Posted on 02/06/2005 1:22:18 PM PST by cinives
It is estimated that in the United States between 4 million and 8 million children are on Ritalin, the drug being used to change the behavior of children afflicted with a disease or condition called attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactive disorder.
We already know that the long-term use of Ritalin can be fatal. In March of 2000, a 14-year-old ninth-grader, Matthew Smith, dropped dead of a heart attack while skateboarding. He had been on Ritalin since the first grade. And in 1994, the very popular singer and songwriter Kurt Cobain committed suicide at age 27. He was known as a "Ritalin child."
What parents are not being told by psychiatrists who prescribe the drug and the school nurses who give it to the kids is that taking Ritalin is like playing Russian roulette, simply because nobody can be sure what the side-effects will be.
Recently, I happened to come across a copy of the latest Physicians' Desk Reference on pharmaceuticals. It lists all of the drugs available to physicians and provides the drug's clinical pharmacology, indications and contraindications, warnings, precautions, adverse reactions, etc. So I looked up Ritalin. Its generic name is methylphenidate hydrochloride. It comes in two forms, a regular tablet and a time-release tablet. It was described as follows:
Ritalin is a mild central nervous system stimulant. The mode of action in man is not completely understood, but Ritalin presumably activates the brain stem arousal system and cortex to produce its stimulant effect. There is neither specific evidence which clearly establishes the mechanism whereby Ritalin produces its mental and behavioral effects in children, nor conclusive evidence regarding how these effects relate to the condition of the central nervous system.
So we really don't know exactly how the drug works in the brain, but the book warns:
Ritalin should not be used in children under 6 years, since safety and efficacy in this age group have not been established. Sufficient data on safety and efficacy of long-term use of Ritalin in children are not yet available. Although a causal relationship has not been established, suppression of growth (i.e., weight gain and/or height) has been reported with the long-term use of stimulants in children. … Clinical experience suggests that in psychotic children, administration of Ritalin may exacerbate symptoms of behavior disturbance and thought disorder.
Was the student killer at Columbine who took Ritalin psychotic? If so, he should not have been given the drug.
As for adverse reactions, otherwise known as side effects, this is what the Ritalin user may also experience: Nervousness, insomnia, skin rash, urticaria (itching, burning, stinging, smooth patches usually red), fever, arthralgia (pain in a joint), exfoliative (flaking) dermatitis, erythema (skin redness), multiforme with histopathological (microscopic changes in tissues), findings of necrotizing (death or decay of tissues), vasculitis (blood vessels) and thrombocytopenic purpura (purplish patches), anorexia, nausea, dizziness, palpitations, headache, dyskinesis (impairment of body movements), drowsiness, blood pressure and pulse changes both up and down, tachycardia (rapid heartbeat), angina, cardiac arrhythmia, abdominal pain, and weight loss during prolonged therapy. There have been rare reports of Tourette's syndrome (tics). Toxic psychosis has been reported.
If that isn't playing Russian roulette with a child's health, I don't know what is. Note the number of cardiac side effects, probably caused by the constriction of blood vessels. That's what probably caused the heart attack that killed Matthew Smith. We only hear about the worst tragedies. Skin rashes, headaches, dizziness, nausea and palpitations don't make the headlines; they just make the users miserable.
Why would anyone subject a child to a drug with so many possible harmful side effects simply to "cure" an attention problem? How about creating classrooms with more order and fewer distractions. The kind of chaos that now exists in American primary schools is a result of the new classroom configuration that creates attention problems.
You couldn't possibly have attention deficit disorder in the kind of classrooms that existed when I went to school back in the 1930s and '40s. In those days, the students sat at desks bolted to the floor arranged in straight rows. The walls were generally bare, with no distractions. The teacher was the focus of attention, and we were all taught the same thing. No individual education plans. And the teacher used the most rational and effective methods of instruction developed over the centuries. It was an education system that produced what Tom Brokaw called the greatest generation.
In other words, they knew how to educate well. We really don't have to re-invent the wheel. But try telling that to today's educators, for whom the successes of the past simply don't exist.
Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld is the author of eight books on education, including: "Is Public Education Necessary?" "NEA: Trojan Horse in American Education," "The Whole Language/OBE Fraud" and "Homeschooling: A Parents Guide to Teaching Children." His books are available on Amazon.com. Back issues of his incisive newsletter, The Blumenfeld Education Letter, are available online.
I've known parents who have drugged their children with Ritalin because they talked too much or because it was hard for the child to concentrate on pages that were "too busy". Ritalin is being used to eliminate annoying personalities or rambunctiousness more than it's being used for a legitimate medical condition, in my opinion.
Gee, I thought he was known as a "heroin addict."
I have a friend whose kids are both on that stuff. They have to take them off in the summer to try to put weight on them. They are both super skinny.
"...for whom the successes of the past simply don't exist. "
This attitude applies to many on the left, hence their cosmic quest for "progress". But I've never seen it expressed so clearly. I better make a good note of the author's name, as I intend to quote this phrase often.
Samuel L. Bloomenfeld, Samuel L. Bloomenfeld,Samuel L. Bloomenfeld. I think I've got it!
The article failed to mention it is generally boys who are put on Ritalin.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3820d3032dd3.htm
This is the real reason for the Ritalin usage in classrooms.
Most Ritalin goes to boys who are by nature "fidgety", and who do better in separate classes from girls.
Using Ritalin not only calms a boy down, but gives the teacher a "feminized" classroom. For the teacher it's a win-win situation. Not so for the boys.
As one drives through the neighborhoods of just about anytown America, one rarely sees what one used to a lot of 25 or so years ago. Children running around playing in yards, or in the streets. No todays child is stuck inside the house drinking and eating extremely high sugar content soda's and candy bars while sitting on his or her butt either watching TV or playing video / computer games.
