• DPMC Moderators: thegreenhand | tryptakid
  • Drug Policy & Media Coverage Welcome Guest
    View threads about
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Drug Busts Megathread Video Megathread

It Doesn’t Matter if ADHD Doesn’t Exist, My Son Still Needs Drugs

neversickanymore

Moderator: DS
Staff member
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
30,630
It Doesn’t Matter if ADHD Doesn’t Exist, My Son Still Needs Drugs
Belinda Luscombe
March 18, 2014

Here's what would induce a parent to start messing with the chemistry of their growing kid's brain

No mother wants to drug her kids. Nobody lies around pensively stroking her pregnant belly and thinks, “Just can’t wait to medicate this little sucker.” But here’s the thing: unless we are going to radically alter the way we teach kids, there’s not much else parents can do to get some kids through school.

In his recent book ADHD Does Not Exist and his essay for TIME, Dr. Richard Saul suggests that attention-deficit disorders are massively overdiagnosed and a bunch of the symptoms occur in any busy human being. He warns that we are looking for a chemical solution to a problem that needs a therapeutic one. But this is a bit like saying that we already know how to prevent AIDS (simply stop having sex or sharing needles!), so we don’t need a vaccine or a cure. It’s not as easy as it sounds.

Everyone who defends giving kids stimulants has a story and here’s mine: I have a charming but mischievous son who skipped the part of elementary school where kids learn to read. Was read to as a child, bookish home, did first grade twice, had tutors, the whole nine yards. Still, when shown a picture of a hen with the word hen underneath, he’d read chicken. Maddening. He was diagnosed as dyslexic (another condition that “doesn’t exist,” according to some), and we sent him to a school that specializes in reading difficulties.

In his recent book ADHD Does Not Exist and his essay for TIME, Dr. Richard Saul suggests that attention-deficit disorders are massively overdiagnosed and a bunch of the symptoms occur in any busy human being. He warns that we are looking for a chemical solution to a problem that needs a therapeutic one. But this is a bit like saying that we already know how to prevent AIDS (simply stop having sex or sharing needles!), so we don’t need a vaccine or a cure. It’s not as easy as it sounds.

Everyone who defends giving kids stimulants has a story and here’s mine: I have a charming but mischievous son who skipped the part of elementary school where kids learn to read. Was read to as a child, bookish home, did first grade twice, had tutors, the whole nine yards. Still, when shown a picture of a hen with the word hen underneath, he’d read chicken. Maddening. He was diagnosed as dyslexic (another condition that “doesn’t exist,” according to some), and we sent him to a school that specializes in reading difficulties.

The school was great, but we got a lot of calls. There was a certain amount of our son being sent out of the room. This is in class sizes of no more than 12. Therapy, sleep, “finding a passion,” various flavors of carrot and stick were tried. No stone was left unturned. The subject of meds came up — nobody ever says it’s mandatory, it just comes up in conversation — but we held firm. We are not a pill-popping family. We don’t even take headache medication unless our vision gets blurry. We would push through, with discipline and love and grit. The teachers would just have to manage him better. After all, what would induce a parent to mess with the chemical balance of a growing child’s brain?

The school was great, but we got a lot of calls. There was a certain amount of our son being sent out of the room. This is in class sizes of no more than 12. Therapy, sleep, “finding a passion,” various flavors of carrot and stick were tried. No stone was left unturned. The subject of meds came up — nobody ever says it’s mandatory, it just comes up in conversation — but we held firm. We are not a pill-popping family. We don’t even take headache medication unless our vision gets blurry. We would push through, with discipline and love and grit. The teachers would just have to manage him better. After all, what would induce a parent to mess with the chemical balance of a growing child’s brain?

it’s not cool if he takes the more vulnerable — and sometimes less able — kids with him.

But, in any case, what modern parent can approach the specter of a child who doesn’t learn with any equanimity? Even a not-very-attentive adult can see that the knowledge sector of the economy is the safest haven in downturns. The gap between those with college degrees and those without is ever widening. Not just in income, but also in life areas like successful marriages and health. The option for a kid who can’t sit and learn is not a slightly less lucrative career, it’s a much more miserable existence.

So here’s what would induce a parent to start messing with the chemistry of their growing kid’s brain: fear. As we saw our child fall behind, and we looked at what lay ahead, the cold hand of impending doom got us by the neck and squeezed. The older a person is, the harder it is to learn to read, we’re told. If a child can’t read, he can’t learn any other subject, including math. So the kid needs to be able to concentrate; he needs to be able to take tests; he needs to be able to hear what his teachers are saying. Either he needs a class size of about six, with an incredibly adept and captivating teacher, or he needs a little help.

We started giving him meds at age 11. Within two weeks, there was a marked change. That year, he learned to read — and write. I got my first comprehensible Mother’s Day card. (“Yeah, the teacher warned me that you would cry,” he said.) We swung wildly from feeling stricken about drugging him to feeling guilty we had waited so long.

