I agree that this issue concerns more than the kids that are taking these drugs.

The only clear argument that see coming from people besides are 1+ These kids would not be able to learn without the, and 2) They cause problems for others, and when they are drugged they cause less problems.  

For me, the first point is a good one, and it is why I am looking at what long term studies show. Are they learning more? Are they being helped in anyway?  I do not see any prove of that. Just people who believ they are and short term studies of less than a few years.   There is no consdieration in these studies for what other options would do either. LIke accepting that these kids might need to learn at a different pace and way.

As to point number 2, I do not believ it is ethical to drug opeople for the benefit of others. Especially when other solutions are avaiable. Now I am aware that I am not talking about the real world. I am aware that adults, get druged in Nursing homes, and in US mental institions when there is a shortage of staff and the staff can not manage as well when they have help.  LIkewise with ADHD. What I am talking about is that there are other alternatives to be explored, that need the support of the community. As well further research is needed into other ways of dealing.

Howevr if we are to look at the long term, I believ that if we continue to drug kids without  a benefit (which is what I believe) in the long wrong the costs to both kids and society awill be  much greater, because even drugs which work for other illness has negative side effects, and determental effects on others. So without conclusive long term evidence we are taking a gamble at best. But with the recent and ongoing research, it is becoming clear that they do not work, and thus we will only have the harm that they cause as a memory of "that time when we gave so many millions of kids major mind alterating drugs.

As to owning sighs an apology, I believ that by stating what I see and what I know, is not a complete picture, and so that is why I endevour to have disscussions with people who see things differently.    I see no reason to apologies for that/

I have said nothing to insult sigh, she just seems to be upset that someone might thing she is wrong on this. She has called me names, and genrally acted like ytou would expect someone in a bar to act when having a disagreement. i have no problem with her passion, but I have a problem with her insulting and attacking me, and at the said time, not even reading what I said, when she accuses me of saying things about her, when all I am talking about is an issue in general.       I actually feel sad that she is not able to stay rationally engaged, and instead just misquyotyes and attacks me as a person.  I have seen it before.

Alex - I'm trying to understand.  

I'm imagining a child with much worse ADHD than I believe I had, or my kids had.  The parents and the school try many different methods, diet, rest, exercise, different learning situations, teachers' aids, etc. to help this child learn both academic and social skills.   He (it's usually a boy, but not always) can't sit still or pay attention long enough to learn to read or do math.  His social skills are not developing.  He is too impatient to line up or wait his turn, or to listen to instructions.  He doesn't understand boundaries.  Sooner or later he ends up spending much of his school time sitting in the corridor or in the principal's office.   Despite his quick intelligence he drops behind his classmates in reading and math.  And because he hasn't learned appropriate social skills, misses visual clues, doesn't respect boundaries, he has trouble keeping friends so he isn't invited to birthday parties or picked for teams.  He gets frustrated.  He has melt-downs where he shouts, throws things, and has to be physically restrained from hurting himself or others.  He gets in fights.  He feels stupid.  And he recognizes that the other kids don't like him.  

Compare him to a kid with the same problems with ADHD, in the same situation.   Again parents and teachers try other methods but nothing seems to help this child focus and function.  So the medical profession does a thorough assessment and perscribes pills.  After a bit of trial and error they find one that helps the child without having too many side effects.  He starts concentrating.  He learns to read and do math.  He gets along with his teachers who now recognize his quick intelligence and can help him to channel it. He gets along with the other kids, makes friends, and develops a social life.   After a few years, in consultation with his parents and doctor, he cuts down or stops his medication.

Now its 15 years later.  You tell me that there are no long term advantages? That the kid who suffered failure and social isolation until he dropped out of school, and who has never acquired the knowledge or social skills needed to get and keep a job is better off than the kid who did well in high school, went on to develop his talents and find a career, and who has a net work of friends to socialize with?   Is that what you are trying to tell us? 

so, alex, did you read my last post, then??

if you want me to continue our discussion without a cooling off period, i would be content to do so... you are simply continuing to spout the same old lies without even acknowledging that there might be more to all this than 2 op ed pieces you read in the new york times a few weeks ago...

you seem unable to disengage at this point. 

i have asked you before to post the link to the study that those two op-ed pieces in the new york times were referencing...

could you do that, please?? 

thank you.

apparently so.

here is a great article, in plain english, which discusses the literature on many studies...

http://healthlifeandstuff.com/2010/01/long-term-effects-of-adderall/

i find it FASCINATING that all the literature i am finding which is medically based shows that the ONLY long term effects that are of any note are cardiovascular.   and even in them, kids on adderall only 20% higher than the general population. 

they are also pretty overwhelming that the drugs work very well in 2-4 year studies.  (alex is insistent that the literature he has shows they only work for 4 WEEKS.  4 YEARS - 4 WEEKS.... i wonder why the descrepancy???  which is why i keep asking to see the origional study that these 2 op-ed pieces from the new york times that he is basing all of this on.  its very odd that there isn't a link to that study in the origional post on this thread)

and its not just studies that show this is true, either.

i know many kids who have thrived since starting these medications.  both in the short term and the long term.

my daughter is one such case... her attention span was so short, she couldn't even read.  she TRIED SO HARD, but she couldn't sit still... she fidgeted.  we tried sitting on the ball, sitting on the textured cushion... tutors.

nothing worked. 

then we started dexedrine.  you have never seen a happier child, alex... even her teacher said it was like suddenly she just WOKE UP.... she was just THERE.

she picked up reading pretty quickly after that... for awhile, she friggin read everything she saw.  i got kind of annoying when we were at the grocery store...

now, she is 17, and is halfway through her welding certification.  she hasn't needed to take the medication for about 5 years now, and there are no long term problems at all. 

add that up... 5 on, 5 off..... 10 years.   thats pretty long term, wouldn't you say, alex??

thats not what you need to apologize for.

good grief, you can't ANYONES posts properly, it would seem...

wrong.  the following is what i have asked you to apologize for.  

-you have compared me to a child molestor

-you have compared me to a child abuser. 

-you have accused me of ignoring my children

-you have accused me of poisoning my children for my own benefit

-you have accused me of not taking the time to thoroughly research a decision.

-you have accused me of not seeing that my children are suffering.

-you have asked the UCC to intervene and remove my parenting responsibilites from me.

-you have accused me of contributing to the destruction of the environment.

i can back all these up with your own statements on this thread.  just let me know and i will show them to you.

THAT is what you need to apologize for, alex.  that we disagree on this particular topic is the basis for any discussion on wondercafe. 

but your insults towards me are not.

LOL!!

again, alex... pot calling the kettle black!!

i said you have a 'stupid attitude', and i have apologized for that.

lol!!

no doubt you've 'seen it before', alex... if this is how you engage in a discussion with everyone else, i wouldn't be surprised that you've seen it before!!

again, is what you are doing here how you 'advocate' in real life??   you say you are a successful advocate for the disabled...

why are you attacking me like the barbarians are at the gates??  why don't you change it up here, and lets have a rational discussion like you do when you advocate in real life??

i'd like to see that.

that is a good news story about your daughter sighs.

and what an interesting career choice for a young woman.  that bodes well to be a pioneer of sorts in a newish field for women.

certainly a good annecdotal account of the benefits from treatment and support to learn how to "learn"

here is a 'testimonial' of sorts from my son.

lets call him 'yuzzum'...

hello there im yuzzum and ive been on adderal for 6 years now and it has worked for me ever since i stared taking it and my markes are in the 80s and 90s, i play guitar, and im on the A team in hockey.

so that is my son.  brief, but to the point... he is a lot like his dad that way.

he doesn't like to brag, but he taught himself to play 'the spirit of radio' by rush on his electric guitar.  which is AMAZING... i get confused just LISTENING to that song.  just in case you haven't heard this song, here it is... just the beginning guitar riff there is the impressive part, imho... yuzzum does that a wee bit slower than alex lifeson.  but i bet alex lifeson is a lousy goalie.

and he is an awesome goalie on his hockey team... a few years ago, on his high school team, he won a 'player of the game' award and his team won the all city championship!!

i don't think i could love anybody more than i love my kids, really...

yep... she has a pink welding helmet with a black rose on it, and her welding boots are hot pink to match.  her and my husband talk about welding stuff all the time, and it just sounds like the teacher in those 'charlie brown' specials to me.  but man, i love that kid like crazy...

and yes, before you ask, we HAVE seen 'flashdance'.

so, i told my other daughter about all this, and asked if she wanted to post a short note to tell you all that she is just fine and doing well on adderoll too...

she said that unless i got her a 'wii', she was going to post that i am the WORST PARENT EVER.  ( she has been on me about getting a 'wii' since last year, and i'm just not sold on having one of those video game systems in the house.  any parent i have talked to about them has said that they wish that they'd never gotten it.)

anyways, all that being said, i think it is safe to say that her thought processes are pretty clear and normal for a teenage girl.

