via ISEPP
Response to AAP Guidelines on ADHDThe American Academy of Pediatrics recently released its Clinical Practice Guideline for the Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Treatment of ADHD. We, the members of the International Society for Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry (ISEPP), a volunteer organization of psychiatrists, pediatricians, neurologists, clinical psychologists, social workers, educators, researchers, and psychiatric survivors, strongly reject these guidelines as unfounded and ultimately dangerous to children.
First, the AAP asserts that ADHD is a neurobehavioral disorder. This presupposes that the symptoms of ADHD are caused by some chemical or structural deficiency—essentially, that there is something inherently wrong with the child’s brain. However brain abnormalities have never been demonstrated to cause ADHD-like symptoms; furthermore, children diagnosed with ADHD never undergo any test that demonstrates chemical or structural abnormalities. The diagnosis is based on assumptions that are demonstrably false.
Second, the guidelines recommend that primary care clinicians initiate an evaluation for ADHD (note the language supporting the diagnosis) for any child 4 through 18 who presents with academic or behavioral problems and symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, or impulsivity. This language is shockingly inclusive, since a majority of children meet these criteria at one point or another. Boys will continue to be disproportionately evaluated and diagnosed, since boys are naturally more active, especially during the time when our education system foolishly expects them to sit quietly and learn. Normal children will be evaluated under a highly inclusive evaluative process, further increasing the number of children labeled as disordered or disabled.
Third, the AAP recommends using the highly controversial Diagnostic Manual and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition. Many psychiatrists and psychologists have criticized the DSM-IV’s criteria, in part because of the lack of scientific support, the subjective nature of the diagnosis, and the low threshold for diagnosis. Why does a diagnosis of ADHD require a presence of six of the nine possible symptoms? Why not seven? Why not four? Who decided that six is the magic number and by what scientific principle?
Furthermore, the primary care physician is urged to rule out any alternative causes for the symptoms. While this may seem like an excellent suggestion, it is highly improbable that pediatricians or psychiatrists could possibly take the time necessary to determine whether the child’s family history or life circumstances offer a better explanation for the child’s unruly behavior or inadequate executive functioning. Primary care physicians simply do not have the tools to determine whether a parent has the necessary skills to train and develop a child’s self-control.
Fourth, the new guidelines make an attempt to suggest behavior therapy as one of the initial interventions, but neglect to stress that in the largest study to date, 40% of children diagnosed with moderate to severe ADHD were “cured” by a short-term behavior therapy treatment. These data suggest two crucial notions: 1. The assertion that ADHD is a biologically based disability should be vigorously questioned and 2. Any non-drug treatment option that has such a strong success rate and carries no medical risk should be stressed as the #1 treatment option. It should also follow that these behavior therapy treatments be studied and improved in order to increase their success rate, thereby reducing or even eradicating the need for stimulant medication.
Fifth, the AAP guidelines neglect to mention the highly significant medical risks of drugging children with psychostimulants. Presumably, the authors were unaware of the breadth of research demonstrating that early childhood consumption of psychostimulant medication interferes with the natural maturation process, resulting in delaying or stunting of brain and behavioral growth. If this is the case, it calls into question their knowledge base and authority regarding these matters. If they are aware of the scientific literature on the developmental risks but chose to ignore them, one could draw more disturbing conclusions. read here.
via ABC News:
ADHD Drugs Linked to Sudden Death
Some Parents Believe New Study Reinforces Link Between Stimulants, Cardiac Death
June 15, 2009—
For Ann Hohmann, Oct. 21, 2004, began just about like any other day.
On that morning, the 54-year-old mother of two living in McAllen, Texas, was preparing to take her eldest son to school. She had an early appointment, so her husband, Rick Hohmann, would be dropping off younger son, 14-year-old Matthew, at his school that day.
About a month earlier, Matthew had been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD. And like an estimated 2.5 million other children in the United States, he was taking medication for the condition.
It was Ann Hohmann who gave Matthew his Adderall XR pill that morning with a glass of water. But it was her husband who later found him after he had collapsed on the bathroom floor.
"To me, he seemed fine," she recalled. "My husband had seen him walking around, brushing his teeth. Then he walked in and found him flat down on the floor in the bathroom.
"When he turned him over, his lips were blue," Hohmann said.
She said that her husband called her first, and then he called 911. He performed CPR until the ambulance arrived. But it was too late.
"They worked on him for a while, but he was dead," she said.
Ann Hohmann is one of a handful of parents across the country who believes that their children's sudden death was due to the use of drugs to control ADHD. And she said she hopes a new study released this morning, which suggests that the use of stimulants is tied to an increased risk of sudden unexplained death among children and teens, will open the eyes of the public to what she sees as the cause of her son's demise.
read here.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment