Two-year-old toddlers being dosed up with antipsychotic drugs

Huaca

Huaca

Greenlighter
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
895
Location
Outside the matrix
Two-year-old toddlers being dosed up with antipsychotic drugs
David Gutierrez
Natural News
Friday, May 21st, 2010

Children between the ages of two and five are being treated with antipsychotics at twice the rate they were ten years ago, according to a study conducted by researchers from Columbia University and published in the journal Health Affairs.

“It is a worrisome trend, partly because very little is known about the short-term, let alone the long-term, safety of these drugs in this age group,” researchers Mark Olfson said.

Although a handful of antipsychotics have been approved by the FDA for use in children, they are intended for older children because few if any studies have been conducted into the effectiveness or safety of the drugs in younger children.

Researchers examined prescription data on more than one million children between the ages of two and five. They found that from 1999-2001, approximately one out of every 1,300 children in this age group was being treated with an antipsychotic drug. By 2007, the rate was one in every 630. Among the oldest children (five-year-olds), the rate has always been higher. In 1999-2001, one in every 650 children was receiving an antipsychotic, while in 2007 one in every 329 was.

Although the drugs are intended for the treatment of severe conditions such as schizophrenia and some forms of autism, the study found that they were being used most commonly for hyperactivity, disruptive behavior, and children with mental developmental disabilities.

Olfson noted that antipsychotics should only be used in four- and five-year-olds as an absolute last resort, when no other form of non-drug therapy has been effective. He questioned whether there is ever any justification for giving the drugs to two- or three-year olds. Yet the study found that less than 50 percent of children under the age of six who are on antipsychotics have ever received any mental health services, including therapy or even a health assessment by a mental health professional.

“You don’t see the kinds of mental health services you would expect to see if we were dealing with the most profoundly disturbed toddlers,” Olfson said.

Few studies have been done into the effects of psychotropic drugs on a child’s developing brain.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/two-year-old-toddlers-being-dosed-up-with-antipsychotic-drugs.html
 
How about cutting back on the sugar these kids eat? It wouldn't hurt to turn off the television, or better yet just get rid of it.

This world is sick. An adult is a criminal for having some natural cannabis, but it's okay for the medical monopoly can give dangerous factory drugs to very young pre-school children.
 
my mom is a child psychologist who works with some very abused and disturbed kids. In her practice, medication is absolutely the last line of defense and is used very very rarely. But consider a child who is attacking everyone around them, not sleeping, and biting or otherwise harming themselves..even to the point of repeatedly smashing their heads into a wall. Sometimes parents simply don't have any other options available. I hope this changes..they are for sure a product of their environment and society.

Just throwing that out there.
 
A child who is attacking everyone around them, not sleeping, and otherwise harming themselves is obviously in an inappropriately harmful and toxic environment. Perhaps instead of drugging them so they can cope with their living arrangement, they need a new environment.

A lot of early child psychological problems can probably be explained by malnutrition; lack of omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, etc. that almost everyone suffers from in the 21st century.
 
I remember, ten or eleven years ago, when I was in an adolescent inpatient unit that was adjacent to a children's unit (mental health care). I was shocked then that there were kids between the ages of 5 and 12 in an inpatient setting. If these children are being diagnosed correctly and are being prescribed the correct medications then that's wonderful. I wish my bipolar disorder would have been caught earlier than at age 17. Unfortunately, we just do not know enough about how to medicate children that are this young, or if that is a good idea at all to begin with (medications) for young children.

That said, when it comes to certain forms of mental illness drugs are the only viable treatment. When the brain has an error in how it handles the processing of certain key neurotransmitters, the only way to fix it is to prescribe medications that correct the error in processing (in layman's terms). As far as using medications on children, well, we just don't know enough!
 
graugeist, there's little evidence to demonstrate that the 'neurochemical imbalance' theory of mental illness has any validity. Neurochemical balance is more likely a direct physiological response to psychological processes.
 
I think the (side)effects of anti psychotics are fucking horrible.
Wouldn't wish this shit on my worst enemy.
I hope they try absolutely everything else before they give it to kids
 
Mehm said:
my mom is a child psychologist who works with some very abused and disturbed kids. In her practice, medication is absolutely the last line of defense and is used very very rarely. But consider a child who is attacking everyone around them, not sleeping, and biting or otherwise harming themselves..even to the point of repeatedly smashing their heads into a wall. Sometimes parents simply don't have any other options available. I hope this changes..they are for sure a product of their environment and society.

Just throwing that out there.
Click to expand...


bs bs bs
 
Coolio said:
graugeist, there's little evidence to demonstrate that the 'neurochemical imbalance' theory of mental illness has any validity. Neurochemical balance is more likely a direct physiological response to psychological processes.
Click to expand...

i agree
 
graugeist said:
I remember, ten or eleven years ago, when I was in an adolescent inpatient unit that was adjacent to a children's unit (mental health care). I was shocked then that there were kids between the ages of 5 and 12 in an inpatient setting. If these children are being diagnosed correctly and are being prescribed the correct medications then that's wonderful. I wish my bipolar disorder would have been caught earlier than at age 17. Unfortunately, we just do not know enough about how to medicate children that are this young, or if that is a good idea at all to begin with (medications) for young children.

