Docs Respond To Bipolar Child Article

When Jerome Groopman authored a somewhat critical assessment of the bipolar child paradigm last month in The New Yorker, you knew it would get interesting responses. Last week, the magazine pritned three letters from psych docs in response to the article, which I cherry pick from below.

Joe Bilderman and Janet "We Work In Uncharted Waters" Wozniak, both members of the Harvard bipolar child mafia, offered:

"As potent as the side effects of treatment can be, psychiatry's greater appreciation of the occurrence of bipolar disorder in children has led to remarkable advances in diagnosis and treatment which we feel far outweigh these drawbacks."

These advances in treatment? The authors don't say. Keep in mind that Wozniak was quoted last week as saying that she makes diagnoses in kids based upon reports by parents and one brief office visit with the child.

Then Demitri Papolos, Dr. Bipolar Child himself, plays the suicide card:

"When children are not diagnosed and treated appropriately, aggressive behavior, psychosis and even suicide and not uncommon results."

Nicholas Rosenlicht, a psychiatrist at UCSF offers:

"Why are these behaviors in children called bipolar disorder? Its symptoms occur in many psychiatric disorder, and in normal children, the differences between adult and childhood bipolar disorders are striking. This seems to be a diagnosis that must be believed to be seen. But this is faith; and where faith and marketing dominate, science is excluded....Stronger evidence is needed before advocating the use of powerful and expensive drugs, and burdening children and their families with the diagnosis of a major mental illness."

I am fascinated by this East Coast/West Coast dichotomy (they like medicating the kiddos in the EST zone) and predict that one day there will be a gangster style throw down between the coasts that will make the whole Tupac/Biggie Smalls thing look like child's play.