Should 6-year olds get ADHD meds?

Are you sure that the doses given for therapeutic use cause negative effects on brain chemistry? I'd like to read the research on that, if you can point me to it. I have not heard of any such thing, and it would be of a lot of interest to me, because I hope to never have to stop taking amphetamine as long as I am in this career field.

As for the child starting amphetamine, why does there need to be a pre-defined stopping point? Once you start a child on epilepsy medication and they benefit from it, when do you stop? A better question is, "Why would you stop?" The best question is, "Under what conditions do the costs of the medication outweigh the benefits of the medication?" and the best-qualified person to answer that question is the person taking it.

I feel like a lot more of this distaste towards ADHD medication is driven by fear of the unknown and guilt over performance-enhancing medication than actual science.

Many things are neurotoxic in some doses and not in others. Also, the word neurotoxic is often thrown around in a pseudo-sciencey fashion. Alcohol is neurotoxic, holding one's breath is neurotoxic, living in a city with poor air quality is neurotoxic. The simple fact that a medicine can be neurotoxic to some people at some doses is no basis for saying it should not be prescribed to people who can benefit from it.
 
I feel like a lot more of this distaste towards ADHD medication is driven by fear of the unknown and guilt over performance-enhancing medication than actual science.
Click to expand...

You might want to start with:

Literature Review: Update on Amphetamine Neurotoxicity and Its Relevance to the Treatment of ADHD

Some studies have shown neurotoxicity and some haven't There are dozens of studies in the literature focusing on this subject so feel free to check them out. The studies range from daily low dose use to abuse levels.

A better question is, "Why would you stop?" The best question is, "Under what conditions do the costs of the medication outweigh the benefits of the medication?" and the best-qualified person to answer that question is the person taking it.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I don't believe a 6 year old is equipped to make that decision. I believe feeding amphetamines to children for years on end is a huge ethical issue.
 
The vast majority of the information cited in that review article spoke pretty positively with regards to the safety of therapeutic dose range. The only study that was a clear statement of neurotoxicity was the Ricuarte paper, which, given his history, I take with a very large grain of salt. The others gave a lot of data suggesting little to no substantial change in brain chemistry. While I realize that this doesn't "prove" that it is safe, the evidence gathered there does seem to lean the balance towards the safe side.

I also agree that a 6 year old is not equipped to make that decision, or most life-determining decisions. That's why we have parents and doctors. Parents and doctors make decisions every day for their children that have consequences that may follow the children all the way to the ends of their lives. We as a society give them that authority because, collectively, we believe that parents generally act in the best interests of their children and that doctors generally act in the best interests of their patients. While, obviously, this isn't ALWAYS the case, for the most part, I believe it is.

When we medicate a child for epilepsy or a psychotic disorder, or even more typical medical conditions, we are ALWAYS taking a risk. Any medication can have adverse reactions, some predictable, others not. The potential benefit must be weighed against the potential cost and a determination made. To always "err on the side of caution" has hazards just as well. If, one day in the near future, amphetamine (or a similar drug), is found to be totally harmless, have not the parents who withheld ADHD treatment from their children, out of a protective fear, held them back from their full potential? The effects of that will follow them to the ends of their lives just as well as the effects of a negatively altered brain chemistry.
 
My view of ADHD has to do with our obsolete education system. When kids aren't at school, they are playing video games, surfing the web with self-directed learning, reading about 10 different topics at once in a non-linear fashion, etc. Then they go to school and they're supposed to sit at a desk for an hour without moving, listening to a teacher inefficiently (by comparison) prattle on about the same subject. If they can't conform or sit still they get put on drugs.

The way children are intaking information in the modern world is becoming hopelessly incompatible with the way indoctrination centres - err, I mean schools - are run. Unless you can afford private school, your kid is never going to get the same degree of interactive multimedia that they get when they're at home on the computer.

The ADHD diagnoses are highest in the United States, where the drug companies have huge political power. This, combined with an increasingly radical right wing that wants to destroy public education, gives you an obsolete, drug-pushing system that is thinking about anything else but the children.

Diet is also a big component of ADD. The obesity epidemic aside, a lot of children are actually suffering from starvation. They have high calorie diets but not nutrient-rich diets. For developing nervous systems, that's disastrous.
 