That said, when it comes to certain forms of mental illness drugs are the only viable treatment. When the brain has an error in how it handles the processing of certain key neurotransmitters, the only way to fix it is to prescribe medications that correct the error in processing (in layman's terms). As far as using medications on children, well, we just don't know enough!
Click to expand...

not true
 
Coolio is right, for a number of reasons related to nerve-development in young humans.

Plus, the article makes no mention of constant or even serial aggression. I've worked at the psychiatric crisis unit for all children in the northern half of Miami-Dade county (population roughly 1 million) and even though I only remember admissions of children ages 4 and up, it was very very very rare that we saw a kid who was in a continual state of ferocity or acceleration. Even with the extreme cases, the first line of defense was close supervision and gentle redirection. If that didn't work (if e.g. the techs were being bitten) then supine 4-point restraint was the way to go.
 
Coolio said:
graugeist, there's little evidence to demonstrate that the 'neurochemical imbalance' theory of mental illness has any validity. Neurochemical balance is more likely a direct physiological response to psychological processes.
Click to expand...

I did not mention any imbalance. The "imbalance" idea has no weight and never had any weight. The problems in the brain are far more complex than an imbalance. If you read what I submitted previously, you will see that I mentioned that the error in neurotransmitter processing was an over-reaching term that serves to allow people to get a general idea of what goes on in the brain; I said that this was a good description in layman's terms without getting into a lot of detail.

I am afraid that you are incorrect, though, as there is quite a bit of medical research which shows the structural abnormalities as well as the abnormalities in how the brains of people with certain mental illnesses function differently than the brains of mentally healthy people. I suggest reading a few books about mental illness, specifically bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, as those two disorders have been linked to problems within the brain.

The problems in the brain are linked directly to the cause of these disorders. In bipolar disorder, medical researchers have discovered problems in how neurons function and transmit messages between them due to ion activity in neurons. The way in which the brains of bipolar people process serotonin and norepinephrine also plays a part in causing the symptoms displayed in bipolar disorder. In addition to this, the brains of bipolar people have structural abnormalities, such as the basal ganglia and cerebullum, which are smaller than normal in the brains of bipolar individuals.

These are known facts. I suggest educating yourself on mental illness so that you understand it and are able to offer insightful input based on fact rather than your opinion. Hopefully you have learned something. Unfortunately, I do realize that most people are ignorant (meaning that they do not know, not intended as an insult) of what mental illness is really about and still believe that psychology is mumbo jumbo that focuses on talk therapy while sitting on a big comfy couch, which is quite far from the truth. If you would like to learn more, please ask me: I have been living with bipolar disorder and maintaining it successfully for over 27 years, have done much research into mental illness on my own time, work as a mental health counselor, and have a degree in psychosocial rehabilitation and psychology.
 
Coolio A child who is attacking everyone around them, not sleeping, and otherwise harming themselves is obviously in an inappropriately harmful and toxic environment. Perhaps instead of drugging them so they can cope with their living arrangement, they need a new environment.

A lot of early child psychological problems can probably be explained by malnutrition; lack of omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, etc. that almost everyone suffers from in the 21st century.

An environmental factor means that some exogenic variable has caused an alteration in developement. Just because the cause is environmental, doese not mean that the solution is a different environment. Obviously mental health is one of the most complicated fields of study and treatment, and the whole corelation does not equal causation becomes pretty complex. The factors triggering something may have been environmental, but you can't necessarily rule out that the child didn't have genetic factors predisposing them to this reaction. Another example, just because drug A treats schizophrinia succesfully by modulating neurotransmiter B doesn't mean neurotransmitter B causes schizophrinia. I think you know that treating seriously damaged kids isn't as simple as changing the environment.

In regards to malnutrition I would appreciate some sources. There is some evidence that that n-3 fatty acids are helpfull in treating anxiety and depression. Also low levels of n-3 fatty acids in the prefrontal cortex is thought to cause decreased dopaminergic transmission, which might indicate defficiancy could be a factor in depression. It's counter evident however to your theory that omega defficiency causes schizophrenia. In theory, low levels in the PFC could be acounted for by the brain creating high levels in the limbic system, but most of the brains dopamine is in the basal ganglia which would be unaffected by this.

Most of the serious studies on omega and bipolar indicate that those taking omega 3 fatty acids were less likely to relapse, but that the effects were to small to be clinically significant.

