The results? Forty-five percent of patients with such behavioral disorders as ADHD or conduct disorder were given antipsychotics and 44% of patients with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) received them. The percentage for other anxiety disorders was 31%!
Forgetting for the moment that an ADHD diagnosis may just be yet another case of acting out, antipsychotic medication is not indicated for ADHD. In adults, antipsychotic medications are not indicated nor FDA-approved for any anxiety disorder or PTSD. Not only that, but there is not the slightest evidence from any neurobiological study that the purported mechanism of action of antipsychotic medication has anything to do with anxiety disorders or ADHD.
And conduct disorder? This "disorder" was formerly called juvenille delinquincy. Acting out by any other name. Don't even get me started.
One of the predominant side effects of these medications, is however, sedation. So one might conclude that the reason the meds seem to both the parents and incompetent doctors to "work" is that the kids quiet down because they are being doped up. (This prescribing practice does not just apply to some psychiatrists but also to many other primary care doctors as well -as to pediatricians, read Claudia Gold's blogpost, Pediatricians Prescribing Psychiatric Medication: A Dose of Reality),
But who's anxiety is really being treated here?
I submit that it is the anxiety of the parents. Parents who have out-of-control, acting-out children are the real objects of these "treatments." These parents covertly feel guilty when they are unable to control their children due to inconsistent, neglectful, or abusive parenting practices. Yet they have great difficulty changing these practices for a variety of reasons - sometimes very understandable reasons. (One of which is that their doctors make no effort to understand what is really going on in their homes, and take advantage of their insecurities).
Nonetheless, when the kids are doped up and are therefore less trouble, the parents feel better. And they have the doctors stamp of approval that the problem resides entirely within the child, not with them.
|An unsolicited plug|
The use of these drugs in kids diagnosed with PTSD is particularly instructive. Unless you are treating victims of such disasters as the recent outbreak of tornadoes in the South and Midwest, or working with victims of crime like Jaycee Dugard, the most common trauma leading to PTSD in children is child abuse.
Of course, this whole process of sedating acting-out children usually does not end with the first prescription. For most drugs that have sedation as a side effect, the sedation gradually subsides after a few weeks on the medication. Then, of course, the kid starts doing what kids always do - start reverting back to their previous behavior.
The parents then drag him or her back to the incompetent doctor, who starts to take one of the following steps and then another, in no particular order:
- Increase the dose of the medication.
- Change to a different medication which also is not indicated for anxiety and conduct disorders.
- Add a prescription for a second one of those medications, and then perhaps a third or a fourth.
- Change the diagnosis to something else other than acting out, and begin the whole process all over again.
Readers of the blog know what I believe happens next. The child develops a false self that only seems to be sick and incompetent. Such children hide their abilities as they grow into adults, continue to act in ways that preclude employment, and continue on social security disability.
When you take the time to actually get to know them, however, it seems that the only thing they can not seem to do that most people can is maintain employment.
And then Robert Whitaker thinks that the medications were the cause of the disability, just like the less-than-thorough doctors thought that the medications caused the initial improvement of the child's "mental illness" when it was just a side effect that temporarily muted acting out behavior.
It always amazes me how much people who seem to be on opposite sides of a debate think alike. Basing their conclusions on totally incomplete information seems to be a favorite blind spot of theirs.