April 09, 2007

The New Yorker On The Bipolar Child

I read Jerome Groopman's April 9 article on the early-onset bipolar disorder controversy over the weekend. For those of you not in the journalism world, Groopman is an official big shot. He has an endowed chair at Harvard Medical School and has been writing for the magazine for years and is also the author of several books on medicine. That he even paid attention to the bipolar child who-ha is a big deal.

His article is pretty neutral as these things go, but you can sense moments when he's clearly got his eyebrows raised. He very clearly asserts that even amongst psychiatrists diagnosing children with bipolar disorder is a heated topic. He did speak with Dimitri Papolos, co-author of The Bipolar Child, and in my opinion Papolos looks a bit foolish. Sadly, there isn't a copy of the article online for me to link to. Apparently, Groopman puts them on his website sometime after publication. (You can read a doctor's take on the article here.)

Groopman also notes a couple of times that parents of troubled children often showed up at doctors offices clutching the Papolos' book. One prominent child psychiatrist even had to start filtering out parents who'd read the book and then dragged their child to the doctor. He points out, as well, that Papolos had tons of kids referred to him after the book came out and hardly ever failed to diagnose them with bipolar disorder.

He spends some time on the dodgy matter of available treatments and notes the recent death of Rebecca Riley.

And Groopman also touches upon how vastly influential the old BBSes and list-servs that eventually grew into CABF have been on driving the issue into the mainstream world. I think that some of these internet sites have, along with the book, led to the over-diagnosing of kids, creating a kind of hysteria around the behaviors of children that have been around for centuries. It is interesting that Groopman didn't mention that several of the people he quoted in his article sit on the board or advisory board of CABF, or that the Papoloses had a tasty falling out with CABF. That's a small point, of course.

It's an article I encourage anyone to track down and read for themselves.

A few readers have written recently to ask me why I am being so tough on the bipolar child paradigm. Some blogotators have obliquely asked as well. I don't doubt that bipolar disorder--or some childhood variant of another disorder--can exist in some cases, but I have wearied of this special pleading ("we don't have real diagnostic criteria or long-term research but trust us anyway") some insist upon for child bipolar disorder. I have laid out my frustrations at length elsewhere, but here's a summary.

The reasons for my deep skepticism and bloviations on the matter is because I think it's well-nigh impossible to accurately diagnose in kids (and the fact that a kid responds to meds doesn't make him or her bipolar, as Groopman notes). Because the treatments are very rough on patients. Because there are huge questions in my mind about the possible violation of children's bodily liberty. Because I have concerns that a lot of kids are being medicated to make their parents and schools happy. Because the research on childhood bipolar disorder is quite thin. Because there has not been a proper scientific evaluation of the long term use of psych meds in children. Because we have no idea of how any of this truly affects child development psychologically and physically. Because I don't fancy the idea of handing kids a diagnosis that translates into "psycho" or "crazy" to the public at large and having them tagged with that for life. Because too many people who advocate for the bipolar child business--and it is a business--eschew environmental factors in all of this, but are all too willing to slam kids with meds that cause big cognitive problems for adults. Because the diagnosis is now being applied to as many as two million children. Because that's simply over-the-top. Because the rhetoric around child bipolar disorder has gotten out of line. Because far too many people in the mental health world who should know better have forgotten the fallout of diagnosing millions of kids with depression and ADHD in the 1990s, which led to lots of kids being injured by stimulants and anti-depressants.

And, because, I think it's my duty as a much older bipolar to raise the level of skepticism on this paradigm in the same way that I have questioned the paradigmatic shift to using atypical antipsychotics long-term for damn near every aspect of adult bipolar disorder.

Posted by Philip Dawdy at April 9, 2007 12:05 AM
StumbleUpon Toolbar del.icio.us Digg it reddit
Comments

This is somewhat off topic...it relates only to the last sentence of you post.

Have you read The Last Psychiatrist and his take on the implications of the study and article on antidepressants not working in addition to a mood stabilizer in bipolar disorder?

He speculates that this will usher in the age of antipsychotics for everything. See what you think.

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2007/04/farewell_depression.html#comments

Posted by: Gianna at April 9, 2007 05:43 AM

Does anyone remember the Rosenhan experiment, that proved the sane are indistinguishable from the insane. The second part of Rosenhan(when psychiatrist believed they were getting fake patients)thought the insane were sane.
This is in adults we assume to have full language skills and cognition.

