NationStates Jolt Archive

Having both studied this thoroughly and experienced this first hand. I would like to ask what the general opinion of NSG is about giving psy-meds to children as prescribed by a psychiatrist. From what I've experience 9 out of 10 times the medication is unnecessary. ADHD for example is treatable with diet changes and allowing the child to mature naturally. Many psychological problems can be helped or solved with traditional therapy alone along with some TLC from the parents.

I don't see how giving children medication that they will become dependent on for self-control is helping them. Would you give a child a street drug to treat depression? No. Then why would you take them to from what is essentially a legal drug dealer for a chemical that will by design effect the child's brain during formative years?

Some children have more problems than others, yes. But that just means they need more care and attention. It is my opinion many parents simply don't care to go the extra mile simply because their kids aren't "normal". And those that do care are being told by larger society and "doctors" alike that medication is how you are supposed to "treat" abnormality.

What say you? Should Child psychiatry be outlawed as a form of child abuse?

Having both studied this thoroughly and experienced this first hand. I would like to ask what the general opinion of NSG is about giving psy-meds to children as prescribed by a psychiatrist. From what I've experience 9 out of 10 times the medication is unnecessary. ADHD for example is treatable with diet changes and allowing the child to mature naturally. Many psychological problems can be helped or solved with traditional therapy alone along with some TLC from the parents.

I don't see how giving children medication that they will become dependent on for self-control is helping them. Would you give a child a street drug to treat depression? No. Then why would you take them to from what is essentially a legal drug dealer for a chemical that will by design effect the child's brain during formative years?

Some children have more problems than others, yes. But that just means they need more care and attention. It is my opinion many parents simply don't care to go the extra mile simply because their kids aren't "normal". And those that do care are being told by larger society and "doctors" alike that medication is how you are supposed to "treat" abnormality.

What say you? Should Child psychiatry be outlawed as a form of child abuse?

Simply put... No

ADHD is horribly over diagnosed (mis-diagnosed) but outlawing child psychiatry is an over reaction

No. (And I say this as someone who was misdiagnosed as a child. The fact that doctors aren't infallible does not mean that doctors are all quacks out to abuse kids, sheesh.)

Also, your poll is ridiculous.

I'll bite. How is the poll ridiculous?

No. (And I say this as someone who was misdiagnosed as a child. The fact that doctors aren't infallible does not mean that doctors are all quacks out to abuse kids, sheesh.)

Also, your poll is ridiculous.

Indeed, also I'll note that I voted "No, because I hate kids" just for the hell of it.

I'll bite. How is the poll ridiculous?

Because there is no reasonable "no" option

The reason the NO options are what they are is because people the 2 most deep seeded reasons people medicate children is because either the parents want to get their children under control. Or because multiple people become afraid of the child, ala anger management problem.

The "I hate kids" option was just my attempt at a sick joke, and the "i don't know" is for the apathetic.

Id like to see a source for all those statements in your post.

I'm a living source as I've lived thorough it. Feel free to not believe me.

The reasons the "no" options are what they are is that you are admittedly biased on this subject, and are ignoring the obvious fact that an awful lot of parents take their kids to psychiatrists because - gasp! - they want to help their children. I know, I know, it's hard to imagine that parents and doctors worldwide aren't part of a sick conspiracy to pump children full of drugs just to make them sit down and shut up, but I have it from several reliable sources that some parents actually kinda like their children. Crazy, huh?

I'm a living source as I've lived thorough it. Feel free to not believe me.

Too bad that doesnt count. I have friends and family members who had psychological meds as kids and they needed them.


Dont make bullshit claims like:

9 out of 10 times the medication is unnecessary. ADHD for example is treatable with diet changes and allowing the child to mature naturally. Many psychological problems can be helped or solved with traditional therapy alone along with some TLC from the parents.


If you cant source something like a legit medical or psychological journal to defend such a bold and insane claim.

The OP fails.

/End thread.

The reason the NO options are what they are is because people the 2 most deep seeded reasons people medicate children is because either the parents want to get their children under control. Or because multiple people become afraid of the child, ala anger management problem.

The "I hate kids" option was just my attempt at a sick joke, and the "i don't know" is for the apathetic.
The reason the no options are what they are is you had a bad experience and little to no knowledge of psychiatry...

The reasons the "no" options are what they are is that you are admittedly biased on this subject, and are ignoring the obvious fact that an awful lot of parents take their kids to psychiatrists because - gasp! - they want to help their children. I know, I know, it's hard to imagine that parents and doctors worldwide aren't part of a sick conspiracy to pump children full of drugs just to make them sit down and shut up, but I have it from several reliable sources that some parents actually kinda like their children. Crazy, huh?

/\ This /\

The reason the no options are what they are is you had a bad experience and little to no knowledge of psychiatry...



Hey now, he was on medicine once. That apperantly makes him an expert.

The reasons the "no" options are what they are is that you are admittedly biased on this subject, and are ignoring the obvious fact that an awful lot of parents take their kids to psychiatrists because - gasp! - they want to help their children. I know, I know, it's hard to imagine that parents and doctors worldwide aren't part of a sick conspiracy to pump children full of drugs just to make them sit down and shut up, but I have it from several reliable sources that some parents actually kinda like their children. Crazy, huh?

My point exactly the parents that do care, as I mentioned already, are under the impression that only a psychiatrist can help. This is not only incorrect but horribly so. And as psychiatrists offer a "quick fix' in the form of a pill more often than not. That is why the parents take them. How many parents do you know would be willing to go the safer, alternative, child friendly route, of taking their child to a therapist or gods forbid actually trying to help their child by studying their child's problems and take proper measures in the home.

I was surround by children like myself during my preteen and teenage years. The story was always the same.

This soo sounds like a Scientology Question.

The reason the no options are what they are is you had a bad experience and little to no knowledge of psychiatry...


This makes me different from psychiatrists how? Ever been to one? Guarantee you they will give you a prescription and say something along the lines of "try this if it doesn't work we'll try something else next month". Suddenly you become a human lab rat. And you think this should be permitted for children?

Antidepressants are now street drugs? I have a hard time imagining that they sell for much... "Hey man, want to regain a sense of purpose, control and joy in your life? I'll hook you up!"

Not all psychiatric disorders are treatable with "diet change" and "attention". Ask a paranoid schizophrenic. I don't understand why some people insist on treating the brain as if it were some sort of amorphous, divine mechanism that is not made up of the same substance as the rest of the universe. Our understanding of the brain is far from complete. Misdiagnoses happen. The solution is more research, not the elimination of psychiatric medication.

I happen to agree that ADHD is over-diagnosed. I also say this as someone who was diagnosed with ADD-inattentive type at a young age and has struggled with the disorder my whole life. My parents gave me plenty of attention, love and care. They did many things to help me with my disorder outside of medication--talk therapy, tools to help organize, etc. They also allowed me the choice to use medication. All of these things helped to treat a disorder that had devastating effects on my self-esteem that are still present today. Nothing "cured" it--the popular myth that ADHD is a childhood disease seems to be dying at last--but it was bearable most of the time.

As for antidepressants--I would be dead today without antidepressants. Just as many diabetics would be dead without insulin. The side effects are minimal for me. I don't see the horror in that.

Oh, and the poll does suck.

My point exactly the parents that do care, as I mentioned already, are under the impression that only a psychiatrist can help. This is not only incorrect but horribly so. And as psychiatrists offer a "quick fix' in the form of a pill more often than not. That is why the parents take them. How many parents do you know would be willing to go the safer, alternative, child friendly route, of taking their child to a therapist or gods forbid actually trying to help their child by studying their child's problems and take proper measures in the home.

I was surround by children like myself during my preteen and teenage years. The story was always the same.

And when therapy alone doesn't work and the problems escalate to the point where the child attacks his mother for telling him to change his clothes? What do you suggest then oh expert on (abnormal) child behaviour?

Antidepressants are now street drugs? I have a hard time imagining that they sell for much... "Hey man, want to regain a sense of purpose, control and joy in your life? I'll hook you up!"

Not all psychiatric disorders are treatable with "diet change" and "attention". Ask a paranoid schizophrenic. I don't understand why some people insist on treating the brain as if it were some sort of amorphous, divine mechanism that is not made up of the same substance as the rest of the universe. Our understanding of the brain is far from complete. Misdiagnoses happen. The solution is more research, not the elimination of psychiatric medication.

I happen to agree that ADHD is over-diagnosed. I also say this as someone who was diagnosed with ADD-inattentive type at a young age and has struggled with the disorder my whole life. My parents gave me plenty of attention, love and care. They did many things to help me with my disorder outside of medication--talk therapy, tools to help organize, etc. They also allowed me the choice to use medication. All of these things helped to treat a disorder that had devastating effects on my self-esteem that are still present today. Nothing "cured" it--the popular myth that ADHD is a childhood disease seems to be dying at last--but it was bearable most of the time.

As for antidepressants--I would be dead today without antidepressants. Just as many diabetics would be dead without insulin. The side effects are minimal for me. I don't see the horror in that.

Oh, and the poll does suck.

Hey, he was on medicine once. Hes an expert. Never mind he has no sources at all, and that his personal experiance is easily negated because its the exact opposite of mine or many others.

No, hes an expert.

This makes me different from psychiatrists how? Ever been to one? Guarantee you they will give you a prescription and say something along the lines of "try this if it doesn't work we'll try something else next month". Suddenly you become a human lab rat. And you think this should be permitted for children?

So the difference between you and psychiatrists is when something they prescribe doesn't work, they change it, whereas when your prescription--"more attention from parents"--doesn't work, you keep going the same route anyway.

This makes me different from psychiatrists how? Ever been to one? Guarantee you they will give you a prescription and say something along the lines of "try this if it doesn't work we'll try something else next month". Suddenly you become a human lab rat. And you think this should be permitted for children?

Years of training, and yes I do have first hand experience with psychiatrists.