SO ALEX...

i have been trying to find the origional study that dr. alan was referencing when he penned the article in the new york times.

and far from actually FINDING any studies, i found that there is now a backlash to his article...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/06/ritalin-gone-wrong_n_1257386.html

here is another  from 'the national post'

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/03/lily-hechtman-medication-...

By Lily Hechtman ( professor of psychiatry and paediatrics at McGill University in Montreal and the president of the Canadian ADHD Resource Alliance.)

Few physicians and parents are aware of the “lack of effectiveness of ADHD drugs,” claims Dr. L. Alan Sroufe in Tuesday’s National Post (Ritalin gone wrong, L. Alan Sroufe, Jan. 31). But it is Dr. Sroufe who shows blatant disregard for years of peer-reviewed medical studies documenting the efficacy of ADHD medication.

His article ignores decades of genetic research that indicates ADHD is inherited. He dismisses modern brain-scan technology showing considerable difference in the brains of children, adolescents and adults with ADHD, compared to the brains of individuals without the disorder. Like autism, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, ADHD is a disorder of the brain. It is not caused, as suggested by Dr. Sroufe, a University of Minnesota psychologist, by “experiences in early childhood.”

Not everyone who is forgetful or very active has ADHD, which is why there are comprehensive guidelines that assist healthcare professionals in identifying and treating individuals with the disorder. Medication is part of a multi-modal treatment approach (along with psychosocial treatment and individual and family interventions).

Contrary to Dr. Sroufe’s claims, the stimulant medications used for treating ADHD are considered among the most effective. They have been in more or less continuous use since 1937. The decision to use medication must be an informed decision, involving both parents and physicians.

Dr. Sroufe refers to the exhaustive study of the use of stimulant medication for ADHD, the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD, funded by the National Institutes of Health in the United States. This is the largest and most comprehensive treatment study of ADHD that has ever been conducted and one of the seven international study sites was in Montreal. The study proved conclusively that stimulant medication, given on a regular basis and in a supervised setting, is very effective for treating the symptoms of ADHD.

Dr. Sroufe, however, choses to focus on follow-ups to this study that were inconclusive, but fails to explain this is largely due to poor compliance once children and adolescents left a vigorous study protocol. What is not said is that long-term randomized studies on the effects of ADHD medication are incredibly expensive and difficult to conduct; they are also unethical as they would involve children given a placebo for years for the purpose of a study.

When participants leave the controlled research environment created within a study, community follow-up is often poor. There are infrequent medication visits (one or two per year), with usually no input from the school to guide medication adjustment. This poor follow-up often results in patients discontinuing their medication, either because of a lack of effect or side effects. Regular, standardized follow-up in the community is essential in order to improve the long-term outcome in patients with ADHD and to maintain the kind of treatment gains seen in the short term, with carefully monitored interventions.

In his article, Dr. Sroufe appears to be trying to make the point that inappropriate use of medication to deal with children’s behavioural problems is wrong. In this, he is correct. But  raising concerns about the diagnosis of ADHD and its appropriate treatment with stimulant medication, is doing a great disservice to Canadians who suffer from this condition and the doctors, psychologists and mental health workers who struggle to assist them.

National Post

the above article by lily hechtman actually discusses the very study that dr. sroufe is refering to.  and as you can see, alex, there is FAR MORE to the study than what you would like to believe...

again, alex, before you start firing off comments about how parents should be stripped of their parental rights for making the decision to treat their children with adderall, you should really take the time to make sure you understand what the study you refer to is saying.

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/02/06/ritalin-gone-right-chil...

What Dr. Sroufe fails to mention is that this was an “uncontrolled naturalistic follow-up study” that, after 14 months of treatment in one of the four treatment groups, the subjects were welcomed to continue treatment, seek other treatment, or discontinue treatment as they saw fit. This hardly qualifies as a demonstration of treatment effects that “faded” over time.

What it does demonstrate, to me anyways, is someone who will cherry-pick the vast ADHD research literature to find something that supports his point of view, and then suggest this one study characterizes the vast majority of ADHD research. There are a dozen longitudinal studies measuring how ADHD progresses into early adulthood, and many other studies — some that are far more methodologically rigorous — that demonstrate just the opposite of Dr. Sroufe’s claims.

http://www.childmind.org/en/posts/articles/2012-1-30-adhd-righting-recor...

