Comments: Two Child Physicians Criticize ADHD Meds, The Bipolar Child, Pharma Influence
Perhaps, I am too much of a skeptic on these issues, but I think that doctors like Williams (and Sax) need to spend a bit of time working on their own colleagues and convincing them of the various diagnostic and medication fallacies around kids these days before they have much of a shot at winning back public confidence.
thank you for echoing what I wrote in a bit more impassioned manner about Laurel Williams piece today on my blog...I suggested she be more critical of physicians before suggesting moms like the one she talks about trust her implicitly...I discovered too that while she complains of docs taking pay-offs from pharma, she herself received a grant from GlaxoSmithKline in 2001...who is really clean in this business?
Posted by Gianna at December 14, 2008 10:21 PM
From Sax:
"The traditional rule for good medical practice has been "First, do no harm." For parents, that translates: "When in doubt, say no." Don't let anyone push you into giving your child a drug whose long-term risks are uncertain."
I completely agree.
Posted by Stephany at December 14, 2008 10:59 PM
I still believe that all too often, parents are much too quick to medicate their kids for being kids or regard perfectly normal childhood and adolescent behavior as a disorder.
Amazingly enough, I managed to survive to adulthood without ever touching any sort of psych med. These days ... I have no such faith that I would have made it through high or even middle school unmedicated.
Posted by Puckett at December 14, 2008 11:56 PM
I've not seen the connection to listless, unmotivated young men before, but if Sax has got the evidence to back that assertion, then OK.
If he has the evidence to back that assertion, he should provide it (his 2007 book doesn't). Otherwise he is responding to problematic peer-reviewed research with even worse anecdote and speculation.
What about all the apathetic twenty-somethings who didn't take medication, or the active twenty-somethings who did? How did he control for these?
Posted by Walter at December 15, 2008 07:53 AM
This is off topic, but I really wish someone would look into the large payments parents receive for putting their children in clinical trials involving psychiatric meds. Why is this allowed?
It's one thing to accept payment for risking one's own life, but parents profiting off of risking their children's lives raises all kinds of ethical questions.
Posted by anon at December 15, 2008 03:35 PM
per anon:
as a parent in the system created by Biederman's delusion: go read the FDA med trials site. lots trials open to the USA public. most pay for travel and such.
it's just another branch on the pharma-industry tree. great question, and in my opinion, who needs to be anon asking this?
My daughter's private practice psychiatrist suggested to me that I sign her up for a drug trial at the University of Washington for SZ.
"Why would I do that? when she is taking herself off of meds?"
"Because, at least we can find a dx".
The trial was an FDA trial with several large cities involved. All antipsychotics, and a placebo.
I DECLINED
Posted by Stephany at December 15, 2008 07:37 PM
The reason I brought up the issue of payment is because I don't think parents should get paid in the thousands to try out drugs on their children (and some of them are receiving that amount in my city according to a former employee who worked on clinical trials involving psych meds). Also, I don't hear of people getting paid this kind of money to be on cancer treatment trials, I wonder why?
It seems kind of unethical, because it appears that poor families would feel the pull of that kind of money & coupled with frustration with their child's behavior I could see this being pretty inviting to them.
Posted by anon at December 18, 2008 03:39 PM