Why have children now got so many conditions ?

charlemont

Naikon wrote: »

Until someone can step forward and provide a specific example of the pathophysiology for ADD/ADHD, I am going to go out on a limb and say these "disorders" are ficticious. Prove me wrong

I was diagnosed with ADD and I completely agree with you, Its ficticious and its being used as an excuse by parents who cant seem to grasp the reality that everyone is different.

Dudess

I definitely think a lot of people make that assumption moreso than it being an actual reality. Not denying some kids are badly behaved, and some parents can't control them, but why does that automatically mean no kid, or very few kids, could have behavioural problems, despite good parenting? Some really hurtful stuff being said here by people who don't have any insight into child behaviour/psychology. Why not just try to put yourselves in the shoes of a parent whose kid has e.g. Asperger's syndrome?

And the dyslexia thing - ignorance and impatience re it, so "half the time it's laziness", nothing to back that up. I don't know ANYONE who has pretended to be dyslexic - I do know one girl who faced similar prejudice and ignorance in relation to her dyslexia when she was trying to find a job though.

kkdela6

I have a friend who supposedly has ADHD. the only difference between him and the rest of us is that he has a free bus pass and gets twice as much dole

Android 666

the groutch wrote: »

I definitely think there's alot of people using these "conditions" to diguise their bad parenting

Can you explain to me how they are doing it?

Dudess

So the "experts" that are so confident these conditions don't exist and are just a cover-up (despite no scientific research) why would anyone bother creating them then? What has led to this surge in making up conditions? I know e.g. my doctor wouldn't bother with fake diagnoses, and if there's an elephant in the room, he'll say it.

Morag

the groutch wrote: »

I definitely think there's alot of people using these "conditions" to diguise their bad parenting

and what about those who are good parents and no matter what they do and all the time, effort and money they spend on their kid they still have ADHD?

Emiko

Dudess wrote: »

So the "experts" that are so confident these conditions don't exist and are just a cover-up (despite no scientific research) why would anyone bother creating them then? What has led to this surge in making up conditions? I know e.g. my doctor wouldn't bother with fake diagnoses, and if there's an elephant in the room, he'll say it.

The symptoms of ADHD are so vague, and read a little like cold-reading at times. (this is the first result for ADHD symptoms on google...http://www.helpguide.org/mental/adhd_add_signs_symptoms.htm), yet a whole self-perpetuating industry, for both psychologists and drug companies, has sprung up around these vague assumptions.

And I'd be willing to bet that a little tweaking of the diet of those genuinely hyperactive would do a lot more for changing behaviour patterns than filling them full of medication.

DexyDrain

Emiko wrote: »

The symptoms of ADHD are so vague, and read a little like cold-reading at times. (this is the first result for ADHD symptoms on google...http://www.helpguide.org/mental/adhd_add_signs_symptoms.htm), yet a whole self-perpetuating industry, for both psychologists and drug companies, has sprung up around these vague assumptions.

Symptom checking and diagnosis are quite different though, I hope you agree. In order to obtain a diagnosis there has to be a significant impact on normal functioning that cannot be explained by any other circumstances or disorders:

D. There must be clear evidence of clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning

As well as meeting specific criteria as evaluated by standard diagnostic tools.

http://www.ldawe.ca/DSM_IV.html

DexyDrain

Emiko wrote: »

And I'd be willing to bet that a little tweaking of the diet of those genuinely hyperactive would do a lot more for changing behaviour patterns than filling them full of medication.

And you would lose that bet, dietary interventions for ADHD have no proven clinically significant effects on the disorder compared to stimulant medication or newer non-stimulant meds such as Straterra. They checked.

Emiko

DexyDrain wrote: »

Symptom checking and diagnosis are quite different though, I hope you agree. In order to obtain a diagnosis there has to be a significant impact on normal functioning that cannot be explained by any other circumstances or disorders:

D. There must be clear evidence of clinically significant impairment in social, academic, or occupational functioning

As well as meeting specific criteria as evaluated by standard diagnostic tools.

http://www.ldawe.ca/DSM_IV.html

It's the words 'normal functioning' that give me pause for thought.

What exactly is 'normal functioning' in a child?

Emiko

DexyDrain wrote: »

And you would lose that bet, dietary interventions for ADHD have no proven clinically significant effects on the disorder compared to stimulant medication or newer non-stimulant meds such as Straterra. They checked.

Ok. I lost the bet. (who's they, incidentally? and why do so many google results suggest otherwise?)