Even the APA has said that there is a statisticly certain benifit to individuals being treated for bipolar and unipolar depression. Although they stated there is less evidence that it is usefull in treating schizophrenia. Just because something helps treat x doesn't mean lack of it causes x. Omega 3 is the only thing you mentioned that the human body can't synthesize, and so it's the only one I'll adress in detail. There is scant evidence that vitamin D might play a roll in depression. In the 21st century United States most do not suffer from malnutrition, atleast not in the general sense of the word.

graugeist, there's little evidence to demonstrate that the 'neurochemical imbalance' theory of mental illness has any validity. Neurochemical balance is more likely a direct physiological response to psychological processes.

That sounds like something I would like to believe, it must be true! There most certainly is evidence of imbalanced neurochemicals, and evidence suggests that psychological process is influenced by fluctuating neurochemicals not the other way around. Although, again, the issue of correlation and cause comes up. The evidence is there though, and no demonstratably superior explanation for mental illness exists. Any one who just writes it off as bullshit is employing the logically fallacious argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam), basically that something is false because it has not been proven true, or in the case of religion true because it has not been proven false. One thing I feel compelled to bring up is that no one has really established a chemical balance to which one can compare a chemically unbalanced subject. At the end of the day, although the idea of mental illness being caused by chemical imbalance is overly simplistic and the treatment involves a great deal of trial and error, it is well established that biochemistry plays an integral role in most "mental illness".

It is because of the great deal of trial and error involved that I don't approve of medicating young children. The benefit of treating them pharmacologically doese not outweigh the risks, especially with anti psychotics. I don't think alot of study has been done in this area, but one can extrapolate that based on the difference in drug tolleration between children and adults with say stimulants, negative side effects are a given. When white mice are given stimulants at an analogous age to that of a 5 year old child, later the mice being studied indicated a 25% reduction in the amount of dopamine receptors that should have been present in an adult striatum. Stimulants are generally well tolerated, especially compaired to anti psychotics which have terrible side effects not found in any other drug class I can think of. Imagine the horror of a child with tartive diskonesia, just thinking about it turns my stomach.

bob123
"bs bs bs
i agree
not true"

Wow (I)Bob, you're so (think)articulate! Are you a (you)lawyer? I mean, I can't remember(are) the last time someone presented(a) a point of view so (mentally)cojently on these (retarded)forums. You sir are a C(unt)lass act!

PS I liked your post GreyGhost, it's good to see another psychologist on bluelight, are you also German by the way?
 
Paper I just busted out in like an hour for some extra credit in my developmental psych class haha


Two-year-old toddlers being dosed up with antipsychotic drugs
Article is JUST over 6 months old, but it is very interesting….and I really need the points if I’m not going to get the academic probation boot this semester
I found an article discussing the use of antipsychotic drugs on children as young as two years old. Apparently twice as many kids are on them as were 10 years ago, though little is known of their safety. The drugs are meant mainly for schizophrenic symptoms and autism, but according to the article, “they were being used most commonly for hyperactivity, disruptive behavior, and children with mental developmental disabilities.” It sounds more like they are being used off label by doctors helping parents keep their children in a drug induced stupor rather than be a parent and handle their kids behavioral problems. Proving this theory further the article goes on to mention that less than 50% of the kids on these drugs have ever received ANY type of mental health treatment or counseling. It seems to me lazy parents are getting doctors to abuse their prescription pads.
I find this disturbing. These are drugs which have already proven to have severe side effects and long term problems when used on adults and the elderly, and there is virtually no information about what they can do to a developing child’s mind. Having been on Risperdal (“Repress-it-all”) myself for a short period of time, I personally felt completely zombified. How is a child supposed to grow up into a well developed person when all their natural emotions are shut off?
This did not sound consistent with what we were taught in class. I don’t even recall antipsychotic drugs being mentioned outside of my abnormal psych class, dealing with adults. Behavioral problems and their causes were discussed in class, along with treatment methods, but turning children into zombies didn’t seem to come up. Counseling and therapy, yes, and even ADHD meds at times, but what seems to be happening here does not seem like what the class was preparing us for.
The article didn’t really add anything to child development that was not discussed in class, (other than the hard numbers on rates of prescription) and that makes it even more disturbing. We have no way of knowing what the long term effects on these children will be, yet we dose them up in greater and greater numbers. If I learned anything, it is that there should be greater restrictions on off label use of medications, and any child who is going to be put on one of these drugs should HAVE to see psychologist and maintain regular counseling / therapy sessions to monitor the effects they are having on them.
In the future if I ever found myself in a position where I was holding a prescription pad, I would not be distributing antipsychotics until every other possible method of treatment were attempted.. and even then I don’t believe I would ever put such a young child on such a potentially damaging drug. I will be watching the papers because I have a bad feeling that these children are going to suffer severe long term side effects that will interfere with their childhood development on all levels. How is a zombie supposed to develop social skills? If these drugs block dopamine receptors, how is a child ever going to learn what is fun or enjoyable? I feel bad for these children, and hope these irresponsible doctors lose their licenses when the bad news starts to appear.
 
I was in a mental health live-in situation and i got restrained for telling one of the staff to fuck off. Charged them fuckers for assault and won. Take that society!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top