Guest guest Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 Thanks for this article, Jim. The author has done an excellent job pointing out the reasons why so many kids are being drugged (incompetent physicians, pharma marketing, uninformed parents, etc), and the inherent dangers of this abhorent practice of drugging infants and toddlers. He points out how drugs are being used to control children's behavior. The psychiatrist, Dr Edgardo Concepcion, admits that he had to give the child's behavior a "name" (whatever that might be - autism, bi-polar, adhd, etc. etc. etc.) - and, only then could he justify writing a prescription for drugs) - or, in other words - if you just simply identify the problem as "the child needs help learning to talk", and "his mother needs help in connecting to social support services and help in learning how to parent", then there is no justification to prescribe a drug, and thus no reimbursement from the insurer to pay the doctor. The author has shown clearly how so many doctors are now just looking for one of the "labels" within the DSM that seems to describe the child's behavior, and then how they match that label up with whatever drug is marketed to treat that label. However, I perceive another misperception buried in the article - what I see as a "push" for these "very expensive" mental health programs to undo the damage... Although I applaud Dr Margaret Gleason and Dr Zeanah for their more common sense approach and insights, I don't believe the answer is in expensive "early childhood mental health programs". As you read through the article, you can clearly see that this child needed help in achieving basic developmental milestones (ie - learning to talk so he could communicate effectively), and his mother needed parental guidance in helping her son reach those developmental milestones. The nation's system of Early Intervention is already in place, and help is already available for parents (no matter their income level). Perhaps there needs to be more publicity about this system ??See: http://nectac.org/contact/ptccoord.aspBest Regards, Cassie ============================================\\http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/business/02kids.html?_r=2 & partner=rss & emc=rss & pagewanted=allChild’s Ordeal Shows Risks of Psychosis Drugs for YoungBy DUFF WILSON http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/duff_wilson/index.html?inline=nyt-perPublished: September 1, 2010OPELOUSAS, La. — At 18 months, Warren started taking a daily antipsychotic drug on the orders of a pediatrician trying to quell the boy’s severe temper tantrums.Thus began a troubled toddler’s journey from one doctor to another, from one diagnosis to another, involving even more drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 Thanks for this article, Jim. The author has done an excellent job pointing out the reasons why so many kids are being drugged (incompetent physicians, pharma marketing, uninformed parents, etc), and the inherent dangers of this abhorent practice of drugging infants and toddlers. He points out how drugs are being used to control children's behavior. The psychiatrist, Dr Edgardo Concepcion, admits that he had to give the child's behavior a "name" (whatever that might be - autism, bi-polar, adhd, etc. etc. etc.) - and, only then could he justify writing a prescription for drugs) - or, in other words - if you just simply identify the problem as "the child needs help learning to talk", and "his mother needs help in connecting to social support services and help in learning how to parent", then there is no justification to prescribe a drug, and thus no reimbursement from the insurer to pay the doctor. The author has shown clearly how so many doctors are now just looking for one of the "labels" within the DSM that seems to describe the child's behavior, and then how they match that label up with whatever drug is marketed to treat that label. However, I perceive another misperception buried in the article - what I see as a "push" for these "very expensive" mental health programs to undo the damage... Although I applaud Dr Margaret Gleason and Dr Zeanah for their more common sense approach and insights, I don't believe the answer is in expensive "early childhood mental health programs". As you read through the article, you can clearly see that this child needed help in achieving basic developmental milestones (ie - learning to talk so he could communicate effectively), and his mother needed parental guidance in helping her son reach those developmental milestones. The nation's system of Early Intervention is already in place, and help is already available for parents (no matter their income level). Perhaps there needs to be more publicity about this system ??See: http://nectac.org/contact/ptccoord.aspBest Regards, Cassie ============================================\\http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/business/02kids.html?