On a side-note; the side-effects of Straterra as listed on Wikipedia...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomoxetine#Side_effects

Do these side effects contribute to the normal functioning of the children?

DexyDrain

Emiko wrote: »

It's the words 'normal functioning' that give me pause for thought.

What exactly is 'normal functioning' in a child?

There is a spectrum of functioning along which each person falls, standardised testing produces the standard bell curve showing the distribution of functioning in whatever characteristic you are measuring across a representative sample of the population. The majority of people fall within a certain deviation from the mean, people who fall significantly below the mean are therefore considered impaired, as they have functioning in the areas you are interested in measurably below that found in the vast majority of the population.

Here's a nicely brief explanation of normal distribution:
http://www.netmba.com/statistics/distribution/normal/

DexyDrain

Emiko wrote: »

Ok. I lost the bet. (who's they, incidentally? and why do so many google results suggest otherwise?)

On a side-note; the side-effects of Straterra as listed on Wikipedia...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomoxetine#Side_effects

Do these side effects contribute to the normal functioning of the children?

There are quite a few studies on diet, some nice ones were done at UC Davis, if you are really interested I can dig some up.

The reason so many google results suggest otherwise is because there is a lot of money to be made in scaremongering as a marketing opportunity to sell you something that does nothing more or less than change the colour of your urine.

Have you googled the possible side effects of the common drugs you may have in your house or were prescribed recently? Contraceptive pills for one example.

amacachi

Dudess wrote: »

So the "experts" that are so confident these conditions don't exist and are just a cover-up (despite no scientific research) why would anyone bother creating them then? What has led to this surge in making up conditions? I know e.g. my doctor wouldn't bother with fake diagnoses, and if there's an elephant in the room, he'll say it.

Your doctor is awesome so, plenty aren't. I've seen it mentioned in this thread and plenty of other threads about how quickly doctors and others prescribe anti-depressants etc. I know people who were given anti-depressants the day after a family member died which doesn't seem like a great idea. In America (my socio-economic status doesn't leave me placed to know much about the type of people in this country in similar situations) where doctors are in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies I think it's fairly obvious why these conditions would be over-diagnosed and over-prescribed for. Add to that the low and questionable efficacy of SSRIs and the rest and it's no wonder people question the numbers being diagnosed.
Also from the ADD/ADHD perspective just look at the documentary Louis Theroux did. From the numbers it must be representative of quite a lot of cases in the US. Kid has "ADD" supposedly and is on medication for it. Turns out the mother is constantly doped up and so is the bloody dog.

amacachi

amacachi wrote: »

Your doctor is awesome so, plenty aren't. I've seen it mentioned in this thread and plenty of other threads about how quickly doctors and others prescribe anti-depressants etc. I know people who were given anti-depressants the day after a family member died which doesn't seem like a great idea. In America (my socio-economic status doesn't leave me placed to know much about the type of people in this country in similar situations) where doctors are in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies I think it's fairly obvious why these conditions would be over-diagnosed and over-prescribed for. Add to that the low and questionable efficacy of SSRIs and the rest and it's no wonder people question the numbers being diagnosed.
Also from the ADD/ADHD perspective just look at the documentary Louis Theroux did. From the numbers it must be representative of quite a lot of cases in the US. Kid has "ADD" supposedly and is on medication for it. Turns out the mother is constantly doped up and so is the bloody dog.

The first time I visited my GP regarding depression I was just hoping for a referral for counselling. I got that... along with a prescription for Lexapro.

amacachi

Karsini wrote: »

The first time I visited my GP regarding depression I was just hoping for a referral for counselling. I got that... along with a prescription for Lexapro.

I got 3 one-month prescriptions all together. Not the best idea for someone with suicide ideation I would've thought. :pac:

Dudess

amacachi wrote: »

Your doctor is awesome so, plenty aren't. I've seen it mentioned in this thread and plenty of other threads about how quickly doctors and others prescribe anti-depressants etc. I know people who were given anti-depressants the day after a family member died which doesn't seem like a great idea. In America (my socio-economic status doesn't leave me placed to know much about the type of people in this country in similar situations) where doctors are in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies I think it's fairly obvious why these conditions would be over-diagnosed and over-prescribed for. Add to that the low and questionable efficacy of SSRIs and the rest and it's no wonder people question the numbers being diagnosed.
Also from the ADD/ADHD perspective just look at the documentary Louis Theroux did. From the numbers it must be representative of quite a lot of cases in the US. Kid has "ADD" supposedly and is on medication for it. Turns out the mother is constantly doped up and so is the bloody dog.

