adhd in the news.

[Bungison]

Well a news article in news.com.au has made me more angry than anything I've seen in a while.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/par...-1226478781577

Gives me the ****s that some obscure 'professor' from some obscure university gets his opinion published to give the hate story, validation.
ADHD is NOT a disease...******* it's a disorder

[Zevispaz]

I'm slightly torn on this. There's a study out there somewhere that shows that the east coast has double the rate of ADHD children than the west coast of the USA. I think that children are over diagnosed, when problems could be fixed with some discipline and structure at home. Especially when all you have to do is tell the doctor your child won't sit still and they'll write a script for ritalin.

I have a cousin that is diagnosed with having bipolar because he has angry and explosive outbursts (he also has adhd). However, given everything he's gone through, and the fact that his mother allows no outlet for his anger, I'd say it's pretty normal to have explosions after being forced to bottle it up, especially as a teenager when hormones are raging anyway.

Now there's talks about diagnosing the natural grieving process over a loved one dying as depression or some other mental illness. Of course you're sad! Someone close to you just died! I feel it's a dangerous line when we want to inoculate our feelings like that.

That being said, while I do disagree about redefining what a mental illness is, I do think there needs to be stricter criteria before making a diagnosis, especially with children.

[fracturedstory]

Being depressed after the death of a loved one is more than sadness. I went through it. No one else in my family had it as bad as me. I gave up, I cried over everything, I turned to reckless behaviour. I just didn't care any more. I had low motivation, didn't care about diet, eating, people. I just drifted through life.

I've been sad and I've been depressed. I know the difference.

Depressed can turn to clinical depression so easily. The longer you have those feelings the more likely you'll develop clinical depression. How do people develop depression anyway? An event in their life that greatly affects them.




I've read so many negative articles on ADHD I might pass this one up. It is easy to get on medication. But it's the responsibility of each individual doctor to make sure it's diagnosed properly. In children it's really hard to pin point. My nephew has an unusual amount of energy for a child. And I've got other nephews and nieces who don't have that much. I don't think he has ADHD though.

[SquarePeg]

I think that a lot of kids are misdiagnosed ADHD or with other conditions as the medical profession is like factory. Patients come along, get a label stuck on them and then move on to the next one. Mental issues are not something that can be diagnosed quickly, it needs the collaboration of parents, educational psychologists and psychiatrists which, of course, is costly.

It´s essential to get the correct diagonsis, even if it means a delay in treatment. I have a suspicion that some docs are just using a trial and error method.

Doctors don´t have the solution to every patient they see, it´s impossible but they rarely admit to not knowing something, their egos are so big.

THere´s nothing wrong with a doc that says "I don´t know the answer but I´m going to find out/refer you". I have met a couple of these.

[sarahsweets]

People like the author of that article can f**k off.

[tudorose]

Yeah but we all know that news.com.au isn't the most credible news source. I mean it's just rubbish to read on your lunch break so that people don't pester you for 30 minutes. The last time I saw an article on ADHD it was on Perth Now and everyone got stuck into the non-believers to the point that they haven't published anything since.

Let this d!ckhead make a fool out of himself. It's no different to the cars vs cyclists debate where some idiot says that cyclist should be on the road or the path.

The more hits it gets the more the managers of the site will publish articles of this nature. Why do you reckon there are so many, 'another boat has arrived' stories?

[Zevispaz]

Originally Posted by fracturedstory

Being depressed after the death of a loved one is more than sadness. I went through it. No one else in my family had it as bad as me. I gave up, I cried over everything, I turned to reckless behaviour. I just didn't care any more. I had low motivation, didn't care about diet, eating, people. I just drifted through life.

I've been sad and I've been depressed. I know the difference.

I guess I should have specified better. They wanted to define grieving as a mental illness and therefore give out meds shortly after the funeral. Naturally a person takes about 3 weeks on average before becoming functional again. Sure, you may be sad, but you still work and start moving on. The problem is letting people skip the grieving process.

I'm not saying grief can't turn into depression or trigger depression. If grief turns into depression, by all means people should certainly get help for it. But grief in and of itself is a natural emotion that should be allowed to be felt so it can naturally heal itself.

There hasn't been enough studies on some of these drugs to know the long term effects. So far, studies have also shown that skipping the grieving process causes many problems later down the road, and it makes the loss harder to accept. So what happens when we drug people so they don't have to grieve anymore? Will it cause problems later on?

Here's a couple articles on it:
NYTimes
Fox News

[fracturedstory]

Originally Posted by Zevispaz

I guess I should have specified better. They wanted to define grieving as a mental illness and therefore give out meds shortly after the funeral. Naturally a person takes about 3 weeks on average before becoming functional again. Sure, you may be sad, but you still work and start moving on. The problem is letting people skip the grieving process.

I'm not saying grief can't turn into depression or trigger depression. If grief turns into depression, by all means people should certainly get help for it. But grief in and of itself is a natural emotion that should be allowed to be felt so it can naturally heal itself.

