Let's Talk About Drugs
Published January 22, 2006
His full credentials, which are very impressive, are included on the website. For a nice good scare, take a look at some of the many articles included here. (There is also a very illuminating and alarming, albeit old, article from Policy Review entitled Why Ritalin Rules. (A caveat of sorts: Policy Review is published by the Heritage Foundtion, a conservatively oriented, but highly respected, Washington think tank.)
The thing is, that many of the players in the drug/antidrug game have motives that are far from pure. Everyone is making a killing — the drug companies, the insurance companies, the shrinks, the school counselors. And the pushers of natural alternative supplements play on the fears of the public about the side effects of pharmaceuticals.
But of course, the fact that a substance is "natural" is no guarantee it is safe. (Can you say Ephedra?) The Scientologists have an excellent motive for opposing drugs — they have the non-medical answer for anyone who joins their cult. And of course, there are the lawyers — always the lawyers — ready to step in as soon as a drug is pulled from the market, or sometimes before. And although Dr. Breggin's efforts certainly seem laudable, I'm sure he gets paid a pretty penny to testify in all those class-action suits.
JUST SAY NO?
What I find particularly ironic are those "parents--the anti-drug" ads. The best one shows a dad pacing the floor, wracked with guilt and shame. The voiceover is something to the effect of: just because you toked your brains out when you were younger is no reason not to prevent your kids from having some fun. That's one of the many reasons I never had children — how do you tell your kids not to have sex or party when you'd been there yourself?
But meanwhile, while medical marijuana is still not accepted in most states, parents, shrinks, and schools are pumping millions of kids full of Ritalin to make them more manageable. The pharmaceutical companies have taken their case directly to the consumer (ask your doctor about...) — and there is, indeed, a pill for everything. Of course, the commercials will tell you upfront about common and rare side effects — some of which may include death — but that's all cool.
THE ANSWER IS THAT THERE IS NO ANSWER
I'm no Tom Cruise. I do think that drugs save countless lives and help restore many people to sanity. My boyfriend BG might not be alive if it weren't for the HIV meds he takes twice a day. But drugs are crude, and hormones and brain chemicals are infinitely complex and interconnected. Thus, bizarro side effects are possible with almost any drug. I even read of a case where someone died by taking one too many 12-hour cold tabs. As for me, after taking Lithium for many years, I now have to take Synthroid — a synthetic thyroid med — for the rest of my life.
- Let's Talk About Drugs
- Published: January 22, 2006
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Sci/Tech
- Filed Under: Culture: Education, Culture: Family and Relationships, Sci/Tech: Science
- Writer: Elvira Black
- Elvira Black's BC Writer page
- Elvira Black's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
Paula:
Many thanks for your comment. I've heard other parents say that Ritalin did wonders for their child, and if so, perhaps the benefits outweighed the risks. But I still do wonder if this was the only "solution": available, really. Not being in that situation, I can't say.
As someone with bipolar disorder, I see a psychiatrist every two or three months to adjust and monitor my meds. Although my shrink is superb, he is, like most today, focusing almost solely on meds and is quite eager and willing to try all varieties in order to try to find the right "cocktail" for me.
I have learned (as he has assured me) that it is ok to speak up and say, "I don't feel comfortable about trying this med" or "I'd like to try to lower my dose of this med due to side effects." As he has made clear, I'm the one who has to take the meds, and he will never try to force a particular med on anyone.
But it did throw me for a loop when he mentioned ampetamines and Ritalin, although I think in this case he was trying to treat some of my loss of energy and motivation, rather than my bipolar disorder.
But I thought it particularly questionable considering that I have bipolar disorder, and certain drugs may induce a hypomania. In fact, being in a hypomanic state is very similar to how one feels on "ups"--this from someone who's experienced both states.
I know someone else who is struggling with depression, and her doctor put her on Ritalin. From what I've heard, this doctor sounds like a quack. I don't think he has tried the full array of meds available to try to treat her depression. Sometimes it takes a lot of time and trial and error to get the right combo, but it can and does happen.
Now this doc is recommending either electroshock or surgery on the vagus nerve performed by a neurosurgeon. I have been through electroshock, and it is usually reserved for the most severe cases, after drug treatments have not been effective. From what I've read, the surgery route probably works in a similar fashion to the anti-seizure med Lamictal. Both Lamictal and the surgery in question were initially used to treat epilepsy, and now it has been found that these same treatments work for depression. Wouldn't it, then, make more sense to try the Lamictal before resorting to the more invasive and expensive route of surgery?
(Remember when lobotomies were all the rage?)
I know I am getting off on a tangent here. But my point is that sometimes doctors, parents, and teachers may be all too willing to seek a "quick fix" to a problem that may very well be resolved less radically. In the case of clinical depression, meds are probably in order. But how many people with mild to moderate depression are having these meds pushed on them, and is this always the wisest course of action?
In addition, children do not have the luxury of questioning whether their meds are warranted. Their parents and other authority figures have deemed it necessary to drug them, whether they agree or not. This, quite frankly, scares me. I'm sure I would not have been given a choice "back then" either. Sounds a little too much like 1984-ish social engineering to me, and the scary implications of the phrase "children should be seen and not heard" carried to its radical conclusion.
I think i'll be taking a bit of ritalin this saturday -
this topic's still as good as it was elvira.
Snake bites are natural.
Elvira, I think the whole idea of ADD, ADHD, etc. other disorders treated with Ritalin is a topic we don't know much about yet. I think we shoot cannonballs at a problem instead of the .22 shot we may need. Here's to more research.
Justine:
LOL--Yep,it was soooo tempting in a way to just say yes to a bit of the old Ritalin, but I knew that for me it would entail traveling a very slippery slope...
Digibrill:
I love that cannonball analogy--that's what I always think of when it comes to drugs and side effects. The brain is such a finely tuned organ--and the interplay of our hormones and brain chemicals is so intricate--that drugs often consitute a very crude tool indeed.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/42604)
I agree with you that Ritalin is overprescribed.
Ritalin should be a last resort. Obviously, there are chidren who struggle greatly with ADD and do need the help that prescription drugs can provide. My next door neighbor's child was having the worst time focusing at school, and Ritalin changed his life for the better.
It's the borderline cases that bother me; the quickly written prescription so the doctor can move on to the next patient, and the teacher and the parent won't have to deal with the child.
Children's brains are not fully developed. What is the long term effect that these drugs will have on them both physically and emotionally?