Could we get our kid through school another way? Maybe. Perhaps spend half the day in P.E. Or get him a governess instead of a classroom. Or find a teaching style that is different, somehow, more kinesthetic or less visual or uses blocks or therapy monkeys. But they’re all just maybes and he’s not our only kid and he’s not our only life challenge and his useful school years are slipping away. The meds work, are almost free of side effects and, far from being handed out willy-nilly, are a huge pain to get every month.

When I asked our now 16-year-old son if he liked taking his meds, he said “Sure. They help me concentrate.” And when I followed up with, “Would you rather be able to concentrate without them?” he gave me one of those specially-reserved-for-moronic-parents-looks and replied, nice and slow, so I’d get it. “Wouldn’t anybody?”

Right. Wouldn’t any parent prefer to get their kids through school drug-free? Yep. (Well, mostly. As Dr. Saul suggests, it’s hard to believe the growth in ADHD prescriptions is completely organic. I’d love to hear from some parents on how their kid’s ADHD went unnoticed until they had to take the SATs.) But if we want to eradicate a chemical solution to what might be a behavioral disorder, we’ve got a whole economy and education system to reorganize. While you guys get on that, I’ve got to get my kid through school.

http://time.com/27456/it-doesnt-matter-if-adhd-doesnt-exist-my-son-still-needs-drugs/
 
Fantastic article. I was nowhere near as severe as the son of this article's writer and I did not get on medication until I was in graduate school, but I can definitely identify with this:

We swung wildly from feeling stricken about drugging him to feeling guilty we had waited so long.

Both for myself and for my son, once he is old enough to be in school. For myself, once I got on the medication and performed immeasurably better academically and in terms of work ethic, I couldn't help but wonder how much more successful I would have been in school if I had been on the medication sooner. And for my son, because he may face the same challenges. I would feel a lot worse for causing him to be academically handicapped because I had a vague feeling of unease about medicating him than I would about actually medicating him.
 
Fantastic article. I was nowhere near as severe as the son of this article's writer and I did not get on medication until I was in graduate school, but I can definitely identify with this:



Both for myself and for my son, once he is old enough to be in school. For myself, once I got on the medication and performed immeasurably better academically and in terms of work ethic, I couldn't help but wonder how much more successful I would have been in school if I had been on the medication sooner. And for my son, because he may face the same challenges. I would feel a lot worse for causing him to be academically handicapped because I had a vague feeling of unease about medicating him than I would about actually medicating him.

Agreed.

Anyone with inattentive add like myself would tell you that once the med/dose is dialed in, the quality of life improvement is staggering. In my line of work, 60 hour weeks are common. And before I ever got to this type of work, I was always very 'yawny' and unable to focus, and had a poor short term memory, and I never even got into drugs until my mid-late 20s. I scored a 20 mg Adderall Xr, and it was like a light was turned on that didn't ever exist. So from there, I saw my p-doc... who said "you've done pretty well up until this point" even tho I passed college by the skin of my teeth and was fired from 2 jobs for sloppy work. So he gave me a referral to a psychologist that gave me 6 hour long sessions of testing that gave clear evidence of my inattentive add and recommended a stim. My p-doc rx'ed the lowest does of vyvnase for a child, 20mg, and refused to titrate up. The first few days on 20 mg, I had 3-4 awesome hours, so I knew that I was on the right track. When my p-doc refused to go higher, I saught out help from the psychologist, who got me with the right doc. For the past 3 years I have been on a dose of 50 mg dex (or the = in vyvanse) and my life has been so much better.

Here is the kicker..... Legit ADD people that are diagnosed and RX'ed the proper stims are 75% less likely to abuse other drugs!

When I was in limbo of discovering therapeutic stims, I started abusing lortabs, which also helped give me energy and focus. When I had that first 20mg Adderall Xr, I was not yet dependent, and blown away, and said, if I had these, I would have no use for lortabs! If it didn't take so fucking long to get an ADHD diagnosis/proper rx, I would have likely not become dependent on hydros.

I guess it doesn't matter anyway, since in the mean time I have developed RA. But getting a proper pain med rx'ed is proving even more difficult than what I went thru with getting my Vyvanse Rx. I wind up going thru my very light rx of either T3s or lortabs in a week, and either sourcing tabs/percs/subs for the rest of the month. When I get perks, I am perfectly pain free, and stick to a daily dose that is similar to what would be rx'ed (under 70mg/day).

What a bitch.
 
What is so frustrating here is that society deems it fine for relatively-normal children to be drugged with hard stimulants because their parents want them to be more efficient production cogs, but if an adult wants to use these same medicines they are deemed criminals.
 