There hasn't been enough studies on some of these drugs to know the long term effects. So far, studies have also shown that skipping the grieving process causes many problems later down the road, and it makes the loss harder to accept. So what happens when we drug people so they don't have to grieve anymore? Will it cause problems later on?

Here's a couple articles on it:
NYTimes
Fox News

Like I trust anything Times and FOX News says. Especially FOX News.
A lot of people are critical of the DSM V. They even think Sluggish Cognitive Tempo (what many people here have been hoping desperately will be added) is an excuse for laziness.

So I'm critical of people who criticise the DSM V.

Doctors have clear criteria to diagnose depression. I don't think they're likely to screw it up. And if they do it's their own responsibility.

[Assumption]

I actually always thought it was stupid that bereavement was an exclusion criterion for depression in the first place. Yeah, grief and depression are different things. This doesn't mean that grief should be an exclusion criterion for depression. Surely bereavement can be a trigger for depression. It just seems like the criteria in the DSM-IV could result in clinicians failing to pick up some legit cases of depression simply because they occurred following a particular class of stressor.

[LaMbaL]

Hmm, I read the article, and while I agree that ADHD isnt something to be trivialized and written off as a 'non-problem we simply invented', there is always a risk of overdiagnozation with disorders which do not have clear-cut borders. There will (and should!) always be discussion about the line that seperates disorder from "variations of normal", and what severity of symptoms warrants the perscription and usage of drugs that are not at all innocent.

[SquarePeg]

so true LaMbal, my son´s psychiatrist even suggested that if I wanted to we could start meds and see if they worked or I could carry on with further testing from the educational psychologist. Appalling, I chose the further investigation which did turn out to be ADD.

[Dizfriz]

There is quite a bit of controversy over how the DSM5 proposes to handle grief and it is getting a lot of kickback on this.

This controversy, like most, is not a simple thing. There are legitimate points and ideas on all sides.

A few things to consider.

First, at least in the US, insurance normally will not pay unless there is a diagnosis of a disorder recorded. This is a problem for clinicians in that to the lack of a disorder diagnosis may result in insurance not paying for any treatment. On the other hand, a diagnoses may stick an unheeded or unwarranted label on a person for the rest of their life. It is a real problem.

There is a "V" code for Bereavement but most insurance companies will not pay for V code diagnosis. (V codes are used for several things including issues going on in a person's life that affect the diagnosis and treatment. Examples are Noncompliance With Treatment, Partner Relational Problem, Parent-Child Relational Problem and so forth).

Many insurance companies insist on a diagnosis in the first session and there is no place for the correct term "provisional". This then goes on the patient's permanent record.

A clinician can override the two month criteria but an insurance company who does not wish to pay can and will challenge the clinician to justify the depression diagnosis and then disallow payments. This can include counseling sessions to help the individual deal with the normal grief. Clinicians have to be a bit honestly creative at times.

For many suffering profound grief, there may be no help available for two months until the time period is over. This is part of why the DSM is considering doing what it is doing with grieving. I really do not necessarily agree with this but I can see their point.

Here is a defense from the DSM committee www.dsm5.org/about/Documents/grief%20exclusion_Kendler.pdf

Here is a good write up on the issue by John Grohol: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archive...-grieving-too/

I haven't read Grohol in a while but I used to consider him to be quite good. I see nothing in this article to change this opinion.

The DSM 5 is not finalized and this issue may change since there is a good bit of professional disagreement ongoing. We shall see, the situation seems to be somewhat fluid right now.



Onward to another subject

Posted by Zevispaz

That being said, while I do disagree about redefining what a mental illness is, I do think there needs to be stricter criteria before making a diagnosis, especially with children.

I understand what you are saying but how do you propose to do this? What criteria should be stricter? This is not a criticism but it instead to bring up the relevant point that this idea is not easy to accomplish. I really cannot think of a way of doing this from a practical viewpoint.

Actually, when correctly applied, the criteria in the DSM 5 seem to be reasonably tight. The DSM-IV was, for the most part, O.K. for boys but not for girls or adults. There were some other problems but these are generally recognized and many are being addressed.

It was a good point to bring up though and worthy of discussion.

Just my thoughts and nothing else,

Dizfriz

[Assumption]

Originally Posted by LaMbaL

Hmm, I read the article, and while I agree that ADHD isnt something to be trivialized and written off as a 'non-problem we simply invented', there is always a risk of overdiagnozation with disorders which do not have clear-cut borders. There will (and should!) always be discussion about the line that seperates disorder from "variations of normal", and what severity of symptoms warrants the perscription and usage of drugs that are not at all innocent.

Agreed. Who would you suggest conduct this discussion? The scientific community or ignorant media pundits?

[Zevispaz]

@Dizfriz
That makes sense with including grief as part of a mental illness so people can get the counseling they need. Thank you for explaining it.

I guess my concern is mostly about "drugging your feelings away" if that makes sense. It just feels wrong somehow. Part of being human is experiencing a wide range of emotions. It's why we have a spirit if you will.