Little jonny doesnt like sitting and starring at a whiteboard for seven hours? He must have a disease nurse bring on the amphetamines. I think this demonstates a fundamental flaw in the way we treat diseases in america only treating symptoms and naming any problem or deviation from the social norm as a disease. Adderall is awesome tho, gotta love it.
 
scureto1 said:
I am a PhD student in chemistry who was recently prescribed Adderall for ADHD and benefits greatly from taking it daily. All throughout my middle school and high school student life, I struggled with paying attention in school. In most subjects, just being a bright and intuitive student was enough to keep me doing well. But in math, where rote memorization and practice form the basic foundation for the learning, which is then built upon, I was a mess. It was fine until I hit high school level algebra, and then when the teacher would turn on the overhead projector to start working through examples, I was gone by the 2nd problem. I just COULD NOT pay attention to that, or work through repetitive examples on my own.

I thought it meant I was bad at math, which turned out to absolutely not be the case. Once I struggled through and put in the time, it was pretty easy and made perfect sense. And now that I have ADHD medication, I can pay attention and focus on anything that I want/need to and I learn new things very quickly, whether they are immediately interesting or not. Very often, to get to the interesting part of learning a complex topic, you HAVE to slog through the boring foundations so that you know what the hell is going on. Not ALL learning can be fun, no matter what people say.

The psychiatrist told me that for a lot of bright students, their natural abilities to excel in schoolwork mask the handicap that ADHD puts on them. If a 5 is average, and you are able to perform as a 10 and ADHD brings you down to a 7, you still appear to be doing well. Thus no one considers the idea that you might need medication. But once I hit my ceiling (graduate level chemistry work), it became far, far more difficult for me to cope with the necessary hours and hours of highly focused attention required of me. I couldn't just study in shorter bursts, or start sooner, etc. I needed to be at my maximum potential all the time, and Adderall absolutely helped me with that, with no noticeable negative side effects thus far.

I wish I had been diagnosed and medicated for ADHD sooner. I'd be done with my PhD instead of in the process, and I'd be debt-free due to scholarships, instead of burdened with the student loan debt I have.
Click to expand...

This is hauntingly familiar. The maths, the good performance in high-school masking the ADHD etc. is all pretty much exactly the same in my case.

Don't bother thinking about what it would have been like if you got diagnosed soon, just be happy you've been diagnosed in the first place and you're going to tear shit up in your PhD
 
Chesh said:
so what are these poor lifestyle choices i've made?

edit: for the record i'm not complaining about having 'ADHD'. it has its pros or cons and if anything i think i'd rather have it than not have it, especially seeing as meds can tackle the problem of inattentiveness quite well and that's the only bit that actually bothers me.
Click to expand...

alright, so maybe those are opinions formed from experience. but i still challenge the diagnosis of disorder because its just not that black and white. i think its a point on the spectrum of human behavior, like depression or bipolar, as in you have tendencies, and we all have similar personality traits. but thats as far as it goes. you can look at it as an illness, or a response to your environment. and drugs, in such a case as ADD would be, harm and not help, if youre 6 years old.
 
trees_please said:
alright, so maybe those are opinions formed from experience. but i still challenge the diagnosis of disorder because its just not that black and white. i think its a point on the spectrum of human behavior, like depression or bipolar, as in you have tendencies, and we all have similar personality traits. but thats as far as it goes. you can look at it as an illness, or a response to your environment. and drugs, in such a case as ADD would be, harm and not help, if youre 6 years old.
Click to expand...

yeah i pretty much agree with this. i don't see myself as having a disorder i just see it as my personality and i just happen to have more extreme traits, both positive and negative. although i may find it harder to concentrate than other people i can sometimes be pretty creative and have a fair bit of initiative (usually because my mind doesn't stay on one thing for long i can end up coming up with shit loads of good and bad idea for something). medication helps, but yeah i think putting 6 year olds on it is a bit extreme and the long term effects should be researched more.

if it's a disorder then i think it's the only disorder that i'd be pretty happy to have a lot of the time.
 
So apparently mary jane is a gateway drug but giving six year olds stims can't possibly be a gateway to them trying other pills 8(
 
speaking from personal experience, starting children on adderall at 6 is a terrible idea.
the drug "solves" your attention problem in a temporary sense but in exchange you never develop your own internal strategies for addressing these issues.
i firmly believe long term amphetamine use will lead to depression as well as improper sleep and diet. but of course ymmv.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top