Fair enough. It's just the cat-calls of "Bad parents" from people who haven't a clue, and are probably 19, grate on me. Plus, there is actual evidence of behavioural difficulties inherent in people which I don't think should be dismissed. Asperger's wasn't discovered until recent times, but it's not that it's new - it just wasn't isolated. As someone said, people like this when they were in school were just "weirdos" (and yes, as someone else pointed out - that seems like a lament that it's no longer acceptable to bully "weirdos" :pac:) so that in itself is an admission that there have always been people who have difficulty relating to others, difficulty coping with everyday stuff, etc.

DexyDrain

amacachi wrote: »

Your doctor is awesome so, plenty aren't. I've seen it mentioned in this thread and plenty of other threads about how quickly doctors and others prescribe anti-depressants etc. I know people who were given anti-depressants the day after a family member died which doesn't seem like a great idea. In America (my socio-economic status doesn't leave me placed to know much about the type of people in this country in similar situations) where doctors are in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies I think it's fairly obvious why these conditions would be over-diagnosed and over-prescribed for. Add to that the low and questionable efficacy of SSRIs and the rest and it's no wonder people question the numbers being diagnosed.
Also from the ADD/ADHD perspective just look at the documentary Louis Theroux did. From the numbers it must be representative of quite a lot of cases in the US. Kid has "ADD" supposedly and is on medication for it. Turns out the mother is constantly doped up and so is the bloody dog.

The problem I have with Theroux's documentary is not just its cherry picked anecdotes but something more blatantly obvious, he only showed the children after medication, not before. Kid is on medication but yet seems fairly typical.. Ta Da!! :rolleyes:

amacachi

Dudess wrote: »

Fair enough. It's just the cat-calls of "Bad parents" from people who haven't a clue, and are probably 19, grate on me. Plus, there is actual evidence of behavioural difficulties inherent in people which I don't think should be dismissed. Asperger's wasn't discovered until recent times, but it's not that it's new - it just wasn't isolated. As someone said, people like this when they were in school were just "weirdos" (and yes, as someone else pointed out - that seems like a lament that it's no longer acceptable to bully "weirdos" :pac:) so that in itself is an admission that there have always been people who have difficulty relating to others, difficulty coping with everyday stuff, etc.

I don't think anyone denies the existence of ADHD, Aspergers or Autism, just the desire from some quarters to be able to throw a label or medication at the first sign of a "problem".
I am young and don't have kids so obviously I don't have the cosmic knowledge that people gain when that happens to them but I do have eyes. I've seen in relatives where kids were allowed to do what they want and spoiled for the first couple of years, they start behaving badly and are diagnosed with ADHD. However once they were old enough for their older siblings to put some manners on them it didn't take too long. There's a culture now of spoiling kids and wondering why they turn out to be little fcukers. There's also a culture of wondering why when kids are treated "well" in their formative years they turn out to be hyper and wanting their own way constantly.

amacachi

DexyDrain wrote: »

The problem I have with Theroux's documentary is not just its cherry picked anecdotes but something more blatantly obvious, he only showed the children after medication, not before. Kid is on medication but yet seems fairly typical.. Ta Da!! :rolleyes:

Obviously there was cherry-picking, it had to follow from the name of the programme. :pac: Really bloody annoying me that I can't find any numbers off-hand for the numbers of prescriptions around. The kid didn't look too normal to me in it either, his eyes were like mine on a Sunday morning back in the day. :pac:

Dudess

I'm not coming from the "You'll understand when you've kids" angle, moreso bearing in mind how hurtful it must be for a parent of a child with behavioural issues being told they're "obviously just" a bad parent.

And not disputing your anecdotal account, but I genuinely have never encountered a parent fobbing off just good old bratty behaviour as a condition either - I've heard quite a few people saying they reckon it happens (so therefore it's a "fact") but I haven't known of it to happen. Not denying it could happen, but sometimes these apparent patterns are over-estimated, resulting in genuine cases being taken less seriously.

flutterflye

DexyDrain wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there was imaging work on ADHD done right here in Dublin at Trinity College within the last few years, I will dig out what I can find on it.

I know the girl that does it, and my old psych lecturer too.
They're doing my brain soon too - exciting times

NIMAN

Whiel I have been reading some of the replies on here, the TV show 'Supernanny' popped into my head.