Atreath are you a scientologist? Do you believe paying for Audit Counciling will make everything better?


Is Xenu out to get you?


Because until I see a source, youre just as credible as they are.

Having both studied this thoroughly and experienced this first hand. I would like to ask what the general opinion of NSG is about giving psy-meds to children as prescribed by a psychiatrist. From what I've experience 9 out of 10 times the medication is unnecessary. ADHD for example is treatable with diet changes and allowing the child to mature naturally. Many psychological problems can be helped or solved with traditional therapy alone along with some TLC from the parents.
ADD/ADHD might be controlable by the things you mention. That is not treatment, it is control. Moreover, those won't work for everyone. Nor will more hugs or talking about it. Same as how it doesn't work for every adult.

I don't see how giving children medication that they will become dependent on for self-control is helping them. Becuase SOME kids need it.
Would you give a child a street drug to treat depression?No. Then why would you take them to from what is essentially a legal drug dealer for a chemical that will by design effect the child's brain during formative years?Yeah...because those are equal. Would you break the law and give a child a chemical that has no proven efficacy for their condition, no control over manufacture, and no proper dosage/control? No? Well, then why would you give them legal drugs that have passed clinical testing for their specific condition and are manufactured to high standards?
Yeah...not buying it.

Some children have more problems than others, yes. But that just means they need more care and attention.Right. Hugs and kisses will cure depression. Prove it.
It is my opinion many parents simply don't care to go the extra mile simply because their kids aren't "normal".And many parents can't. And, in many cases, they can go as far as humanly possible, and it still won't fix the problem.
And those that do care are being told by larger society and "doctors" alike that medication is how you are supposed to "treat" abnormality.Yep...they're aspects of treatment.


I'm a living source as I've lived thorough it. Feel free to not believe me.

Anecdotal evidence is not a source. Give a study published in a peer reviewed journal. Give a sworn statement from a doctor. Give anything that can be verified beyond "because I said so".

This makes me different from psychiatrists how?

Ahahaha. You are a funny one.

Ever been to one?

Probably a great many more times than you have, kiddo, and thank heavens for it. I'd be a heck of a lot worse off today if my psychiatrist didn't take good care of me.

Guarantee you they will give you a prescription and say something along the lines of "try this if it doesn't work we'll try something else next month". Suddenly you become a human lab rat. And you think this should be permitted for children?

My god! You're telling me that they prescribe the most promising drug, and then take the patient off it if it doesn't work?! That's....pretty much what every doctor in the world does! How DARE they perform their jobs in a normal, sensible, medically sound fashion! Those BASTARDS!

Probably a great many more times than you have, kiddo, and thank heavens for it. I'd be a heck of a lot worse off today if my psychiatrist didn't take good care of me.


Thats the worst part about this too, and why Im being so vicious (more so than usual at least).

Because of my past, this issue matters a hell of a lot to me. And people saying things like love and attention will cure it are fucking wrong. It essentially amounts to the tired old "its all in your head" claim.

And that pisses me the fuck off. A lot.

Ryadn. I don't see the connection between psychiatric drugs and insulin. Psychiatry in general should be left to adults. I don't know how many times I was told as a child that every persons brain is different so they will have different side effects for different drugs. And yes this was told to me by every psychiatrist I ever met. and I've met at least half a dozen.

Now lets use common sense for a moment. Each drug has an intended purpose. But also has, in some cases, random side effects. And the truth of the matter is that we don't completely understand what these chemicals do. And many of them are later determined harmful after years of use by many different people. Now then, the reason alcohol is banned for children is because their brains are still developing. And alcohol kills brain cells. Psy-meds are chemical drugs that cause varying chemical reactions in the brain. And can even cause lasting side effects for the developing mind.

The reason I use comparisons like alcohol and street drugs is because the only difference is that they are either outlawed altogether or outlawed for underage use. I'm simply asking why such a double standard exists and why would shouldn't seek to end it?

Psy-meds are chemical drugs that cause varying chemical reactions in the brain. And can even cause lasting side effects for the developing mind....Source of the study that backs this? :rolleyes:

And the truth of the matter is that we don't completely understand what these chemicals do.

Who is this "we"? Because I make sure I understand whatever Im about to be put on.

And many of them are later determined harmful after years of use by many different people.

How many is "many"?

Psy-meds are chemical drugs that cause varying chemical reactions in the brain. And can even cause lasting side effects for the developing mind.


And a responsible doctor will not prescribe children such drugs.

Thats the worst part about this too, and why Im being so vicious (more so than usual at least).

Because of my past, this issue matters a hell of a lot to me. And people saying things like love and attention will cure it are fucking wrong. It essentially amounts to the tired old "its all in your head" claim.

And that pisses me the fuck off. A lot.

Well, it probably was all in your head KoL...

Not including a smiley because by now you should know me well enough to know I'm joking without one (including this in case you don't)

...Source of the study that backs this? :rolleyes:

Well, he was on medicine once!

Well, it probably was all in your head KoL...

Not including a smiley because by now you should know me well enough to know I'm joking without one (including this in case you don't)


Of course I am aware comrade.

of course i am aware comrade.

:)
.

Well, he was on medicine once! Warning lights are going off already.

The reason I use comparisons like alcohol and street drugs is because the only difference is that they are either outlawed altogether or outlawed for underage use. I'm simply asking why such a double standard exists and why would shouldn't seek to end it?

Let's try to explain this in small words:

1. Alcohol and "street drugs" have no known positive effects on mental disorders.

2. Alcohol and "street drugs" are known to cause some pretty nasty negative effects, especially in children.

3. Psychiatric medications are tested extensively before they're prescribed to anyone, and tested even more extensively before they're prescribed to children.

4. Two things must be shown in these tests if they're going to get approved for prescription: first, that the medications have definite benefits for some patients, and second, that negative effects are extremely rare and/or fairly insignificant.

5. So, in short, alcohol and crack have nothing in common with prescription medications except "they are both chemicals." Which, y'know, also applies to things like "water" and "sugar."

Ryadn. I don't see the connection between psychiatric drugs and insulin. Psychiatry in general should be left to adults. I don't know how many times I was told as a child that every persons brain is different so they will have different side effects for different drugs. And yes this was told to me by every psychiatrist I ever met. and I've met at least half a dozen.Perhaps they all told you that because that is reality?
Hell, there is an entire emerging field of medicine that charts your genetics to determine how you will metabolize medications, indicating how effective they may be.
And you know what? Psych drugs are no different than any others. Every drug has its side effects. Most are rare and fairly benign, but serious ones can appear in some patients. Welcome to the world of body chemistry.

Now lets use common sense for a moment. Each drug has an intended purpose. But also has, in some cases, random side effects.
Wrong. Not random. Well established and charted side effects, yes. Random, no.
And the truth of the matter is that we don't completely understand what these chemicals do.Any proof or evidence of that?

And many of them are later determined harmful after years of use by many different people.Such as? Which drug has been recently recalled? Most recent I can think of was Vioxx (not a psych drug), which has been very effective in most...however, a very small portion of patients died from it.
Now then, the reason alcohol is banned for children is because their brains are still developing. And alcohol kills brain cells. Psy-meds are chemical drugs that cause varying chemical reactions in the brain. And can even cause lasting side effects for the developing mind.
a) prove that
b) prove that these changes are bad
c) chocolate causes chemical reations in the brain. So does looking around. And everything else you sense.

Killing a brain cell is different than changing brain chemistry.

The reason I use comparisons like alcohol and street drugs is because the only difference is that they are either outlawed altogether or outlawed for underage use. I'm simply asking why such a double standard exists and why would shouldn't seek to end it?
The double standard does not exist.
As I posted before, the only difference is not the law. There is much more to it.

Mind altering drugs are child abuse when over-prescribed. America is a drug culture, with so many on Ritalin, Prozac, etc. Some do need it, but I suspect many do not. I know people who would rather give their kids pills than try to teach them to behave. Some appear to have legitimate issues, but others are merely unruly due to a lack of proper parenting.

(caveat - I'm not a parent, so my opinion may not carry much weight)

And a responsible doctor will not prescribe children such drugs.

Which is the point I am trying to make. Child psychiatrist are not responsible. Because by their own admission every childs brain is different. Childrens brains are developing and we have no idea how these meds effect in the long term. Many have only been used in the past 10-15 years and there are new ones all the time. Its not like they can put a few thousand children in separate rooms to know exactly what is going to happen to each and every one of them over a course of several years.

I'm surprised that there are actually people with good experiences. As I would have been much better off without them. Within months of getting off of them, after my mother learned just how much damage they were causing, I uniformly improved in every area from the adhd to the anger outbursts. Seeing as I was NOT misdiagnosed for either.

I was never given a choice as the school would not permit me stay if I wasn't drugged up. The children I was surrounded with all came from different backgrounds and had differing problems. But some of the key things I have mentioned are the same. Only kid I ever met who legitimately needed the accursed things was a skitzo. As for depression, you can either learn to live with it, or you can't. If you can't you end up on some kind of med for most your life until you can learn to live with it, or it goes away. I never said meds didn't have uses. Just that in the vast majority of cases they are unnecessary.

Child psychiatry is a shameless practice that equals legal drug dealing. As it is today I sincerely believe is should be outlawed. If there was a reasonable enough way to regulate the practice to where only specific life threatening mental problems were treated with such things than I would have no problem with it.

Child psychiatrist are not responsible.

Prove. This. Statement.

Or shut. The fuck. Up.


Child psychiatry is a shameless practice that equals legal drug dealing. As it is today I sincerely believe is should be outlawed. If there was a reasonable enough way to regulate the practice to where only specific life threatening mental problems were treated with such things than I would have no problem with it.


Oh my God.


*keeps muttering to himself "is not worth the ban, its not worth the ban"*

Ryadn. I don't see the connection between psychiatric drugs and insulin.

They're both used to treat medical conditions.