A psychiatrist wrote an article about how the field of psychiatry has turned into more of a clinical field where they diagnose a mental illness and prescribe meds. Insurance companies actually reimburse them more to prescribe drugs than they will for counseling sessions. If I remember correctly, the money was almost doubled if they gave out meds instead of talking to their patients. So if they want to make a decent amount of money they have to be pill pushers, it's just an unfortunate turn the world of psychiatry has taken.

So part of the concern is that if people are diagnosed with grief they'll just have pills shoved at them instead of having someone help coach them through their feelings and come to terms with their loss. I can agree a good compromise is pills to take the edge off and therapy at the same time could be helpful. There's something about coming to terms with your feelings that can cause an inner serenity, something that pills alone can't replicate.

-----

But as for children being over diagnosed, I've seen both ends of the spectrum.

I've seen kids that desperately need to be diagnosed to get the help they need so they have all the best possible accommodations for success. The parents refuse to admit that something is wrong with their child, then get angry with that child when they act out. This is equally as frustrating to see.

I've also see kids that simply have an unstable home life, that show all the signs and symptoms of having ADHD, but when put into a stable environment with some structure they mellow out and act like any other NT child.

Then there's the kids that have parents who don't understand how to discipline them, and of course they're going to act out because they learn that acting a certain way yields certain results. These are typically the demographic of children that are misdiagnosed, because generally they come from middle class suburbia families that have good insurance. It only takes one visit at the doctor to get a quick diagnosis and some pills to make their children take some pills so they don't have to step up to the plate and be parents. Now I'm not saying that all parents are like this, but I've seen plenty of cases, where I've watched their kids, set up strict boundaries and their children were perfectly capable of behaving, listening, remembering their chores, doing their homework, and paying attention. There was no need for an ADHD diagnosis, the meds didn't really fix anything, and the kids now had a label slapped on them telling them something was wrong with them. When they were little it was an excuse for their behavior, when they were older it weighed on their self esteem.

I sort of feel like a better way for diagnosing, at least for young children in elementary school, is to first have the parents try out different parenting techniques and have teachers try different teaching methods for a couple months. See what's going on in the child's life, bullied kids show signs of ADHD because they're stressed out and can't focus on school. After these problems are addressed and nothing changes, then they should consider the possibility of a mental illness. Some kids simply learn differently, some kids are extremely smart and just bored because they're not being challenged enough, and they're still NT. There's just so many factors that can make a child not pay attention or act out, that it's hard to make an accurate diagnosis sometimes.

Not only that, but as children their brains are still developing and changing. Paying attention is a learned skill, not a natural one. Just look at 5 year olds. Some children simply develop a little slower than other kids.

Don't get me wrong some kids are under diagnosed. I was tested for ADHD as a child, and the doctor said I didn't have it because I didn't have emotional problems and my grades were good. I've been on the receiving end of the under diagnosed demographic. Fortunately my mom took an active stance on my education and just explained to teachers that I did better in the front row near the teacher's desk, I learned best with hands on activities, and when I got to high school that I listened better when I was drawing. So even though I never got the diagnosis, my parents knew what made me tick and made sure I still had the resources I needed for success.

Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't drug our children, I'm not saying that at all. But I feel that if parents took an active approach like mine did then it would not only help minimize a wrong diagnosis, because then the parents and doctors would know despite their best efforts there's a brain disorder, but it would also help out NT kids that are simply feeling unmotivated and frustrated by school.

It would also minimize the impact of something like ADHD to have a good support system like that as well. Even without meds (IF and only IF a child could realistically do it) a kid could do well with the right support. As a kid, it made a world of a difference to me when I had one high school English teacher that not only let me draw in her class, she encouraged me to do and always complimented doodles that ended up on my homework, and then for assignments she changed it up to allow a creative/drawing alternative for all the students where they could present it orally instead of handing in a paper. She would also allow us to write our own raunchy and inappropriate sentences as long as they were grammatically correct. She was an awesome teacher. I still remember all the grammar rules from that class because she allowed an alternative learning style instead of forcing us to conform to her teaching style.

Anyway, that's why I say sometimes an alternative teaching style could be all a kid needs to do well, which is why it should be tried before a diagnosis is given. Even NT kids have different styles of learning. A kid that learns orally may not do well with reading assignments. A kid that's a visual learner may not process information as well when the teacher is talking. We're not machines, so we shouldn't expect all children to fit the same mold and learn the same way.

Anyway, sorry for such a long post.

Kudos to any of you that read that all the way through.

[mctavish23]

Not to complicate matters, although the intent of this idea is to simplify, but

there's a strong movement for psychologist's and other non-medical

clinician's, to switch to the ICD - 10 as, (with the exception of the AMA

controlled US), it is used world wide for all mental health (and medical)

diagnoses. This is in reaction to the continued biases in the favor of

psychiatry, over psychotherapy. Trust me, being a psychologist, I DO get it.

u r welcome