I believe drugging children is a criminal act, as the child has no power to resist his accuser.He/she has nowhere to flee, and has no advocate.

http://www.szasz.com/cchr.html
"Adults have physical and political power over children. This is why sexual relations between adults and children are outlawed and the act is called "statutory rape." For the same reason, we ought to outlaw psychiatric relations between adults children and call child psychiatry by its correct name, "psychiatric rape."

Child psychiatry -- like all of psychiatric slavery -- cannot be reformed. It must be abolished. "

Posted by: Mark at April 9, 2007 07:55 AM

Gosh, what I really wish is that both you and Groopman would extend your deep scepticism about the diagnosis of childhood bipolar disorder and its treatment to adults. I really cannot understand why anyone would think it's dramatically different. Couldn't just about everything you say in your next to last paragraph be applicable to adults too? This reminds me of the bizarre way in which the FDA applies a warning about suicidality in antidepressants to 18 and under (now recently extended to 25 and under). Are you trying to say that suddenly when one hits one's 18th birthday one can "have bipolar disorder" but before that it's symptoms of life induced stress? Who are we kidding here? There is no magic moment when suddenly mania and psychosis are a "brain disease" and before that they aren't. And the treatments that are so harmful in kids frankly have just as devastating effects on adults. I guess adults have more "free will" about choosing treatment but I don't think frankly they have any more informed consent than the kids because all the devastating evidence about what these drugs can do is kept firmly under wraps or not investigated at all.

Posted by: Sara at April 9, 2007 03:59 PM

oh i have been almost as skeptical on that front, sara. banging on zyprexa and the long-term use of atypicals for all bipolars, declaring anti-depressant use for bp dead, banging on the entire psychopharmacological paradigm (as I have been for 19 months), questioning the dsm, and tossing cold water on the everyone is bp whoopla...yep, i'm plenty skeptical. it just hits new level for me with the bp kids stuff.

Posted by: Philip Dawdy at April 9, 2007 04:04 PM

BRA - VO. I couldn't agree more, and you've raised some excellent points. You've obviously given this a considerable amount of thought, and gave me reasons to ponder.

Posted by: KansasSunflower at April 9, 2007 06:43 PM

"And Groopman also touches upon how vastly influential the old BBSes and list-servs that eventually grew into CABF have been on driving the issue into the mainstream world. I think that some of these internet sites have, along with the book, led to the over-diagnosing of kids, creating a kind of hysteria around the behaviors of children that have been around for centuries"

Carl Elliot has a great piece, "A New Way to Be Mad" that touches on this looping effect: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200012/madness

But I would add that mailing lists and forums are also the place where there are TONS of parents with kids (officially diagnosed with ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, Depression and even Autism) who are throwing the medical paradigm and diagnosis' (especially psychiatric one) in the waste paper basket and treating their kids who do have problem with a whole range of holistic routes and often getting their kids or themselves to a much better place (at least that is what they report) and moving on in life.

For some the trick was finding out that autism was actually lyme disease (a cousin of good old syphilis so it is not surprising it can cause so many "psychiatric problems",) and for others it is a matter of avoiding highly allergnic foods and for others it is a more complex regimen.

So it seems like the Internet is a double edge sword in that regard. It may be a route for hyperactive medicalization but it just as often a path toward another place that does not trust doctors, drugs, and the diagnoses.

Posted by: biella at April 14, 2007 04:27 PM

Speaking of forums for parents, here's one that has lots of parents talking Early Onset Childhood Bipolar, O.D.D., ADHD, and from reading the forums the general way to treat these "difficult children" is via psychiatric medications.
Read it for yourself, it's free and open to public viewing.

Posted by: Stephany at April 15, 2007 10:08 AM

Hi Stephany - help me with forum of yours. It looks like it was put together by a bunch of phamacopoetical acronymphomaniacs. What a GFG? It looks just like the notation for a composite mathematical function, which I guess is throwing my imagination a bit. And I can only assume that DH refers to the man of the house (Deadbeat Husband?)