Harold S. Koplewicz, MD

President
Child Mind Institute

Yesterday the New York Times fired a shot across the bow of every parent of a child who's taking stimulant medications for ADHD. A piece in the opinion pages claimed that there is no evidence that medication helps kids with ADHD after an initial couple of years, and, worse, that ADHD is the result of abusive or even garden-variety bad parenting.

The piece, by L. Alan Sroufe, a psychology professor emeritus at the University of Minnesota, was such a broad assault on what we know about ADHD, and how it is affected by medications like Ritalin and Adderall, that it deserves point-by-point response.

1. Dr. Sroufe claims that studies show that stimulant meds are not effective after the first two years. He refers specifically to a long-term study published in 2009 of 600 children who were treated with medication, or intensive psycho-social interventions, or both. After 14 months the children showed a positive response to medication, and those who had the combined treatment did a somewhat better still. But following up with the kids 8 years later, researches found the benefit had eroded. What he doesn't explain is that after the first 14 months the children were no longer being treated as part of the study. The authors of the study itself call it an "uncontrolled naturalistic follow-up study." In the latter 6 years the children got what the authors call "routine community care." No surprise that, as they note, "the differential effects of the ADHD treatments, evident when the interventions were delivered, attenuated when the intensity of treatment was relaxed."

The point here is that when we prescribe Ritalin or Adderall for ADHD we don't claim to be curing it. There is no cure for ADHD. We claim that it helps kids while they are taking it by reducing excessive inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity so they are able to function better in every part of their lives—at school, with friends, and within their families. There is abundant evidence that it does that, and that kids with ADHD who are treated with medication do have fewer symptoms and function better. As my colleague Dr. Rachel Klein, who has led seminal research on ADHD, explains, "The medications work as long as you give them. That's true of all psychiatric treatments and most medical treatments. Arthritis, diabetes, congestive heart failure. We don't have cures for many chronic illnesses. So, yes, it's too bad, but it doesn't follow that we should not use the treatment."

By the end of adolescence many children no longer need medication, as they have outgrown their ADHD. Others (figures range from 35% to 40%) will continue to experience some symptoms—and may continue to use medication—all their lives.

2. Dr. Sroufe suggests that because we don't have randomized studies of the effectiveness of the drug for more than two years, we should conclude that those benefits don't continue. There is no reason to draw this conclusion, especially given overwhelming clinical evidence that it continues to work, in adulthood as well as childhood. There are no randomized long-terms studies that show continued effectiveness of insulin for diabetes either. These kind of studies are extremely difficult and extremely expensive and often unethical: You can't put a child on a placebo for his entire adolescence for the purpose of a study.  

3. At the heart of Dr. Sroufe's attack on medication is his observation that many "behavior problems" appear to be generated by a child's environment, including disadvantaged, stressed, chaotic home situations. This is certainly true; the mistake here is to assume that all children who have problems with behavior—impulsivity, inattention, trouble self-regulating—have ADHD.

"Yes, there could be some children who show inattention and hyperactivity because their environment hasn't given them the opportunities for appropriate development," notes Dr. Klein. "There are different causes to different presentations. It doesn't mean that one invalidates the other. They can co-occur. And the challenge to the clinician is to distinguish them."

One of Dr. Sroufe's studies, done in the 1970s, was on treating what the authors called "problem children" with stimulant drugs. This vagueness may have been acceptable in the '70s, but it's not now. Many kids with behavior problems don't have ADHD—or don't only have ADHD. For many kids, stimulant medications are not the right (or the only) needed intervention. But that doesn't mean they don't work for kids who have been accurately diagnosed with ADHD.

4. Dr. Sroufe suggests that since we don't know how these medications work, we should be reluctant to use them. If this standard was applied to all medications, a great many wouldn't pass the test. We didn't understand the mechanism of action of aspirin until the 1970s—some 70 years after it became widely used. "There are lots of things we do that help people, but we're not sure how they work," says Dr. Klein. "But if they work, we use them. Understanding the mechanism is a goal for science, but it's not a requirement for therapeutic action."

5. Dr. Sroufe notes accurately that these medications have side effects, notably problems with sleep and appetite, which can lead to what he calls "stunted growth." What he doesn't note is that sleep and appetite problems tend to go away after the first month or two, and if they don't we try changing the dose or the kind of medication until we solve the problem. No one said these medications should be used without careful monitoring. The charge of "stunted growth" is an exaggeration; the reality is that kids do fall slightly behind their peers in growth in the first year they take medication, but they also, according to a 2010 study, catch up by the fourth year. 