_r=2 & partner=rss & emc=rss & pagewanted=allChild’s Ordeal Shows Risks of Psychosis Drugs for YoungBy DUFF WILSON http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/duff_wilson/index.html?inline=nyt-perPublished: September 1, 2010OPELOUSAS, La. — At 18 months, Warren started taking a daily antipsychotic drug on the orders of a pediatrician trying to quell the boy’s severe temper tantrums.Thus began a troubled toddler’s journey from one doctor to another, from one diagnosis to another, involving even more drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 Thanks for this article, Jim. The author has done an excellent job pointing out the reasons why so many kids are being drugged (incompetent physicians, pharma marketing, uninformed parents, etc), and the inherent dangers of this abhorent practice of drugging infants and toddlers. He points out how drugs are being used to control children's behavior. The psychiatrist, Dr Edgardo Concepcion, admits that he had to give the child's behavior a "name" (whatever that might be - autism, bi-polar, adhd, etc. etc. etc.) - and, only then could he justify writing a prescription for drugs) - or, in other words - if you just simply identify the problem as "the child needs help learning to talk", and "his mother needs help in connecting to social support services and help in learning how to parent", then there is no justification to prescribe a drug, and thus no reimbursement from the insurer to pay the doctor. The author has shown clearly how so many doctors are now just looking for one of the "labels" within the DSM that seems to describe the child's behavior, and then how they match that label up with whatever drug is marketed to treat that label. However, I perceive another misperception buried in the article - what I see as a "push" for these "very expensive" mental health programs to undo the damage... Although I applaud Dr Margaret Gleason and Dr Zeanah for their more common sense approach and insights, I don't believe the answer is in expensive "early childhood mental health programs". As you read through the article, you can clearly see that this child needed help in achieving basic developmental milestones (ie - learning to talk so he could communicate effectively), and his mother needed parental guidance in helping her son reach those developmental milestones. The nation's system of Early Intervention is already in place, and help is already available for parents (no matter their income level). Perhaps there needs to be more publicity about this system ??See: http://nectac.org/contact/ptccoord.aspBest Regards, Cassie ============================================\\http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/business/02kids.html?_r=2 & partner=rss & emc=rss & pagewanted=allChild’s Ordeal Shows Risks of Psychosis Drugs for YoungBy DUFF WILSON http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/duff_wilson/index.html?inline=nyt-perPublished: September 1, 2010OPELOUSAS, La. — At 18 months, Warren started taking a daily antipsychotic drug on the orders of a pediatrician trying to quell the boy’s severe temper tantrums.Thus began a troubled toddler’s journey from one doctor to another, from one diagnosis to another, involving even more drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 Thanks for this article, Jim. The author has done an excellent job pointing out the reasons why so many kids are being drugged (incompetent physicians, pharma marketing, uninformed parents, etc), and the inherent dangers of this abhorent practice of drugging infants and toddlers. He points out how drugs are being used to control children's behavior. The psychiatrist, Dr Edgardo Concepcion, admits that he had to give the child's behavior a "name" (whatever that might be - autism, bi-polar, adhd, etc. etc. etc.) - and, only then could he justify writing a prescription for drugs) - or, in other words - if you just simply identify the problem as "the child needs help learning to talk", and "his mother needs help in connecting to social support services and help in learning how to parent", then there is no justification to prescribe a drug, and thus no reimbursement from the insurer to pay the doctor. The author has shown clearly how so many doctors are now just looking for one of the "labels" within the DSM that seems to describe the child's behavior, and then how they match that label up with whatever drug is marketed to treat that label. However, I perceive another misperception buried in the article - what I see as a "push" for these "very expensive" mental health programs to undo the damage... Although I applaud Dr Margaret Gleason and Dr Zeanah for their more common sense approach and insights, I don't believe the answer is in expensive "early childhood mental health programs". As you read through the article, you can clearly see that this child needed help in achieving basic developmental milestones (ie - learning to talk so he could communicate effectively), and his mother needed parental guidance in helping her son reach those developmental milestones. The nation's system of Early Intervention is already in place, and help is already available for parents (no matter their income level). Perhaps there needs to be more publicity about this system ??See: http://nectac.org/contact/ptccoord.aspBest Regards, Cassie ============================================\\http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/business/02kids.html?