Each drug has an intended purpose. But also has, in some cases, random side effects. And the truth of the matter is that we don't completely understand what these chemicals do. And many of them are later determined harmful after years of use by many different people.

Chemotherapy makes people incredibly sick. It also much of the time kills or slows cancer. Should we protect people from the agonizing effects of chemo by banning it?

Now then, the reason alcohol is banned for children is because their brains are still developing. And alcohol kills brain cells. Psy-meds are chemical drugs that cause varying chemical reactions in the brain. And can even cause lasting side effects for the developing mind.

Yes, alcohol kills braincells. Anti-depressants do not kill braincells. On the "compare/contrast" chart, this would fall in the latter category.

The reason I use comparisons like alcohol and street drugs is because the only difference is that they are either outlawed altogether or outlawed for underage use. I'm simply asking why such a double standard exists and why would shouldn't seek to end it?

The only double standard that exists is that most substances which do serious damage to the brain are illegal and alcohol isn't. This double standard has nothing to do with medications that help the brain. They are not analogous in the least.

Which is the point I am trying to make. Child psychiatrist are not responsible. Because by their own admission every childs brain is different. Childrens brains are developing and we have no idea how these meds effect in the long term. Many have only been used in the past 10-15 years and there are new ones all the time. Its not like they can put a few thousand children in separate rooms to know exactly what is going to happen to each and every one of them over a course of several years.

I'm surprised that there are actually people with good experiences. As I would have been much better off without them. Within months of getting off of them, after my mother learned just how much damage they were causing, I uniformly improved in every area from the adhd to the anger outbursts. Seeing as I was NOT misdiagnosed for either.

I was never given a choice as the school would not permit me stay if I wasn't drugged up. The children I was surrounded with all came from different backgrounds and had differing problems. But some of the key things I have mentioned are the same. Only kid I ever met who legitimately needed the accursed things was a skitzo. As for depression, you can either learn to live with it, or you can't. If you can't you end up on some kind of med for most your life until you can learn to live with it, or it goes away. I never said meds didn't have uses. Just that in the vast majority of cases they are unnecessary.

Child psychiatry is a shameless practice that equals legal drug dealing. As it is today I sincerely believe is should be outlawed. If there was a reasonable enough way to regulate the practice to where only specific life threatening mental problems were treated with such things than I would have no problem with it.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean squat because you can make up any story you like to try and support your twisted agenda.
If you can't back up your claims otherwise just STFU.

Mind altering drugs are child abuse when over-prescribed. America is a drug culture, with so many on Ritalin, Prozac, etc. Some do need it, but I suspect many do not. I know people who would rather give their kids pills than try to teach them to behave. Some appear to have legitimate issues, but others are merely unruly due to a lack of proper parenting.

(caveat - I'm not a parent, so my opinion may not carry much weight)

First off, I think we can all agree that prescribing kids medications for disorders they don't actually have would be a bad idea. Just getting that out of the way.

That said, I hear this allegation of over-diagnosis and over-prescription all the time, but no one ever seems to back it up with any facts. Heck, the last time I asked someone for an example of this on NSG, they told me a personal anecdote about a teacher, not a doctor, guessing a child might have ADD. I do not doubt that some people who don't know much about the subject see Ritalin as a panacea for disruptive children, but I've never yet seen a single piece of evidence for the claim that doctors feel likewise and therefore massively over-diagnose psychiatric ailments in children.

Are there kids who get diagnosed with ADD who don't actually have it? Of course. I was one of 'em. Is there actually an epidemic of over-diagnosis? Maybe, but if so, I sure as heck haven't encountered it.

I think the problem is that many of these disorders are diagnosed too early, more often than not due to pressure from parents who would rather plunk their kids in front of the TV for twelve hours than actually pay attention to them and spend time with them, or God forbid let them play and have fun outside instead of being turned in to docile cubicle slaves as early as possible.

All of these conditions most definitely do exist, and it is asinine to even remotely suggest that there is some "conspiracy" pushing nonexistent disorders on people. Unfortunately, however, many people are being diagnosed too early with all of the ramifications that come from exposing developing brains to these kinds of substances. Addiction and dependence are many, many times more likely the earlier you begin exposing a person to compounds that alter brain chemistry, and this needs to be taken in to account before we create the true drug generation.

Child psychiatry is absolutely necessary to ensure dangerous conditions are identified and preempted before they can cause real disruption, but psychiatrists need to remain firm in their judgement and not allow lazy or apathetic parents to prod them in to making prescriptions and diagnoses that are not necessarily supported by the facts. I don't even blame the psychiatrists, just the parents.

I think the problem is that many of these disorders are diagnosed too early, more often than not due to pressure from parents who would rather plunk their kids in front of the TV for twelve hours than actually pay attention to them and spend time with them, or God forbid let them play and have fun outside instead of being turned in to docile cubicle slaves as early as possible.

All of these conditions most definitely do exist, and it is asinine to even remotely suggest that there is some "conspiracy" pushing nonexistent disorders on people. Unfortunately, however, many people are being diagnosed too early with all of the ramifications that come from exposing developing brains to these kinds of substances. Addiction and dependence are many, many times more likely the earlier you begin exposing a person to compounds that alter brain chemistry, and this needs to be taken in to account before we create the true drug generation.

Child psychiatry is absolutely necessary to ensure dangerous conditions are identified and preempted before they can cause real disruption, but psychiatrists need to remain firm in their judgement and not allow lazy or apathetic parents to prod them in to making prescriptions and diagnoses that are not necessarily supported by the facts. I don't even blame the psychiatrists, just the parents.
/\ This /\

Prove. This. Statement.

Or shut. The fuck. Up.




Oh my God.


*keeps muttering to himself "is not worth the ban, its not worth the ban"*Definitely not worth it, KoL.


Atreath, are you even going to try and produce any sort of evidence for your claim, that is not personal experience?

Are there kids who get diagnosed with ADD who don't actually have it? Of course. I was one of 'em. Is there actually an epidemic of over-diagnosis? Maybe, but if so, I sure as heck haven't encountered it.

Not to mention that a diagnosis of ADD isn't simply left up to the doctor saying yay or nay. My father is severely ADHD; when I showed signs of struggling with ADD in second grade, I went to see a doctor who specialized in the disorder. He gave me a battery of tests, once at 7, and again at 11--written tests, verbal tests, kinesthetic tests, the works. I have the summary from both of those assessments in my filing cabinet. My diagnosis was not a "eh, she doesn't concentrate during math" thing, it was a "here is her IQ as estimated by multiple tests, here are the areas where she declines compared to her peers, here is the gap between ability and achievement in multiple aspects of her life."

A proper diagnosis of ADHD must find that a person has several symptoms present in multiple situations (in school, at home, with friends, etc) and that these symptoms were present before seven years of age.

I think the problem is that many of these disorders are diagnosed too early

You could make that argument. You could also argue that an earlier diagnosis means earlier treatment, which means the child spends less of his/her life suffering through the disorder without aid.

Certain things are very difficult to diagnose in children, such as bi-polar disorder, and so are rarely diagnosed and treated. ADHD, however, was long thought to be a "childhood disease", and the DSM criteria states that symptoms must be present before the age of seven, so early diagnosis is much more likely.

Which is the point I am trying to make.
Ignoring posts and not providing a single shred of evidence beyond "yu huh! I know this kid whose third cousin totally had to take the meds!" is not a good way to prove a point.

At the very least, find a semi-decent source.
Child psychiatrist are not responsible.
Prove it. Put up or shut up.
Because by their own admission every childs brain is different. Childrens brains are developing and we have no idea how these meds effect in the long term. Many have only been used in the past 10-15 years and there are new ones all the time. Its not like they can put a few thousand children in separate rooms to know exactly what is going to happen to each and every one of them over a course of several years.Actually, they have a pretty good idea. These medicines are tested for years before they can even consider human trials, let alone mass market. We know the risks. We know the rewards. We know how the medicines work. We know the impacts. Can there be potential side effects later? Yes. Has it happened with meds before? Yes (thalidomide comes to mind...interestingly, it is still in use in some cases). Does that mean that these meds don't have value? Nope.

I'm surprised that there are actually people with good experiences. As I would have been much better off without them. Within months of getting off of them, after my mother learned just how much damage they were causing, I uniformly improved in every area from the adhd to the anger outbursts. Seeing as I was NOT misdiagnosed for either.
Yeah, well, when I was taking prozac, my face totally turned blue. And then my left hand jumped off and walked away, cousin It style.
As soon as I stopped, my face went back to normal, and my hand came back.

I was never given a choice as the school would not permit me stay if I wasn't drugged up. The children I was surrounded with all came from different backgrounds and had differing problems. But some of the key things I have mentioned are the same. Only kid I ever met who legitimately needed the accursed things was a skitzo.
Schizo. Not skitzo. And more anecdotal evidence. More over, you are not a trained doctor, and therefore, in no position to diagnose. Perhaps you didn't know the full story just from sitting in class next to someone.
As for depression, you can either learn to live with it, or you can't. If you can't you end up on some kind of med for most your life until you can learn to live with it, or it goes away. I never said meds didn't have uses. Just that in the vast majority of cases they are unnecessary.
Right...you don't "learn to live with" clinical depression. And show some evidence that "in the vast majority of cases they are unnecessary"

Child psychiatry is a shameless practice that equals legal drug dealing.Sounds like every other field of medicine.
As it is today I sincerely believe is should be outlawed. If there was a reasonable enough way to regulate the practice to where only specific life threatening mental problems were treated with such things than I would have no problem with it.
You mean things like internal regulatory boards like the APA, legal restrictions, malpractice, and other checks on the system?
And define "life threatening". Given that you think hugging little tommy and getting him to put down the twinkie will make him love life and sit still in bio class, I think I have an idea.

Which is the point I am trying to make. Child psychiatrist are not responsible.