The reality is that the side effects of Ritalin or Adderall are much less problematic than those of many medications considered invaluable. "There are side effects to almost all drugs," Dr. Klein notes. "Aspirin can be lethal. You can have lethal bleeding from aspirin. Does it mean it should never be used? That would be absurd." The fact is that the rate of response (the percentage of cases in which it is effective) is one of the highest in medicine—higher, for instance, than most antibiotics.

6. Dr. Sroufe paints a scary picture of stimulant medications changing a child's brain, that they "develop a tolerance for the drug," and "become adapted to the drug" so that if they stop taking it their symptoms become worse. In fact, there is no evidence at all that kids develop habituation or tolerance to stimulant medications, that they need escalating amounts to get the same effect. And while it is true that there's something called "rebound" that can cause irritation and exacerbated symptoms when the drug wears off, this is a temporary effect, not unlike, as Dr. Sroufe himself points out, if you suddenly cut back on caffeine.

7. Perhaps the most distressing comment Dr. Sroufe makes in this piece is that ordinary parents who make ordinary mistakes during a child's early development could produce the kind of brain changes we see in children with ADHD. He includes among these potential sources not only "family stresses like domestic violence, lack of social support from friends or relatives, chaotic living situations, including frequent moves," but also, bizarrely, "especially, patterns of parental intrusiveness that involve stimulation for which the baby is not prepared. For example, a 6-month-old baby is playing, and the parent picks it up quickly from behind and plunges it in the bath. Or a 3-year-old is becoming frustrated in solving a problem, and a parent taunts or ridicules. Such practices excessively stimulate and also compromise the child's developing capacity for self-regulation."

It's certainly true that parental patterns influence the development of a child's ability to self-regulate, and that changing those patterns can help a child learn to rein in his own disruptive behavior—we see it work spectacularly in parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT). But PCIT doesn't cure the core symptoms of ADHD; in fact kids with severe ADHD usually have to be on medication to be able to focus enough on the training sessions to learn effectively from them.

The sad thing here is that I think the case Dr. Sroufe really wanted to make in this piece is that knee-jerk use medication isn't the right response to behavioral problems—or the only necessary response. Kids may get prescribed drugs because it's cheaper and easier than figuring out what's causing the behavior. Many kids who show some of the symptoms of ADHD may have other psychiatric problems that need attention—they may have anxiety disorders or be on the autism spectrum. Or they may need relief from a chaotic or abusive home situation, consistent support and discipline from their parents, positive role models, and many other things that are harder to muster than a prescription

We agree with Dr. Sroufe that that is unfortunate.  It's too bad that to make that case, he attacked the well-established effectiveness of medications that really do work for kids who really do have ADHD.

success!!

i finally found the origional study that dr. shroufe was referencing from in his 'new york times' article!!

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/trials/practical/mta/the-multimodal-treatment-of...

so, alex...

when you read this study, 3 things pop immediately into view for me...

1)  this study was done in the 1990's, so its not what i'd consider to be 'current' in a field that is so rapidly changing

2) this study was done ONLY on children using a 3x day dosage of ritalin, a first generation drug treatment, not the XR doses of the 2nd and 3rd generation drugs (eg adderall)  that we have today.

3) this intensive portion of this study was for only 14 months.... it is NOT the decade long intensive study that you claim it to be.

A. The MTA was designed and conducted in the early 1990s, before the extended release formulations of stimulant medications became widely available. The MTA used immediate release methylphenidate (Ritalin), which was administered three times a day. Currently, most children receiving stimulant treatment for ADHD are given a once-a-day dose of medication in the morning. However, this difference in medication administration does not change the study's main conclusions.

In addition, the MTA treatment lasted for 14 months only, after which the children were referred back to their community providers. Some of them continued treatment. Others discontinued their treatment or changed it, based on their individual situation. All participants, regardless of the treatment they received, were invited to return to the MTA clinics every one to two years for an assessment of their ADHD symptoms and level of functioning.

Because their treatment after the end of the study was not controlled, it is not possible to draw accurate conclusions about the effectiveness of interventions beyond 14 months, or determine if treatment improves long-term functioning. However, the observations collected from these uncontrolled follow-up assessments can provide information about the long-term course of ADHD itself. These data are being analyzed and reported as they become available.

so, based on the study that YOU YOURSELF are referencing, alex, i can say that your claims are patently FALSE.

here is why.

-the study you are referencing ONLY refers to ritalin.  there are many many drugs that have come out since the end of this trial that work far better than ritalin ever did.  adderall being the one that we chose. 