_r=2 & partner=rss & emc=rss & pagewanted=allChild’s Ordeal Shows Risks of Psychosis Drugs for YoungBy DUFF WILSON http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/duff_wilson/index.html?inline=nyt-perPublished: September 1, 2010OPELOUSAS, La. — At 18 months, Warren started taking a daily antipsychotic drug on the orders of a pediatrician trying to quell the boy’s severe temper tantrums.Thus began a troubled toddler’s journey from one doctor to another, from one diagnosis to another, involving even more drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 Hi Cassie, I agree completely! I also know that this particular Dr. Gleason is not the white knight she appears to be as she has put together an algorithm for the drugging of small children. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1147666 I will check out the link to NECTAC, looks interesting. Best, Jim On 9/3/2010 5:48 AM, Cassandra Casey wrote: Thanks for this article, Jim. The author has done an excellent job pointing out the reasons why so many kids are being drugged (incompetent physicians, pharma marketing, uninformed parents, etc), and the inherent dangers of this abhorent practice of drugging infants and toddlers. He points out how drugs are being used to control children's behavior. The psychiatrist, Dr Edgardo Concepcion, admits that he had to give the child's behavior a "name" (whatever that might be - autism, bi-polar, adhd, etc. etc. etc.) - and, only then could he justify writing a prescription for drugs) - or, in other words - if you just simply identify the problem as "the child needs help learning to talk", and "his mother needs help in connecting to social support services and help in learning how to parent", then there is no justification to prescribe a drug, and thus no reimbursement from the insurer to pay the doctor. The author has shown clearly how so many doctors are now just looking for one of the "labels" within the DSM that seems to describe the child's behavior, and then how they match that label up with whatever drug is marketed to treat that label. However, I perceive another misperception buried in the article - what I see as a "push" for these "very expensive" mental health programs to undo the damage... Although I applaud Dr Margaret Gleason and Dr Zeanah for their more common sense approach and insights, I don't believe the answer is in expensive "early childhood mental health programs". As you read through the article, you can clearly see that this child needed help in achieving basic developmental milestones (ie - learning to talk so he could communicate effectively), and his mother needed parental guidance in helping her son reach those developmental milestones. The nation's system of Early Intervention is already in place, and help is already available for parents (no matter their income level). Perhaps there needs to be more publicity about this system ?? See: http://nectac.org/contact/ptccoord.asp Best Regards, Cassie ============================================\\ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/business/02kids.html?_r=2 & partner=rss & emc=rss & pagewanted=all Child’s Ordeal Shows Risks of Psychosis Drugs for Young By DUFF WILSON http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/duff_wilson/index.html?inline=nyt-per Published: September 1, 2010 OPELOUSAS, La. — At 18 months, Warren started taking a daily antipsychotic drug on the orders of a pediatrician trying to quell the boy’s severe temper tantrums. Thus began a troubled toddler’s journey from one doctor to another, from one diagnosis to another, involving even more drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 Hi Cassie, I agree completely! I also know that this particular Dr. Gleason is not the white knight she appears to be as she has put together an algorithm for the drugging of small children. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1147666 I will check out the link to NECTAC, looks interesting. Best, Jim On 9/3/2010 5:48 AM, Cassandra Casey wrote: Thanks for this article, Jim. The author has done an excellent job pointing out the reasons why so many kids are being drugged (incompetent physicians, pharma marketing, uninformed parents, etc), and the inherent dangers of this abhorent practice of drugging infants and toddlers. He points out how drugs are being used to control children's behavior. The psychiatrist, Dr Edgardo Concepcion, admits that he had to give the child's behavior a "name" (whatever that might be - autism, bi-polar, adhd, etc. etc. etc.) - and, only then could he justify writing a prescription for drugs) - or, in other words - if you just simply identify the problem as "the child needs help learning to talk", and "his mother needs help in connecting to social support services and help in learning how to parent", then