Yup, those child-hating bastards are just out to torture poor innocent little children. That's what they go to med school for! Sometimes, late at night, bands of psychiatrists roam the countryside just looking for kids to stuff full of drugs. Then they rip out puppies' brains and eat them for dinner, because that's just the sort of people they are.

Because by their own admission every childs brain is different.

...I'm still really flummoxed as to why you think this supports your argument.

Childrens brains are developing and we have no idea how these meds effect in the long term. Many have only been used in the past 10-15 years and there are new ones all the time. Its not like they can put a few thousand children in separate rooms to know exactly what is going to happen to each and every one of them over a course of several years.

Um....doctors kinda do observe their patients over time. They don't lock them in separate rooms to do so, though, because last I checked your brain keeps being your brain no matter what room you're currently in.

I'm surprised that there are actually people with good experiences.

I know! It's almost as if doctors prescribe medications to help people! Bizarre!

As I would have been much better off without them.

Well, that's evidence of a universal truth if I ever heard it!

Within months of getting off of them, after my mother learned just how much damage they were causing, I uniformly improved in every area from the adhd to the anger outbursts. Seeing as I was NOT misdiagnosed for either.

Wait. So, psychiatrists are irresponsible child abusers, but their diagnoses are infallible?

I am so confused right now...

As for depression, you can either learn to live with it, or you can't. If you can't you end up on some kind of med for most your life until you can learn to live with it, or it goes away.

Out of curiosity, have you read anything about clinical depression, like, y'know, ever?

I never said meds didn't have uses. Just that in the vast majority of cases they are unnecessary.

Making blanket statements without any supporting evidence is ever so much fun!

Child psychiatry is a shameless practice that equals legal drug dealing. As it is today I sincerely believe is should be outlawed. If there was a reasonable enough way to regulate the practice to where only specific life threatening mental problems were treated with such things than I would have no problem with it.

You really are hilarious, you know that?

If you can't you end up on some kind of med for most your life until you can learn to live with it, or it goes away.

Woah woah woah. I missed this.

Learn to live with depression? Until it goes away?

Are you fucking retarded?

*snip*Not worth the warning, dude. Definitely not worth it.

Child psychiatry is a shameless practice that equals legal drug dealing. Especially not for somebody who post that. ^

Not worth the warning, dude. Definitely not worth it.


Hey, I didnt call him retarded. I asked if he was. Not a flame:p

Hey, I didnt call him retarded. I asked if he was. Not a flame:pMight be considered baiting, though. Better to hedge your bets, yeah?

He still hasn't offered a single study or article, has he?

Woah woah woah. I missed this.

Learn to live with depression? Until it goes away?

Are you fucking retarded?

Don't be silly. Haven't you read all the medical studies showing that if your parents hug you enough, one night the magical Mood Disorder Fairy will fly into your room while you're asleep, take away your depression, and leave you a quarter? I totally knew this kid in fourth grade whose neighbor's cousin's friend's babysitter's little brother told him that was true, and if you can't trust a source like that, well, who can you trust?

As for depression, you can either learn to live with it, or you can't. If you can't you end up on some kind of med for most your life until you can learn to live with it, or it goes away.

You don't "learn to live with" depression. If you can live with it, it isn't depression, since one of the criteria for depression is that it "cause[s] clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."

Some people with clinical depression may have to take medication for the rest of their lives. I will. I am perfectly comfortable with that. I will also have to take anti-seizures medication all my life because I'm epileptic. Do you think I'd stop having seizures if my parents hugged me enough?

Don't be silly. Haven't you read all the medical studies showing that if your parents hug you enough, one night the magical Mood Disorder Fairy will fly into your room while you're asleep, take away your depression, and leave you a quarter? I totally knew this kid in fourth grade whose neighbor's cousin's friend's babysitter's little brother told him that was true, and if you can't trust a source like that, well, who can you trust?
Ugh...the ADHD fairy at least has the decency to cuddle for a while afterwards, rather than just leaving the money on the nightstand and running out, saying "I'll call you" but they never do.

Don't be silly. Haven't you read all the medical studies showing that if your parents hug you enough, one night the magical Mood Disorder Fairy will fly into your room while you're asleep, take away your depression, and leave you a quarter? I totally knew this kid in fourth grade whose neighbor's cousin's friend's babysitter's little brother told him that was true, and if you can't trust a source like that, well, who can you trust?http://www.digitalmediafx.com/Navigation/copyright.gif Poliwanacraca.
Yours forever, Poli. :p

You don't "learn to live with" depression. If you can live with it, it isn't depression, since one of the criteria for depression is that it "cause[s] clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."

Some people with clinical depression may have to take medication for the rest of their lives. I will. I am perfectly comfortable with that. I will also have to take anti-seizures medication all my life because I'm epileptic. Do you think I'd stop having seizures if my parents hugged me enough?

No, but you might if I did...

Eh. I'm just taking notes at this point. Seeing as I might one day seek to create a non-profit organization designed to research and fight against this practice.

As I said in an earlier post this is personal experience, feel free to not believe me. There are too many trolls on the internet to just trust anybody. I'm just providing my opinion based on personal experience to see what the reactions are. As for proof. lol! I think you all know as well as I do that there is little if any real proof either way. The pro-drug research is either directly or indirectly funded by the drug companies themselves. I trust that about as much as I trust the "second hand smoking is harmless" research funded by the tobacco companies.

And the research that agrees with me, I don't trust either. Simply because it is widely promoted, and i suspect widely funded by Scientologists. Do I need to say more?

As for "flaming" feel free. It doesn't offend me. I'm fully aware this is a highly sensitive and somewhat controversial topic. Such reactions are expected.

This is going to be another one of those threads where the ignorant and insensitive babble on cluelessly and/or dangerously about mental illness, isn't it?

Sorry, but I've played this game too many times with the fuckwads.

ADHD, clinical depression, OCD, anxiety disorders, etc., are all very real and most can be vastly helped by medication. Yes, all medication -- including Tylenol--can have side effects. That is why one should get treatment through a team of medical professionals.

No one would dare suggest that diabetics be denied insulin or that someone with a compound facture of the leg should "just walk it off," but people feel free to make equivalent suggestions about mental illness.

I fucking sick of this shit. :mad:

Do you think I'd stop having seizures if my parents hugged me enough?

Well, if they hug you tight enough...

Eh. I'm just taking notes at this point. Seeing as I might one day seek to create a non-profit organization designed to research and fight against this practice.

As I said in an earlier post this is personal experience, feel free to not believe me. There are too many trolls on the internet to just trust anybody. I'm just providing my opinion based on personal experience to see what the reactions are. As for proof. lol! I think you all know as well as I do that there is little if any real proof either way. The pro-drug research is either directly or indirectly funded by the drug companies themselves. I trust that about as much as I trust the "second hand smoking is harmless" research funded by the tobacco companies.

And the research that agrees with me, I don't trust either. Simply because it is widely promoted, and i suspect widely funded by Scientologists. Do I need to say more?

Science is not made of personal opinions. And if your mind was really open, you'd be more interested in researching than fighting psychiatry.

No, but you might if I did...

Well, if they hug you tight enough...

Sickos. :p

This is going to be another one of those threads where the ignorant and insensitive babble on cluelessly and/or dangerously about mental illness, isn't it?

Sorry, but I've played this game too many times with the fuckwads.

ADHD, clinical depression, OCD, anxiety disorders, etc., are all very real and most can be vastly helped by medication. Yes, all medication -- including Tylenol--can have side effects. That is why one should get treatment through a team of medical professionals.

No one would dare suggest that diabetics be denied insulin or that someone with a compound facture of the leg should "just walk it off," but people feel free to make equivalent suggestions about mental illness.

I fucking sick of this shit. :mad:
Not to mention that fun OTC drugs like Tylenol and ibuprofen can actually have very severe side effects, much worse than many psych meds.

Eh. I'm just taking notes at this point. Seeing as I might one day seek to create a non-profit organization designed to research and fight against this practice.

As I said in an earlier post this is personal experience, feel free to not believe me. There are too many trolls on the internet to just trust anybody. I'm just providing my opinion based on personal experience to see what the reactions are. As for proof. lol! I think you all know as well as I do that there is little if any real proof either way. The pro-drug research is either directly or indirectly funded by the drug companies themselves. I trust that about as much as I trust the "second hand smoking is harmless" research funded by the tobacco companies.

And the research that agrees with me, I don't trust either. Simply because it is widely promoted, and i suspect widely funded by Scientologists. Do I need to say more?

As for "flaming" feel free. It doesn't offend me. I'm fully aware this is a highly sensitive and somewhat controversial topic. Such reactions are expected.

You've been purposefully vague about what "personal experience" gives you superior insight into this situation.

Given the flatly false statements you are making, you must not be reading your "personal experience" correctly. This brings to mind this quote:

We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stay there, lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot
stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again - and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one any more. -- Mark Twain

Science is not made of personal opinions. And if your mind was really open, you'd be more interested in researching than fighting psychiatry.

The amusing thing is I have to some extent studied it. Perhaps not as much as some. Nor anywhere as much as those who actually practice it. And of course I plan on researching it more fully when time allows. Only a fool would try to fight something they know nothing about.

Ok, well, Im going to bed. Im a little drowsy from my anti-depressents, which is a totally random side effect, even though its listed right on the bottle. And I really dont know what these chemicals are, even though my doctor told me, but he was probably lying, because its like legal drug dealing.

Oh well, eventually Ill get over my depression, right?

Maybe if everyone hugs me reeeeeaaaal tight and tells me they love me every night from here on out...

You've been purposefully vague about what "personal experience" gives you superior insight into this situation.

Given the flatly false statements you are making, you must not be reading your "personal experience" correctly. This brings to mind this quote:

We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stay there, lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot
stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again - and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one any more. -- Mark Twain


If I have been vague. I apologize it was not on purpose. As for wisdom, that's a matter of opinion it seems. Personally I fault the fact I have always had problems communicating. I just don't think like most people. Its even harder when I have to type/write things down.

Sickos. :p

What?!?

I do not see how there is anything the least bit sick about suggesting you hug me...

If I have been vague. I apologize it was not on purpose. As for wisdom, that's a matter of opinion it seems. Personally I fault the fact I have always had problems communicating. I just don't think like most people. Its even harder when I have to type/write things down.No, you're doing a wonderful job of communicating that you really don't know much about the subject.

Sickos. :p

Maybe if everyone hugs me reeeeeaaaal tight and tells me they love me every night from here on out...

What?!?

I do not see how there is anything the least bit sick about suggesting you hug me...

BIG GROUP HUG!
:fluffle:


I call big spoon.

No, you're doing a wonderful job of communicating that you really don't know much about the subject.

Case and point. I know more than I can properly express. Unfortunately I don't have the time or the patience to write a several page essay on the subject. My problems in communication lie with my inability to say things in a few words yet have them understood. At the same time, the more I talk, the less sense I tend to make, some things are more emphasized over others. IE I said there are random side effects that we don't know about thus can't predict. I didn't mean to say these were the predominant side effects.

Case and point. I know more than I can properly express. Unfortunately I don't have the time or the patience to write a several page essay on the subject. My problems in communication lie with my inability to say things in a few words yet have them understood. At the same time, the more I talk, the less sense I tend to make, some things are more emphasized over others. IE I said there are random side effects that we don't know about thus can't predict. I didn't mean to say these were the predominant side effects.

Alternatively, this could be a sign that you do need meds and that the "hug therapy" isn't anywhere near as effective as you would like to think.

I know more than I can properly express. No studies, no proof, no plausibility.

I don't have the time or the patience to write a several page essay on the subject.You need to work on the "I care about this subject" part.

At the same time, the more I talk, the less sense I tend to make, some things are more emphasized over others.Thank you.

Okay, so perhaps we can agree on some common ground:

1) There are some serious potential problems with the diagnostic process that can fubar the treatment of any existing mental disorders. For one thing, psychiatrists don't follow a patient around all day every day, so they don't get a baseline set of behaviors. Second, they only get self-reporting, so there's a skewing of the data they do get. Third, some of the criteria for mental illness (for instance, inability to function normally because of behavioral or cognitive disorders) are easily rendered useless by an assumption, easy to make but not necessarily made, that a person wouldn't be begging for help if they could function normally. Fourth, there's wide disagreement in the psychiatric community over what a mental disorder really is; cognitive psychology and behaviorism, for instance, have wide disagreement over whether there is such a thing as a cognitive-affective disorder.

2) As a consequence of this, one possibility is that "treatment" can actually further existing abuse insofar as the behaviors a psychiatrist is actually treating are the acting out behaviors typically associated with child abuse.

3) That being said, note the terms used: possibility, can, assumption. These are not words used to demonstrate a determinate link, only a hypothetical possibility. The vast majority of pyschologists and psychiatrists are trying their best to make the lives of their patients better, even if those patients happen to be children. That they sometimes slip up is inavoidable. Yes, there should be tighter controls and better screening of the long-term effects of adult-doses on children, but that in itself is not a sign that anything is being deliberately done wrong.

My point exactly the parents that do care, as I mentioned already, are under the impression that only a psychiatrist can help. This is not only incorrect but horribly so. And as psychiatrists offer a "quick fix' in the form of a pill more often than not. That is why the parents take them. How many parents do you know would be willing to go the safer, alternative, child friendly route, of taking their child to a therapist or gods forbid actually trying to help their child by studying their child's problems and take proper measures in the home.

I was surround by children like myself during my preteen and teenage years. The story was always the same.

No, you are plain wrong. As a parent i would not seek "the quick fix". But i will follow the advice of a Medical Doctor in psychiatry I sought advice from. It is the psychiatrist's job (or a psychologyst's) to advise me about what you call the safer, alternative route.
Or do you think that parents should take a course in clinic psychology before being allowed to have children (for your reference before you say yes, the course here in Czech Republic is 4 years long and actually requires working for at least 1 year in a psychology related hospital ward).

No good psychiatrist will offer a "quick fix" in form of a pill. Sadly there are lots of bad psychiatrists around. But there are also lots of bad MDs around regardless of specialization. Heck, there are lots of bad specialists regardless of job.

Case and point. I know more than I can properly express. Unfortunately I don't have the time or the patience to write a several page essay on the subject. My problems in communication lie with my inability to say things in a few words yet have them understood. At the same time, the more I talk, the less sense I tend to make, some things are more emphasized over others. IE I said there are random side effects that we don't know about thus can't predict. I didn't mean to say these were the predominant side effects.

I have a genuine question here.
How much do you read?
Do you read good literature?

No, you are plain wrong. As a parent i would not seek "the quick fix". But i will follow the advice of a Medical Doctor in psychiatry I sought advice from. It is the psychiatrist's job (or a psychologyst's) to advise me about what you call the safer, alternative route.
Or do you think that parents should take a course in clinic psychology before being allowed to have children (for your reference before you say yes, the course here in Czech Republic is 4 years long and actually requires working for at least 1 year in a psychology related hospital ward).

No good psychiatrist will offer a "quick fix" in form of a pill. Sadly there are lots of bad psychiatrists around. But there are also lots of bad MDs around regardless of specialization. Heck, there are lots of bad specialists regardless of job.

No I don't think it should be mandatory for parents to take a class. I simply feel that if and when a child has problems that parents learn how to deal with those problems by studying them and getting advice from various sources.

And I commend you for actually caring for your child/ren. However I must disagree with you on the point that the psychiatrist would suggest a safer alternative. Psychiatrists are trained in mental disease, contrasting theories on its causes and how it can be diagnosed, and subsequently treated with a variety of medications. Alternatives are not part of their study course. I have had only one psychiatrist who was even aware of alternative methods and he didn't even know how to put them into practice properly. I know this because my mother not only got a second opinion on the matter, but I also did some personal studying on the subject when I was old enough to fully understand.

I have a genuine question here.
How much do you read?
Do you read good literature?

Good literature is a subjective term. I'd say I read a couple books a month. Most of them involve, either occult, health, or politics. The fiction books I read are from varying genre's. Honestly don't read them much anymore.

No I don't think it should be mandatory for parents to take a class. I simply feel that if and when a child has problems that parents learn how to deal with those problems by studying them and getting advice from various sources.

And I commend you for actually caring for your child/ren. However I must disagree with you on the point that the psychiatrist would suggest a safer alternative. Psychiatrists are trained in mental disease, contrasting theories on its causes and how it can be diagnosed, and subsequently treated with a variety of medications. Alternatives are not part of their study course. I have had only one psychiatrist who was even aware of alternative methods and he didn't even know how to put them into practice properly. I know this because my mother not only got a second opinion on the matter, but I also did some personal studying on the subject when I was old enough to fully understand.

Taken as a whole I'd say you had a bad experience, as I have seen happening to a number of people I know.
On the other hand I know many other people (myself included) that had good experiences and that have been helped by psychiatrists or psychologists sometimes even without recurring to medicaments (as in my case).

Alternatives are a part of study course in Czech Republic at least. Expecially if you want to be authorized to open a private office. In medical organizations (hospitals) psychiatrists and psycologists ar required to work together.

On the argument of getting advice from various sources. What sources would you suggest? Psychology/Psychiatry literature? Shouldn't my psychiatrist already know that? Any other source? Why?

Good literature is a subjective term. I'd say I read a couple books a month. Most of them involve, either occult, health, or politics. The fiction books I read are from varying genre's. Honestly don't read them much anymore.

I was trying to differentiate from journalism, pulp fiction and that kind of literature wich you seem to be reading. Literature that usually uses a very restrict vocabulary and loose grammatical rules.

I find that many people have problems expressing themselves because they lack the vocabulary to do so. These same people tend to be frustrated and angry at a world that doesn't understand them although they put forth a great effort.

in many ways it has often bordered on it. more then child psychology though, i think the dominant culture is very abusive of children and everyone else. there is a lot of pseudo-conservativism in what i would call pseudo, and para, "christianity", that is WAY abusive of, and detrimental to, honest and rational development, among humans of all ages.

and i also see this degree of abusiveness of child psychology as a direct resault of the dominance of THAT. of course it is entirely possible that other major beliefs, in other cultures and societies THEY dominant, exert a simularly detrimental influence. i'm not mentioning them for two reasons. one, if i did, many would take that as a cue to point their fingers and say, "see that one is worse" or "that one", and the other is that its really not belief itself, not the honest beliefs of people who actually study their beliefs and practice them with the consideration for others, which the fine print in all of them actually advocates.

but in, i would say every culture, but many, perhapse most, you see a lot of people associating themselves with whatever belief happens to be dominant in it, mostly because its either what the're most familiar with, or because doing so puts them at the best advantage socially and economically, then if they openly rejected it, or actually honestly examined many, each on their own terms, and be doing so, arrived at fallowing some very different life path.

and of course it isn't just beliefs that exercise this dominance but economic theories and poilitical idiologies as well.

:confused:

On the argument of getting advice from various sources. What sources would you suggest? Psychology/Psychiatry literature? Shouldn't my psychiatrist already know that? Any other source? Why?


Perhaps I should make something clear. I differentiate between psychologists and psychiatrists. I have no problem with psychologists and I actually respect them. After all, they try to work with you, and don't prescribe medication. As for sources, psychologists, psychiatric literature from both sides of the argument. Local library would be a good resource. People with prior experience, practitioners of alternative medicine etc.


I was trying to differentiate from journalism, pulp fiction and that kind of literature wich you seem to be reading. Literature that usually uses a very restrict vocabulary and loose grammatical rules.

I find that many people have problems expressing themselves because they lack the vocabulary to do so. These same people tend to be frustrated and angry at a world that doesn't understand them although they put forth a great effort.

Actually I have a rather large vocabulary, i just tend to forget words at times. That's not really the problem though. Its more along the lines of being unable to express my thoughts. Much more so when written or typed.

Hell, I type rather quickly yet the above paragraph took about 4 minutes to type.

I think another thing I should mention is that I am from the U.S. Probably explains some of the differences in our experiences here.

Blablabla.

And what if your child is having serious suicide ideas and trying to kill him or herself each 2 or 3 months?

Antidepressants are not very good for their brains (surely for children), no doubt about that one.

But what's better? A death child or a child with some controlled personality disorder?

And no, therapy is not always working.

I could probably have done with seeing a psych as a child. I was a totally screwed up kid: random violence, emotional instability, depression. I think my parents thought psychs were a bunch of useless cranks, and that it was a sign of weakness to see them. Its only relatively recently that I've been doing the whole psychiatrist and counselling stuff, and its been quite useful (except for my first psych who didn't really have a clue). Even as I got older, I kept the attitude that it someone wasn't the 'done thing' to get help for this sort of thing, attitudes which I think hyperbolic statements such as "child psychiatry is child abuse" can only reinforce.

I think child psychiatry has its place, and really can be useful. Perhaps they sometimes overprescribe, but thats not enough reason to get rid of them. Overall, I'm pretty sure they do more good than harm, and some no doubt benefit hugely from being given these drugs. To call it child abuse is quite frankly ridiculous.

Just a therapy will not harm anyone, anyway.

"Should child psychiatry be outlawed as a form of child abuse?" Wtf?

What are you going to do with a neglected 11-year-old girl who is having audiovisual hallucinations, panic attacks, blank upward stares after repeated physical and sexual abuse? Diet only? Tender-loving-care alone? :rolleyes:

"Should child psychiatry be outlawed as a form of child abuse?" Wtf?

What are you going to do with a neglected 11-year-old girl who is having audiovisual hallucinations, panic attacks, blank upward stares after repeated physical and sexual abuse? Diet? Tender-loving-care? :rolleyes:

Well, I'm neither a psychologyst nor a psychiatrist but I'd say that in this particular case (repeated abuse) the tender-loving-care could and should be a part of the terapy...

Well, I'm neither a psychologyst nor a psychiatrist but I'd say that in this particular case (repeated abuse) the tender-loving-care could and should be a part of the terapy...
Yup. I agree. I should have phrased that better. While TLC must be a part of the therapy, it is not the only thing that should be done. :wink:

Post phrased more clearly.

(1) As someone who's been previously diagnosed with ADHD, suggesting a change of diet to cure it is as ridiculous as suggesting that praying to jesus will cure someone's appendicitis.

(2) You forgot the only sensible poll option:

[x] No, preventing a child from seeing a psychiatrist is child abuse.

My godson and redwulf's nephew are both autistic and on a variant of antipsychotics (I can only remember Abilify at the moment...). This is off label use, but they evidently show some promise in bringing autistic kids out of their shells and helping them interact with the world. If only there was a drug that kept the godson from using his +8 sonic shriek attack every five seconds...

My point exactly the parents that do care, as I mentioned already, are under the impression that only a psychiatrist can help. This is not only incorrect but horribly so. And as psychiatrists offer a "quick fix' in the form of a pill more often than not. That is why the parents take them. How many parents do you know would be willing to go the safer, alternative, child friendly route, of taking their child to a therapist or gods forbid actually trying to help their child by studying their child's problems and take proper measures in the home.

Guess what, I was put on meds young to. And my parents took me to a therapist to. A psychiatrist doesn't necessarily exclude a therapist but sometimes you need the medical help for the therapy to do any good. And what about those of us who need that help? Just because doctors are sometimes wrong does that mean that they should get the treatment they need?

No, child psychology is not child abuse.

This has been another in the series of "Simple answers to simple questions."

I can see how Atreath has come to the conclusion He/she has (Likely He, but who really knows on the Internet?) I've got a missing Summer when I was twelve thanks to "Antidepressents" issued at the direction of the school system after a diagnosis of ADD (now ADHD, this was the eighties, mind...)

There's no screwed up like screwed up by prescription to make one suspicious of medical "Help", especially when they're giving out mood-elevators and semi-hypnotics like candy, because a Teacher can't cope with their students acting like...kids.

That doesn't mean there aren't people who NEED this stuff. Letting a kid with genuine problems go untreated is a little bit like giving a suicide risk a full magazine and some privacy-it's a bad idea.

BUT, there IS a tendency to go straight to medication when the problems MIGHT be solved at lower risk by non-pharmaceutical means. Sometimes the "Hyperactivity Disorder" is Just boredom, combined with a lack of discipline in the home (not spanking, discipline-a kid who gets ignored at home will tend to seek attention elsewhere, they're human beings, after all), sometimes the Depression has a real source (Just 'cause you're depressed doesn't mean you don't have a non-chemical reason.)

I do think they're pilling kids too early as an 'easy fix' for something that might NOT be broken. As one of the VA Psychiatrists told me once, "Get ten shrinks in a room, with the same patient, and you'll get twelve diagnoses" .

Guidelines for diagnosis probably need to be tightened up when applied to kids, and there's a DEFINITE problem with modern parenting, training for Teachers (or maybe Teacher quality-it's hard for kids to be very enthusiastic when the teacher was hired to coach the basketball team first, and knows little about the academic subject they've been assigned to instruct), but that doesn't make the entire Child Psychology profession a case of abuse.

SOME kids need medication, just like SOME adults need medication.

What a fail. Are you a Scientologist? Also, what the fuck's up with the poll? How biased can you get?

Unfortunately, just as with any profession there are competent people and incompetent people - the same is true for child psychiatrists. In the case of child psychiatry today probably most are incompetent - they simple check if a child has a few symptoms off a list of 30 or so which the drug company provides and bingo diagnosis (invariably ADHD). There is a small but vocal group of psychiatrists who are adamantly against this. My Grandpa was one - he published a pamphlet on the subject.

http://www.omnipotentchild.com/myth.html

To the person who posted this thread it sounds to me like you got burned. But just because the child psychiatrist you saw doesn't know how to do his job doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who can help. My advise is look long and hard and ask lots of questions - try to find a doctor who will *never* prescribe Ritalin. They are the minority but Google will help you find them ... they are vocal.

I can see how Atreath has come to the conclusion He/she has (Likely He, but who really knows on the Internet?) I've got a missing Summer when I was twelve thanks to "Antidepressents" issued at the direction of the school system after a diagnosis of ADD (now ADHD, this was the eighties, mind...)

Teachers can't issue prescriptions, antidepressants are not prescribed for the treatment of ADD, and odds are you're making the entire story up.

Teachers can't issue prescriptions, antidepressants are not prescribed for the treatment of ADD, and odds are you're making the entire story up.

School districts CAN demand you be "Medicated" or "Treated" if you're disruptive enough. My problem was fighting-in-a-hallway after being fed into a locker during school hours, then having the poor grace to refuse to apologize.

School districts CAN demand you be "Medicated" or "Treated" if you're disruptive enough. My problem was fighting-in-a-hallway after being fed into a locker during school hours, then having the poor grace to refuse to apologize.

No, they can't. They can order you to leave to an alternate high school, but they cannot demand treatment (unless lack of treatment is abusive or neglectful, but then, that is the state that makes the demand, not the school)

Unfortunately, just as with any profession there are competent people and incompetent people - the same is true for child psychiatrists. In the case of child psychiatry today probably most are incompetent - they simple check if a child has a few symptoms off a list of 30 or so which the drug company provides and bingo diagnosis (invariably ADHD). There is a small but vocal group of psychiatrists who are adamantly against this. My Grandpa was one - he published a pamphlet on the subject.

http://www.omnipotentchild.com/myth.html

To the person who posted this thread it sounds to me like you got burned. But just because the child psychiatrist you saw doesn't know how to do his job doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who can help. My advise is look long and hard and ask lots of questions - try to find a doctor who will *never* prescribe Ritalin. They are the minority but Google will help you find them ... they are vocal.

Agree with this post. I think there's a major problem with the current "quick sessions for quick fixes" approach. Ritalin is a powerful drug and shouldn't be given out like cold medicine.

No, they can't. They can order you to leave to an alternate high school, but they cannot demand treatment (unless lack of treatment is abusive or neglectful, but then, that is the state that makes the demand, not the school)

Thirty days of "Observation" (in-patient) with the other suicide risks, drug addicts, and kids-who-don't-mind probably WAS state demanded, but only after the District pushed the issue. This was followed by 'Drug 'em till they drool' and a three month blank in 1986. (escaped by leaving the State.)

Being mis-diagnosed was NOT fun. This doesn't mean the OP was entirely in the right in his approach here, but I contend that his problems, and the failure of treatment in his case, are not unique, and the reaction he's displaying are not unusual-because it DOES seem that there is a large tendency out there to treat normal unhappiness as a disease that has to be cured, to treat an active mind like it needs to be shut down (Hyperactivity), and to treat every emotional problem as if it has a chemical basis and a chemical cure.

Over diagnosed? Yes most definitely. Ban child psychiatry? Hell no. I had *HAD* a mild form of juvenille myoclonic epilepsy. I went through 3 neurologists and a definite super whacko "child psychiatrist" that was totally in it for the kickbacks - but to his credit, all the multiple expensive meds he put me on kicked off my first few seizures and the neurologist found out what i had because of it LOL.

So in the end, I hated all psychiatrists for a while, but come on... I don't buy 9 out of 10. And there certainly are kids who need the proper meds. I knew several kids growing up who would have definately been considered ADHD these days, however their parents were just strict, yadda yadda...

So I agree to a degree. Yes I think there is a vast difference in parenting these days, combined with slack in doctoring that leads to a lot more diagnosing ADHD and similar than should be.

But, outlawing these things would not make up for it in the end. Now that I've made my point one too many times, I'll shut up :)

I'd outlaw all psychology and psychiatry. Your mind/thoughts are something science, medication, etc., should never be able to touch. YOU is YOU, and you shouldn't allow others to regulate YOU because you can never tell who YOU are in a medical/scientific sense.

Teachers can't issue prescriptions, antidepressants are not prescribed for the treatment of ADD, and odds are you're making the entire story up.

It happened to me as well. They even medicated me *once* without my parents consent. ... this was the 80's btw. My parents threw a flying fit and I didn't have to take the meds anymore. We honestly should have sued the school board ... probably could have won.

Thirty days of "Observation" (in-patient) with the other suicide risks, drug addicts, and kids-who-don't-mind probably WAS state demanded, but only after the District pushed the issue.
The district likely did not push the issue. Schools and their employees are mandated informers. If the child is considered to be a risk to themselves or others, the state must be informed. From that moment, it is out of the schools hands.

Has anyone ever read Equus?

Teachers can't issue prescriptions, antidepressants are not prescribed for the treatment of ADD, and odds are you're making the entire story up.

My thoughts precisely.

Regardless, psychiatry is not the only field in which there are occasional mistakes and psychotropic drugs are not the only ones with side effects.

As I predicted, this thread is just the wailing and gnashing of the ignorant and misinformed.

Unfortunately, just as with any profession there are competent people and incompetent people - the same is true for child psychiatrists. In the case of child psychiatry today probably most are incompetent - they simple check if a child has a few symptoms off a list of 30 or so which the drug company provides and bingo diagnosis (invariably ADHD). There is a small but vocal group of psychiatrists who are adamantly against this. My Grandpa was one - he published a pamphlet on the subject.

http://www.omnipotentchild.com/myth.html

To the person who posted this thread it sounds to me like you got burned. But just because the child psychiatrist you saw doesn't know how to do his job doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who can help. My advise is look long and hard and ask lots of questions - try to find a doctor who will *never* prescribe Ritalin. They are the minority but Google will help you find them ... they are vocal.

It is unfortunate that you have a family member who is so clearly out of touch with modern science. The science behind the existence and symptoms of ADHD is overwhelming.

This link (http://www.help4adhd.org/en/about/science) shows reports proving the existence of ADD/ADHD by:
American Medical Association
Surgeon General of the United States
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
2002 International Consensus Statement on AD/HD (roughly 100 scientists worldwide)
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP)
Mayo Clinic


This link (http://www.addcentre.co.uk/AMAreport.htm) relates to a study showing that ADHD is not overdiagnosed or misdiagnosed and that ADHD medications are not overprescribed.

See also Myths and Misconceptions About AD/HD:
Science over Cynicism (http://www.help4adhd.org/en/about/myths); Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/adhd.cfm)

I'd outlaw all psychology and psychiatry. Your mind/thoughts are something science, medication, etc., should never be able to touch. YOU is YOU, and you shouldn't allow others to regulate YOU because you can never tell who YOU are in a medical/scientific sense.

So people should be left, unable to function in society, unable to properly care for themselves, having paranoid delusions or terrifying hallucinations, seeing so little value in life they don't just take their own, but the lives of others too? All this on the basis that trying to help them somehow violates who they are?

find a doctor who will *never* prescribe Ritalin. They are the minority but Google will help you find them ... they are vocal.

What? Find a doctor who, when he diagnoses you with a problem knows how you can solve it but won't give you the means with which to solve your problem? Seriously, if you went to the doctor and you asked for birth control, or antibiotics or something similar and he just wouldn't help you would you keep him? What a horrible doctor.

What? Find a doctor who, when he diagnoses you with a problem knows how you can solve it but won't give you the means with which to solve your problem? Seriously, if you went to the doctor and you asked for birth control, or antibiotics or something similar and he just wouldn't help you would you keep him? What a horrible doctor.

There are other drugs for the treatment of ADHD other than Ritalin...

Edit: Here's a quick list of some of them... (http://www.keepkidshealthy.com/Medicine_Cabinet/adhd_medications.html)
Vyvanse

The latest medication to get approval to treat ADHD is Vyvanse, a long acting stimulant that is similar to Adderall. In fact, its main ingredient is lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, a derivative of one of the ingredients in Adderall. Initially available in 30mg, 50mg, and 70mg capsules, newer 20mg, 40mg, and 60mg capsules should be available soon.

Adderall XR

Adderall XR is approved for use in children over the age of six years, although regular Adderall can be used in younger children from 3-5 years of age. Adderall XR is a sustained release form of Adderall, a popular stimulant which contains dextroamphetamine and amphetamine. It is available as a 10mg, 15mg, 20mg, 25mg, and 30mg capsule, and unlike many of the other sustained release products, the capsule can be opened and sprinkled onto applesauce if your child can't swallow a pill.

Concerta

Concerta is a sustained release form of methyphenidate (Ritalin). It is available as a 18mg, 36mg and 54mg tablet and is designed to work for 12 hours. Teens can take two 36mg tablets to get to a dose of 72mg. Like Adderall XR, it is only approved for children over the age of six years.

Daytrana

Daytrana is a methyphenidate or Ritalin patch. The patch is available in 10mg, 15mg, 20mg, and 30mg dosages, which are worn for about nine hours at a time on a child's hip. The medication in your child's system then continues to work for a few more hours once you take the patch off, although you may have to figure how the patch works best for your child.

One benefit of the Ritalin patch, in addition to working well for kids who don't like to take medicine, is that it gives you a lot of flexibility. For example, on some days your child could just wear the Daytrana patch for a few hours and on other days he could wear it a little longer if he has extra homework (as long it doesn't interfere with bedtime).

Focalin XR

An extended release form of Focalin, with the active ingredient dexmethylphenidate hydrocholoride, which is also found in methylphenidate (Ritalin). It is available in an 5mg, 10mg, 15mg, and 20mg capsule.

Metadate CD

This is also a long acting form of methylphenidate (Ritalin).

Ritalin LA

This is is a new long acting form of methylphenidate (Ritalin). It is available in 10, 20, 30, and 40mg capsules. Unlike the other long acting forms of methylphenidate, the Ritalin LA capsules can be opened and sprinkled on something if your child can't swallow them whole.

You could make that argument. You could also argue that an earlier diagnosis means earlier treatment, which means the child spends less of his/her life suffering through the disorder without aid.

Certain things are very difficult to diagnose in children, such as bi-polar disorder, and so are rarely diagnosed and treated. ADHD, however, was long thought to be a "childhood disease", and the DSM criteria states that symptoms must be present before the age of seven, so early diagnosis is much more likely.

The concern, though, is that diagnosing it too early makes the effects of treatment that much more extreme; these drugs have significant negative side effects that manifest to one degree or another in most cases, but the effects are even more dramatic due to the developmental changes occurring in the human brain at that age.

Were these drugs better than they currently are, the concern over early diagnosis would not be anywhere near as serious. However, the current generation of psychiatric drugs is, well, atrocious and they carry massive drawbacks that have to be weighed against the benefits. In time, further advances in the field will produce drugs that are safer and more effective but right now it is better to err on the side of caution rather than take huge risks by providing these drugs to children.

After all, they try to work with you, and don't prescribe medication.

You know, I have the same problem with my general practitioner. I went in the other day and told him about these headaches I've been getting behind my eyes, how my throat hurts, and all these green snot pours from my nose. And all he did was look me over a bit and then write an Rx for antibiotics! It was like he wasn't even interested in seeing whether waving a crystal over my head or reading the Torah backwards would help.

Just a therapy will not harm anyone, anyway.

Let's not swing too far to the opposite side. Bad therapists can do a lot of damage--arguably as much as any doctor.

(1) As someone who's been previously diagnosed with ADHD, suggesting a change of diet to cure it is as ridiculous as suggesting that praying to jesus will cure someone's appendicitis.

ADHD terrorist fistbump! We were going to take over the world, we just lost track of time...

My godson and redwulf's nephew are both autistic and on a variant of antipsychotics (I can only remember Abilify at the moment...). This is off label use, but they evidently show some promise in bringing autistic kids out of their shells and helping them interact with the world. If only there was a drug that kept the godson from using his +8 sonic shriek attack every five seconds...

Abilify is a great drug from everything I've heard--FAR fewer and less severe side-effects than most anti-psychotics, and they've found it works somewhat as a mood stabilizer as well.

In the case of child psychiatry today probably most are incompetent - they simple check if a child has a few symptoms off a list of 30 or so which the drug company provides and bingo diagnosis (invariably ADHD)

If by "a list of 30 or so [symptoms] which the drug company provides" you mean the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, published by the American Psychiatric Society, which has rigid guidelines about the number of symptoms present, the circumstances under which they are present, and the duration of the symptoms, then yeah, essentially.

try to find a doctor who will *never* prescribe Ritalin. They are the minority but Google will help you find them ... they are vocal.

Even better, find a doctor who will hold a seance and take away the curse that makes it impossible for you to remember your homework.

Teachers can't issue prescriptions, antidepressants are not prescribed for the treatment of ADD, and odds are you're making the entire story up.

/\this/\

I'd outlaw all psychology and psychiatry. Your mind/thoughts are something science, medication, etc., should never be able to touch. YOU is YOU, and you shouldn't allow others to regulate YOU because you can never tell who YOU are in a medical/scientific sense.

Yet if I cut a hole in your skull and stimulate certain areas of your brain, you'll feel anger for no reason you can understand, smell scents that don't really exist, and orgasm. All very sacred, mysterious stuff, for sure.

It happened to me as well. They even medicated me *once* without my parents consent. ... this was the 80's btw. My parents threw a flying fit and I didn't have to take the meds anymore. We honestly should have sued the school board ... probably could have won.

I call bullshit like wtf. I went to school in the 80's. I had to ask the office for permission to take my INHALER, let alone my ritalin. Unless you went to a private school, this is blatantly false. Teachers couldn't give me tylenol when I had a headache in the 80's.

There are other drugs for the treatment of ADHD other than Ritalin...