Sample post:

"Sadly to say my gfg (before being a day student) pooped on the floor in his dorm room, we've found poop under his bed at home and I've caught him smearing his feces in the shower, when I asked him why, he told me he didn't know and then asked if I was mad. And honestly, I don't think he did know why. Thankfully the last episode was over a month ago, I hope it lasts. He also cleaned the shower without me telling him to do so.
I, too, think they just don't think.
_________________________
Joanne anxiety/depression, panic disorder, burner, NVLD, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, arthritis. Geodon 60mg BID, Ativan .5mg BID, Avandia 8mg, Benicar HCT 40/25mg, Lantus Insulin, Zocor 40mg, Norvasc 5mg, Prandin 2mg, Prilosec 20mg, WelbutrinXL 300mg, Buspar 5mg TID, Ambien 10mg at bedtime.
DH 22 years and still strong, believed to have ADHD as a child, but undxd.
gfg: 14/m 98% bilateral hearing loss(he's deaf), mild cerebal palsy, insulin dependent diabetes, mild MR, PDD, as of 3-16-07 mood d/o NOS, anxiety NOS
meds: NPH & Humalog Insulin, Geodon 80mg BID, Lithium 300mg AM, 600mg PM, Remeron 30mg nightly, Ativan .5mg 3 daily if needed, Zyprexa 5mg nightly."

The habit of following each post with a 'context' - that lists the diagnoses and medications for each family member (even the pets occasionally get a look-in) - is highly enlightening and, ultimately, disturbing. There are some serious identity politics at play here, borne of the apparent insistence of the writers on constructing their conceptions of both themselves and their offspring purely around the limited (and limiting) notions of saint, martyr, patient, manipulator or victim.

Posted by: Ruth at April 15, 2007 07:32 PM

Ruth,
I discovered that site, and I'm not part of it at all,but saw what you speak about--the entire house appears to receive a dx and meds for something. From reading, I've figure out that GFG is "gift from god"[as in special ]and DH is dear husband. Also to add interest when reading there..PC is "perfect child". I also find it staggering that the regulars there appear to be diagnosing other people's kids based on behavior. I looked at a thread "Boys will be Boys" or something like that, and several posters told newbies that the little boys behaviors were a "sign of something" and looking at the posters kids' profiles, very small kids are quite medicated. What I find interesting to say the least, is the name of the site itself. "Conduct Disorders".

Posted by: Stephany at April 16, 2007 07:29 AM

Thanks Stephany. I didn't imagine you were part of it for a minute. I can probably spin a post for my own blog out of this tragi-comedy gold.

Posted by: Ruth at April 16, 2007 07:33 PM

pic1.jpg

Patient Blogs. Sites.
Doctor Blogs. Sites.
Activists. News.
Social Networking. Forums.
Science. Big Pharma. Ethics.
Current Affairs
Seattle Stuff
Smoking. Stuff.

Info
About Furious Seasons
Email
Other Articles
ZYPREXA Documents
Alt ZYPREXA Documents Source
Blakemore-Brown Transcript

 Subscribe in a reader

Search


Recent Entries
$99 Left
$114 To Go
Winter Fundraiser, $134 To Go, Final Day
Ruth Lilly, Eli Lilly Heiress, Prozac Beneficiary Dies At 94
Winter Fundraiser, Final Day, Less Than $200 To Go
UCLA Psychiatrist Criticizes DSM-5
Winter Fundraiser, Barely $200 To Go
Most Popular Posts Of 2009
Winter Fundraiser, Less Than $300 Left, Let's Wrap It Up
Senate Health Care Bill Contains $1.25 Billion Gift To Sen. Stabenow
Travel Day, Comment Approval May Be Intermittent
Winter Fundraiser, Close But Stalled
Senate Health Care Reform Bill Contains Controversial MOTHERS Act, Abortion Study
Adult ADHD And Sleep Problems
Vic Chesnutt Dead At 45, Possible Suicide
Recent Comments

Ruth on The New Yorker On The Bipolar Child

Stephany on The New Yorker On The Bipolar Child

Ruth on The New Yorker On The Bipolar Child

Stephany on The New Yorker On The Bipolar Child

biella on The New Yorker On The Bipolar Child

KansasSunflower on The New Yorker On The Bipolar Child

Philip Dawdy on The New Yorker On The Bipolar Child

Sara on The New Yorker On The Bipolar Child

Mark on The New Yorker On The Bipolar Child

Gianna on The New Yorker On The Bipolar Child

Archives
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
Resources
Mental Health America
National Alliance on Mental Illness
Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance
National Institute of Mental Health
McMan Web
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2