I rarely seen it except for a few episodes.

Most of the children she tackled would probably be prime candidates for having a 'condition'. Hyper, argumentative, violent, stroppy etc etc etc. You kow the score.

Yet she was able to turn all of them around from what I remember. Make big improvements in their behaviour. And that was without drugs.

Would cases like this show that the children were simply playing up or badly rared? If they genuinely had something like ADHD or similar, then how could she change them completely?

Perhaps a lot of the folk who diagnose these 'conditions' have vested interests?

amacachi

Dudess wrote: »

I'm not coming from the "You'll understand when you've kids" angle, moreso bearing in mind how hurtful it must be for a parent of a child with behavioural issues being told they're "obviously just" a bad parent.

And not disputing your anecdotal account, but I genuinely have never encountered a parent fobbing off just good old bratty behaviour as a condition either - I've heard quite a few people saying they reckon it happens (so therefore it's a "fact") but I haven't known of it to happen. Not denying it could happen, but sometimes these apparent patterns are over-estimated, resulting in genuine cases being taken less seriously.

As healthcare becomes more monetized here (which it's bound to do eventually) it'll follow the pattern of the US more and more. As you said, the more borderline or non-cases that are diagnosed the less seriously people who actually have to condition are to be taken seriously. I'd love to see a breakdown of ADHD etc. diagnoses in the US divided along income and health insurance lines. While obviously one would expect those with more/better access to healthcare to have a higher rate of diagnosis it'd be interested to see the difference.

flutterflye

NIMAN wrote: »

Whiel I have been reading some of the replies on here, the TV show 'Supernanny' popped into my head.

I rarely seen it except for a few episodes.

Most of the children she tackled would probably be prime candidates for having a 'condition'. Hyper, argumentative, violent, stroppy etc etc etc. You kow the score.

Yet she was able to turn all of them around from what I remember. Make big improvements in their behaviour. And that was without drugs.

Would cases like this show that the children were simply playing up or badly rared? If they genuinely had something like ADHD or similar, then how could she change them completely?

Perhaps a lot of the folk who diagnose these 'conditions' have vested interests?

Gawd, using supernanny as an example of anything is worse than using wiki, or the daily mail!

If you think supernanny depicts reality, well, I am sure you are happy living in your field with the other sheep, merrily prancing along, without a thought or care in the world.

Morag

amacachi wrote: »

As healthcare becomes more monetized here (which it's bound to do eventually) it'll follow the pattern of the US more and more. As you said, the more borderline or non-cases that are diagnosed the less seriously people who actually have to condition are to be taken seriously. I'd love to see a breakdown of ADHD etc. diagnoses in the US divided along income and health insurance lines. While obviously one would expect those with more/better access to healthcare to have a higher rate of diagnosis it'd be interested to see the difference.

It is not in this country.
Even if you pay to have a child privately assessed you still can't get a sna or a resource hours, all it does is get your foot in the door and it's treated as a referal and the process is very slow and no one makes money of it.

Emiko

DexyDrain wrote: »

There is a spectrum of functioning along which each person falls, standardised testing produces the standard bell curve showing the distribution of functioning in whatever characteristic you are measuring across a representative sample of the population. The majority of people fall within a certain deviation from the mean, people who fall significantly below the mean are therefore considered impaired, as they have functioning in the areas you are interested in measurably below that found in the vast majority of the population.

Here's a nicely brief explanation of normal distribution:
http://www.netmba.com/statistics/distribution/normal/

Thanks for the diagram of a bell curve.

Is it necessary that those at the more extreme ends of the perceived curve
should be crow-barred into behaving like everybody else?

Deviations in behaviour patterns are no longer considered normal.

(btw, I don't think being expected to sit still at school for hours on end, performing continuous tedious tasks, as natural conditions for a human child. If you base your bell curve on that sort of setting, there'll be plenty of deviations from it)

DexyDrain wrote: »

There are quite a few studies on diet, some nice ones were done at UC Davis, if you are really interested I can dig some up.

Yes, please.

The reason so many google results suggest otherwise is because there is a lot of money to be made in scaremongering as a marketing opportunity to sell you something that does nothing more or less than change the colour of your urine.

I'd suggest there's less money to be made in altering a diet than prescribing medication.

Have you googled the possible side effects of the common drugs you may have in your house or were prescribed recently? Contraceptive pills for one example.

The last time I took medication was about 7 years ago, some antibiotics for an infection.

Yawns