you had to overcome. On the flip side a lot of artificial stress and challenges are introduced with modern life (grade chasing since preschool, social media) - I don't feel like this would have felt meaningful to me so I don't envy the current generation of children.
It is harsh, but clearly trying to integrate all of them to general population is not working for anyone, but administrators...
Let's keep treatment focused on healing the individual, not drugging them into compliance. We are talking about kids here.
Be sure to consider the age which the treatment starts. A major aspect of concern for all drug use is how it affects developing minds.
I worked with the same group of students for a 2.5 year period of pre-K and kindergarten. Low self esteem, anxiety and depression and to a less extent conduct disorder were plain to see in the majority of the low executive function students by the end of Kindergarten. I saw these negative outcomes develop as a direct consequence of difficulty managing behavior in class and keeping up with peers.
Particularly for kids with combined inattentive hyperactive ADHD symptoms it's nearly impossible for them to get through the day while keeping up academically AND keeping their behavior inside the realm of "acceptable classroom behavior". Lacking a robust support system for students with extra needs (think an additional teacher or teaching assistant in classroom at all times) there is a very finite limit to how much you can assist without creating issues for the progress of the class as a whole.
The reason that I am careful to use low executive function (EF) as the label at this age is that even for experts in this area it's incredibly difficult to predict who will "grow out" of their lower than average EF issues and who plateaus with maturity.
I think the current consensus that diagnosis and especially medication for ADHD is too difficult prior to 6 or 7 is correct. I've seen too many students have seeming miraculous gains in EF and catch up with peers in a matter of weeks to think that preschool is the appropriate time to diagnose and treat ADHD.
The students who continue to lag behind in EF are substantially behind in basic grade level knowledge when they set foot in primary school. The amount of catch up they have to do is substantial even for neurotypical students by time that a formal diagnosis and medication is an option.
Now add in the fact that a large portion of the parents of ADHD kids have a parent with ADHD or less than average EF skills. They are less able than most to give their children the extra out of classroom help they need.
Getting kids on medication ASAP once a diagnosis is confirmed and a well tolerated treatment is found is a no brainer. By the time that this comes into play you are already in educational triage. We're talking about 1st graders that can't read simple consonant vowel consonant words in some cases.
The obvious solution is putting in a low EF safety net in pre-k and kindergarten. Extra teachers in classrooms, extra help with literacy. Making sure all parents are aware that their child is has an elevated risk for ADHD diagnosis later down the road, so they can familiarize themself with the diagnosis and treatment options-- and more importantly so that people are assessing and testing to see if they catch up in EF function.
My brother got an adult diagnosis and would have benefitted a from a child diagnosis
I agree that it is wrong.
But the protection of other students is not a bad thing in principle. It is a thing that is often missing. Yes the school should help problem kids. And absolutely, the school should make sure other kids don't get victimized in the process.
This ADHD epidemic is localized in the US, so either people there are being overdiagnosed for the sake of sinplicity, so they can just be drugged; or there is something horribly wrong, causing all those children to suddenly develop ADHD.
My money is on the former explanation.
Schools too. My mum spent two decades as a primary schol teacher, and it's an open secret in that industry that Ritalin and other behavioural drugs are, at least in some cases, administered for the benefit of the teacher and other students in the class - not necessarily for the child receiving it.