- the study does not take into account children who switched medications for better ADHD or ADD effectiveness, nor does it take into account children who simply 'outgrew' the medication, as my daughter did.  they were NOT considered in the 'long term' follow ups, as they were no longer on ritalin.  the only children who were mentioned were the children who were still taking ritalin.  and as even the authors of the study state, compliance was a problem.  heck, having to give a kid medication 3x a day at school is a mammoth undertaking.  so you just can't extend the study to include children who are taking medications OTHER THAN ritalin.  those drugs were not part of this study.

- the study itself is NOT the long term controlled study that you continually claim that it is.  in fact, the authors of the study itself state conclusively that you simply cannot draw ANY long term conclusions about this medication from this study.

there.

you are completely refuted, alex, from the very study you claim backs up your statements.

hoist with your own petard.

i respectfully submit that you are WRONG, and your opinion is invalid.

i await your response.

Hi Gang,

This is a response to Dr. Sroufe's op ed in the Times.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/02/03/lily-hechtman-medication-is-the-best-way-of-treating-adhd/

It looks like Dr. Sroufe is modifying Bruno Bettleheim's refrigerator mother hypothesis.  Blaming the parents is so retro.

Grace and peace to you.

John

ah, you get used to it after awhile.

as a mother, i get blamed for everything from the fact that nobody has flushed the toilet in the kids' bathroom to the saskatchewan roughriders missing the playoffs last year.

apparently, i have powers that i didn't know i had!!!

I admit I haven't read all the posts here I just thought that I would respond as a parent who made the decision to put my daughter on ADHD medication.

It was a very hard decision for me because I was told that her issues were because of the way I was raising her. I was too lenient. After a few mental health specialists talked to me and to my daughter we booked an appointment with someone who had a lot of experience with the issue. He spent a  couple of hours with my daughter and another hour with me. After that we made the decision to put her on ritalin (she was in grade 4) and that was the drug used at that age at that time. Her attitude. social skills, and grades changed and she could focus on things. When she went to junior High she was put on dexidrine the time released medication she continued on this until she graduated from high school at that time she made the decision to stop the medication (her doctor agreed) and she is now holding down two jobs and has a lot of friends.  To me the most telling  thing is that children (who seem to know when someone is a good person) gravitate towards her. 

Medication was the turning point in her life and society has benifitted from it as well.

That is not to say that it is the best for everyone each situation is different and the medication does need to be monitered by a doctor continually.

For my family it was the best decision to make.

Maybe if I had been given Ritalin in school I would've graduated...

Maybe if I had been given Ritalin in school I wouldn't have been "different"....

Maybe if I had been given Ritalin in school I would've lived to my full potential with a higher self esteem...

I was diagnosed after all three of my BOYS were and while I know for fact Ritalin is overprescribed somewhere in the bloody world, right now, as we breathe, DON'T tell me and others who suffer with ADHD (and it does exist!) that what we're doing isn't good for us.  You want to really DO something other than balance on your soapbox?  Get involved!  But you better have half and brain and know what your talking about!  Be the advocate for misunderstood children who really don't have ADHD!  Go ahead!  Just stay/get the bleep outa my way!

Oh!  Thanks to my great common sense, sense of humor, etc. 2 of my three boys graduated highschool!  The 3rd might've but since his ADHD was more ADD less H and he was quiet and well behaved, teachers tended to forget about him.  We've never had drug issues because no one is allowed to do any!  Funny how that works huh?  And as for unwanted pregnancies and risky sexual behaviour I told them they wouldn't die if they still found themselves virgins at 19 and hey!  they believed me!! 

This great God given life I lead is made possible WITH Ritalin.  I enjoy it.  My children and I know life with and without Ritalin...cause it's a funny thing, it only works if you remember to actually take it!  Hee hee!

Hi sigsnootles,

You shouldn't have to.

When the Chief of Psychiatry at our hospital tried to explain my son's Autism on Refrigerator Mother Syndrome we refused to let him treat our son and I went to the Hospital Board and asked for a review of his treatment of our son to that point.

Bizarrely they need to ask him to give permission to release his records.  It took him about a week and surprisingly material in the records prior to the request was different than material in the records after he released the files. 

That caused quite a commotion though without evidence of wrong doing it is hard to prove.

The end result was that this Doctor forbade any of his patients to speak to us about the quality of their care which was interesting since I was the minister to several and my wife taught another two or three.

He has a private practice in the states now.  I pity his patients.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Goodness, I've been blamed if it rained on a picnic.