A child is just by his or her nature hyperactive to begin with. So feeding them all this sugar and allowing them to sit around all day doing absolutely nothing physical to work off all that energy and then doping them up with retalin expecting to sit still all day at school is IMHO, the same as taking someone, shooting them up with speed and tying them to a chair.
A friend of mine is a pharmacist and she was telling me one day the school wanted to give her kid that crap. She asked each of her sons teachers to keep a record of each day her son was unruly in class. Well it turned out that EVERY day her son was being unruly and hyperactive, was the days her husband was feeding them breakfast and preparing their lunchs. Her hubby would give 'em high sugar content creals and junk food for lunch. When she made him prepare the kind of breakfasts and lunchs she prepared, her son was no longer hyperactive and unruly.
Maybe instead of the schools doping up these kids to get them to calm down, the parents should allow children to be children and go outside and burn off all that excess energy like I did when I was a child., but I guess that makes too much sense.
You are correct; however I think his main point was, neither girls nor boys should use these drugs.
I repeatedly had teachers tell me my dd was adhd - why ? Because she was bright, bored, thought most of the busywork was pointless and stupid, was being tormented by bullies, and mostly, because she had an energy level HIGHER THAN MOST GIRLS !!! (sorry for shouting)
Yes, the good psychologists are not gender blind. Do you know if your daughter is as active as the average boy she's singled out too ?
I don't think it just goes to the "fidgety" kids - it also gets pushed on the kids who don't stare adoringly at the teacher as they drone on, or who look out the window or at the clock repeatedly just waiting for escape instead of doing their worksheet or "group activity".
My dd was told, by a teacher, that she needed it because she kept reading a book in class after her work was finished instead of sitting doing nothing at her desk until the other kids finished.
Did you see this?
My dd was told, by a teacher, that she needed it because she kept reading a book in class after her work was finished instead of sitting doing nothing at her desk until the other kids finished.
AAARGHHHHH! That really makes me angry..a teacher taking it upon him/herself to diagnose a child!!! Talk about overstepping boundaries...hope you had a few choice words for that teacher!
Almost as good as the National Enquirer. Phhhhtttt
"Why would anyone subject a child to a drug with so many possible harmful side effects simply to "cure" an attention problem?"
A meaningful and real answere is it is a risk verses benefits situation. First of all, the "risks" expounded here are greatly exagerated, the benefits are not at all given.
I am the proud father of a 9 year old son that has ADHD. He is extremely bright and the problem didn't become apparent until late in K-5. When we started him in first grade (he was attending a private Christian school - the public schools in my poor neighborhood just arent' safe) he just couldn't keep up. The problem was he just could not pay attention. No amount of discipline would change it.
We pulled him from school so my wife could homeschool him so he would have total one on one attention. He still just couldn't pay attention. At the end of every day my wife would be in "tears" and my son "beaten down and discouraged."
Finally, I agreed to consult are pedriatrician - a caring and highly experienced physician. He told us all the "horror" stories about Ritalin were just that. He had used the medication for years with great success - and he himself had been very sceptical about it initially. So, we tried the medication, and the difference was like day and night. Suddenly, he was able to pay attention long enough to learn, and his intelligence started to show. We have, under close physicians supervision, adjusted his medication because it tends to wear off quickly - we use time released now. He is flourishing. We ONLY use the medication on days when he is being taught and as sparingly as possible. We will never use it as a way to control his behavior. We don't mind the hyperness, that is who he is. Even on the med he is hyper, it is just a "focused" hyper. Our concern was his ability to learn, not be calm.
There are parents out there that will use Ritalin as a "baby sitter" the same way they use TV. We don't do that. This is about helping our son, not us.
I strongly resent the implications of this article. It is full of distorted "facts" and false stereotypes. It is the kind of nonsense that made me delay getting my son help.
BTW - EVERY medication has risks. If Aspirin was discovered today, it would not be marketed because of all its bad side effects.
If folks here want to bash the educational establishment, then they are welcomed to do so. I am not a big fan of it either; my goodness we homeschool. However, it was neural "biochemistry" not the educational establishment that was my son's problem. Don't use urban legends about an effective medication as a means to push an anti(whatever) agenda.
I have a 13yo son who was diagnosed with ADHD. He was not just fidgety.
1. He'd lock himself in the bathroom(in the classroom), plug his ears and scream at the top of his lungs.
2. He'd get out of the chair and roll around on the desks(they were put together in groups).
3. He could not keep on task, even one-on-one.
4. He tried to bite other students.
5. Threatened to burn down the classroom(this when he was in first grade).
He simply couldn't follow the rules and did not respect others' personal space.
He told my husband and I that it was akin to sitting in front of a dozev TVs, all with the volume turned up high. He cannot filter out any noises.
FYI: My children(all boys) do NOT have TVs in their rooms, they are NOT allowed to play video games(occaisionally with adult supervision), and they are sent outside to burn off all the energy that they can after school and on weekends. And, they do NOT watch TV during the day and rarely evenings and weekends.
"he 'learned' how to make a fast illegal buck from selling his Ritalin . . . ."
A recent article in the WALL STREET JOURNAL described a drug similar to Ritalin -- Adderal (spelling correct?) -- which is also used to treat ADHD. Because of its ability to boost mental alertness, it's a pretty hot item among "normal" college students who feel the need to stay competitive. It is also being sold through a sort of black market.
As an aside, while these drugs are often exploited, they do help those who suffer neurological disorders. Was it the Ritalin that caused the Columbine killing spree or Cobain's suicide? Or their preexisting mental illness? Hard to tell. But for every "psycho" story that makes the headlines, there are quiet stories of people who can finally function with the help of these drugs. (Ditto for antidepressants.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.