I think that the education system has a huge role in this, and the SAD (Standard American Diet) which pumps kids full of sugar and caffeine also plays a role.
It might be that the need for stims would be reduced greatly if children ate a better diet and educators allowed children to be children, instead of demanding that they turn into robots who sit still for 6 hours out of 8 while paying attention.
Still, some children will benefit from stims no matter what. I am just saying that many children would do better with these changes.
 
It's obviously the systems fault to be "successful" in modern society you NEEED to pop stims while you chuzzle caffeinated beverages.
 
I think that slim has a point. It's true that the way things are run it's very difficult to stay attentive for long periods of time. I remember as a kid it was quite torturous.
 
They use to beat the little pricks until they acted like appropriate human beings. Now that is too "traumatiing" and "brutal". So just hook the kid of amps for the rest of his life.
 
when did they pull d amp of the shelves.. i remember seeing it when i was young.. so maybe early eighties i would guess.
 
They use to beat the little pricks until they acted like appropriate human beings. Now that is too "traumatiing" and "brutal". So just hook the kid of amps for the rest of his life.

This is so clueless and out of touch with reality.
 
I hypothesize that ADHD will be dead as an idea/symptom in the coming years, especially if the economy continues to stagnate. My reasoning: why pump young kids/students full of amphetamines (which is, let's all say it together LEO, dope!) to push their focus up when all schools do today is get everyone WAYYYY over-educated to, very very likely, just do menial labor.

A lot of people with college degrees today are flipping burgers - you think they need to focus on that after writing 30 page essays on Hamlet at Dartmouth?
 
I hypothesize instead that in the coming years, schools will get with the times and makes their programs more relevant (either by their own realization or by force of government/student/parent pressure) to the modern job market and that academic success will once again have a stronger correlation to a successful career.

The problem isn't that we're doing too much learning, its just that much of what we're learning has so little practical application. So many universities are following outdated models.
 
I imagine its a cut-and-paste issue...but the repetition of paragraphs gives me the impression the writer of this article is on amphetamine herself.

I imagine its a cut-and-paste issue...but the repetition of paragraphs gives me the impression the writer of this article is on amphetamine herself.


Edit - totally agree with slimvictor's sentiments on this
 
Last edited:
I think amphetamines are one of the most over-stigmatized drugs. I'm not saying that they can't cause horrible problems for people but that they have potential to be used by most of the population with low risk for addiction. This is how we treat alcohol. Most people can handle, some can't, but it's still available. And compared to alcohol, amphetamines are not physically addictive. I have a prescription for kind of a lot of dextroamphetamine for poor concentration, probably due to taking lithium.

But anyway, I find the drug incredibly unmemorable. I use it as a tool and while it's given me some good times in the past, I seem to remember the negatives more than the positives. As a result, I rarely have the urge to take it just for kicks. I'm just one person but I know I had a much more negative view of amphetamines before I started taking them. I think if dextroamphetamine was available over the counter, our productivity would increase and there wouldn't be a real significant increase in addiction. But maybe I'm just deluded.
 
^ I think you'll find that history shows something a little different.
It was only in the mid 1960s (I believe) that access to pharmaceutical amphetamine was restricted.
Ever since Benzedrine was in invented - along with dexamphetamine and methamphetamine (others too, which I can't recall off the top of my head - but basically different formulations of speed patented by different companies) Big Pharma has been trying to find appropriate applications for these drugs.
Fatigue, depression, narcolepsy, childhood (and now adult) attention disorders - there have been a number of attempts to find the right pathological use for amphetamine drugs.
When it was easier to get a script - say, for feeling run-down, lethargic or depressed - it was eventually obvious that the risks (addiction, mania, psychosis, insomnia, compulsive behaviours) outweighed the benefits. And we're not just talking about typically drug "abusing" demographics - but in the middle classes, particularly "housewives" (as married women were known in the 50s and 60s).
I'm not saying they are terrible drugs - but certainly not as benign as they may seem.
There are also physical and long term effects that have led to the status they have today, medically.
Amphetamine was hailed as a wonder drug when it first bit the market...but the pharmaceutical industry and medical community have always struggled to know quite what to use it for.
Long term use can be incredibly destructive - and "short term use" can lead to habituation very easily.
The subtlety - and apparent functionality - of effects is one of the great dangers of speed IMO.

I've known quite a few people to battle to live constructive lives with - and without - their Rx for dexamphetamine.
I think it's rather deceptive, but ultimately damaging for a lot of people.
 
I imagine its a cut-and-paste issue...but the repetition of paragraphs gives me the impression the writer of this article is on amphetamine herself.

I imagine its a cut-and-paste issue...but the repetition of paragraphs gives me the impression the writer of this article is on amphetamine herself.


Edit - totally agree with slimvictor's sentiments on this


Haha, that's the main thing I noticed about the article. It's not like that in the original, so it's not the writers fault, it became that way when it was transferred over to here.
 
^ I hope NSAM doesn't change the OP, or I'll look insane.

Insane
insane
 
Top