Indeed. I take Adderall XR, and have also tried Dexedrine and Ritalin. They all have slightly different chemical structures and side effects--it's certainly not a one-size-fits-all thing.

No, I have ADD and I've taken Ritalin. When I took it, I din't think very much about it. I always thought n''Oh, it will help me to concentrate''. And in a few months I will restart taking it once more. Still got the doctor in Hyvinkää to see and then a government board has to give a green light for the prescription.

Go bother Tom Cruise. He knows the History of Psycharitry, just like you.


Of course this could just be a troll.

It looks like this thread has degraded from civilized conversation to - opinionated rants - to insults & eugenics. You people can think what you will but as for myself no I don't believe prescribing drugs to kids is the answer. And I don't think its fair to compare any opinion you don't agree with to Scientology is fair.

Isn't ADD just a euphamism for being a thick c unt? Can't concentrate, bad behaviour at school, etc... The diagnosis is really bad parents, morons and genetic freaks being allowed to breed. My solution - castrate and steralize the parents and murder the children. Clean up the gene pool.

So, you think I should be killed?

The answer is dependent entirely on the circumstances. Your poll options are far too black and white for me to give a real answer.

That said, a lot of psychology just sounds fucking stupid.

If you claim to have ADD then yes, I do. You'll only drag the rest of us down now and spread your diseased seed when you have damaged offspring.

I look forward to seeing you banned. In the meantime I will simply say that if you believe what you just said, you disgust me, and that it is people like you who are dragging us down.

Humans are not livestock or chattel. Before you declare who gets to live and who gets to die, remember how many people have died to bring down those who governed with such ideologies, and that it is our society's tolerance of the rights of the "defective" and damaging that allows you to say such things (though simply for the sake of honesty, in Canada I garuntee that statement would violate hate speech laws).

So, you think I should be killed?

I look forward to seeing you banned. In the meantime I will simply say that if you believe what you just said, you disgust me, and that it is people like you who are dragging us down.

Humans are not livestock or chattel. Before you declare who gets to live and who gets to die, remember how many people have died to bring down those who governed with such ideologies, and that it is our society's tolerance of the rights of the "defective" and damaging that allows you to say such things (though simply for the sake of honesty, in Canada I garuntee that statement would violate hate speech laws).

You two, and everyone else, don't flame him.

He's just trolling and flaming and trying to get a rise out of people. The mods will deal with him, and it's not worth anyone else getting in trouble over. Ignore list and be done with it, he'll be gone by tomorrow.

If you claim to have ADD then yes, I do. You'll only drag the rest of us down now and spread your diseased seed when you have damaged offspring.

I'm just glad you're too much of a bastard to have kids. No more nasty genes to be spread.

You two, and everyone else, don't flame him.

He's just trolling and flaming and trying to get a rise out of people. The mods will deal with him, and it's not worth anyone else getting in trouble over. Ignore list and be done with it, he'll be gone by tomorrow.

I'm sorry, but I believe that generally the correct response to evil and stupidity is to publicly challenge and denounce it, not ignore it.

Regardless, I do not consider anything I said to be flaming.

I might try making one tonight with the missus.

Plus you just called me a bastard. Your going to get in trouble you stupid fuckwit.

He who lives in glass houses...

You two, and everyone else, don't flame him.

He's just trolling and flaming and trying to get a rise out of people. The mods will deal with him, and it's not worth anyone else getting in trouble over. Ignore list and be done with it, he'll be gone by tomorrow.

I was just asking a question. But, yeah I'll ignore him.

The Romans, mr Romulan Republic, used to leave defective babies in the hills to be devoured by wolves. And they invented loads. We allow morons and Americans to breed and we've created a banking system that doesn't work, 'Friends', and George Bush. Who wins there?

You know, maybe I should ignore you. You're apparently beyond the reach of human decency or the restraining grip of rational thought. And ultimately, ripping apart everything you say is just too easy.

Frankly I doubt even you believe what you're saying (referencing "Friends" as a reason to genocide Americans:rolleyes:). Ultimately, your just behaving like an attention whore, and you would do better to grow up and start thinking of solutions to the world's problems that don't involve mass murder or flame-bating.

One of my solutions does not involve mass murder - mass steralization of morons and genetic defectives.

Problem number one: how do you determine who's "defective," or what constitutes a mental illness? When does a mutation cross the line from "defect" to "genetic diversity" (in a positive sense). Apparently you are as ignorant of science as you are of human rights.

Problem number two: why should a society punish the sick simply for being sick?

1) Anyone who claims to have ADD is not suitable for procreation. Anyone who needs 'therapy', even just to fit in with their clique - off with their womb. Anyone that believes Jesus is our saviour - well he won't save your balls, 'cos off they come. 'Special needs?' , well you won't 'need' contraception.

Persecuting religions now? Nice. Isn't that what eugenics usually comes down to, an excuse to do away with those you don't like or disagree with?

You should at least oppose such ideas out of a desire for self-preservation. Once you decide who has the right to live and breed, people will fight you. And when the scales tip, they may use the same laws you enacted to do to you what you did to them. The laws that protect them, also protect you.

2)Not punishing, helping them to realize the waste of skin they are, and stopping them inflicting their worthlessness on their children. It is kindness really.

Right, telling someone they're worthless is a kindness.

Also, how does ADD, for example, make someone worthless? Their are plenty of useful jobs that can be done by disabled people. Many of the people you would kill are brilliant and talented in many ways. Many people are exceptionally strong in some areas and exceptionally weak in others. What wonders you would deprive the world of...

In the end though, none of it matters. These are intelligent beings, capable of feeling pain, who love and are loved. That should be more than enough to justify a life.

"In the end though, none of it matters. These are intelligent beings, capable of feeling pain, who love and are loved. That should be more than enough to justify a life."

First, try to quote properly. I fixed it for you this time.

The inteligent beings bit is strange. I specifically said morons. Being capable of feeling pain and the ability to love are not reasons you deserve life. Gary Glitter loves young girls, and may feel pain when his nuts are chewed off by weasels, this does not give him a divine right to be.

You specifically mentioned ADD. Which does not equate to being a "moron". You also mentioned Christians. Frankly their are intelligent Christians, and dehumanizing them because you disagree with them is dispicable.

As for telling someone they are useless being kindness - I was hoping to appeal to their sence of altruism - for the good of the species and whatnot. Obviousley they would be to thick to comprehend the concept and would be gumming some childs toy with a blank look in their eyes as the bolt gun stopped their meagre thought processes.

Their are a lot of people who fall on your list of would-be victims that do not fulfill the charicature described above. And your gleeful descriptions of mutilating the sick and helpless underline your own lack of intelligence.

The Romans

That's the Spartans, actually.

Obviousley they would be to thick to comprehend the concept and would be gumming some childs toy with a blank look in their eyes as the bolt gun stopped their meagre thought processes.

Those sort of people don't tend to procreate.

ADD is a form of moronism

Do you know what ADD is?

Romans did it aswell.

Source for that?

It makes you sound like a smug pillock

Lol at the irony.

Your mum certainly did.

What a genius insult. You know nothing about my family anyway, so that makes it even more hilarious.

being a funking moron.

It's spelled fucking, and actually it doesn't affect intelligence. Just your attention span and energy levels.

You use 'actually' at the end of a sentence, you are from Bristol. I can therefore assume there are some loops on your family tree.

So using actually at the end of a sentence signifies inbreeding does it? Also, neither of my parents are from Bristol, so again, you lose.

Oh God. Your not fucking Welsh are you?

No, and it's spelled "you're". For one who complains about morons so much, you're not very intelligent. Lots of basic spelling mistakes.

No, and it's spelled "you're". For one who complains about morons so much, you're not very intelligent. Lots of basic spelling mistakes.

Don't worry. I'm sure the mods will track him down and Euthanize his account.

Your and you're is a punctuation error, not a spelling mistake.

It is a spelling mistake, you miss out the e, you spell it wrong. Did you get bullied at school? Are you still at school? Do you have some sort of mental disorder yourself? Is that why you're so angry?

Well, he's gone. I checked another thread, and it looks like his posts have been completely purged.

Now what was the original topic again?;)

It was about how child psychiatry is evil.

'Your' was not spelled wrong. So therefore not a spelling mistake. It was actually a gramatical error, actually.

Oh, for God's sake....

And no I am not still at school, nor did I get bullied.

Were you one of the bullies? Did you have friends? I can't see anybody liking you.

It was about how child psychiatry is evil.
It was about a person who had a bad experience claiming that since it was bad for him it's bad for everyone.

That or it was Tom Cruise trying to play NS.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

And no I am not still at school, nor did I get bullied.

And to whoever keeps deleting me - please stop, it wastes at least five minutes of my time to get back on here.

The mods are deleting you for being an asshole and an idiot.

Personally I'd probably keep you around. I like free speech, and besides, you're fun to mock. Though again you'd serve yourself better to start behaving in a more mature and intelligent manner.

That or it was Tom Cruise trying to play NS.

Can you imagine the reaction if he turned up?

I was not a bully, and have many friends. If you got to know me in person then I am likeable. On this place I like being an ass to see if I can get deleted. Its sort of a game.

Ah. In that case I'll ignore you.

Admit it, the twats are fun to argue with

They are, but if you're not really a dick then there's no point.

No one wants a debate that is onesided

It's fairly hard to find a debate on NSG that's got less than roughly 60 sides.

I'd outlaw all psychology and psychiatry. Your mind/thoughts are something science, medication, etc., should never be able to touch. YOU is YOU, and you shouldn't allow others to regulate YOU because you can never tell who YOU are in a medical/scientific sense.

You have clearly never had any kind of mental illness. When ME became a quivering mass of fear and terror, paralyzed by all the stupid fears my mind could come up with, I was quite happy to change ME by the application of an SSRI. That drug saved my sanity, and possibly my life. You don't have to agree with my decision, but you don't have the right to tell other people how to decide, especially when it comes to mental health.