there is no justification to prescribe a drug, and thus no reimbursement from the insurer to pay the doctor. The author has shown clearly how so many doctors are now just looking for one of the "labels" within the DSM that seems to describe the child's behavior, and then how they match that label up with whatever drug is marketed to treat that label. However, I perceive another misperception buried in the article - what I see as a "push" for these "very expensive" mental health programs to undo the damage... Although I applaud Dr Margaret Gleason and Dr Zeanah for their more common sense approach and insights, I don't believe the answer is in expensive "early childhood mental health programs". As you read through the article, you can clearly see that this child needed help in achieving basic developmental milestones (ie - learning to talk so he could communicate effectively), and his mother needed parental guidance in helping her son reach those developmental milestones. The nation's system of Early Intervention is already in place, and help is already available for parents (no matter their income level). Perhaps there needs to be more publicity about this system ?? See: http://nectac.org/contact/ptccoord.asp Best Regards, Cassie ============================================\\ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/business/02kids.html?_r=2 & partner=rss & emc=rss & pagewanted=all Child’s Ordeal Shows Risks of Psychosis Drugs for Young By DUFF WILSON http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/duff_wilson/index.html?inline=nyt-per Published: September 1, 2010 OPELOUSAS, La. — At 18 months, Warren started taking a daily antipsychotic drug on the orders of a pediatrician trying to quell the boy’s severe temper tantrums. Thus began a troubled toddler’s journey from one doctor to another, from one diagnosis to another, involving even more drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 Hi Cassie, I agree completely! I also know that this particular Dr. Gleason is not the white knight she appears to be as she has put together an algorithm for the drugging of small children. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1147666 I will check out the link to NECTAC, looks interesting. Best, Jim On 9/3/2010 5:48 AM, Cassandra Casey wrote: Thanks for this article, Jim. The author has done an excellent job pointing out the reasons why so many kids are being drugged (incompetent physicians, pharma marketing, uninformed parents, etc), and the inherent dangers of this abhorent practice of drugging infants and toddlers. He points out how drugs are being used to control children's behavior. The psychiatrist, Dr Edgardo Concepcion, admits that he had to give the child's behavior a "name" (whatever that might be - autism, bi-polar, adhd, etc. etc. etc.) - and, only then could he justify writing a prescription for drugs) - or, in other words - if you just simply identify the problem as "the child needs help learning to talk", and "his mother needs help in connecting to social support services and help in learning how to parent", then there is no justification to prescribe a drug, and thus no reimbursement from the insurer to pay the doctor. The author has shown clearly how so many doctors are now just looking for one of the "labels" within the DSM that seems to describe the child's behavior, and then how they match that label up with whatever drug is marketed to treat that label. However, I perceive another misperception buried in the article - what I see as a "push" for these "very expensive" mental health programs to undo the damage... Although I applaud Dr Margaret Gleason and Dr Zeanah for their more common sense approach and insights, I don't believe the answer is in expensive "early childhood mental health programs". As you read through the article, you can clearly see that this child needed help in achieving basic developmental milestones (ie - learning to talk so he could communicate effectively), and his mother needed parental guidance in helping her son reach those developmental milestones. The nation's system of Early Intervention is already in place, and help is already available for parents (no matter their income level). Perhaps there needs to be more publicity about this system ?? See: http://nectac.org/contact/ptccoord.asp Best Regards, Cassie ============================================\\ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/business/02kids.html?_r=2 & partner=rss & emc=rss & pagewanted=all Child’s Ordeal Shows Risks of Psychosis Drugs for Young By DUFF WILSON http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/duff_wilson/index.html?inline=nyt-per Published: September 1, 2010 OPELOUSAS, La. — At 18 months, Warren started taking a daily antipsychotic drug on the orders of a pediatrician trying to quell the boy’s severe temper tantrums. Thus began a troubled toddler’s journey from one doctor to another, from one diagnosis to another, involving even more drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 3, 2010 Report Share Posted September 3, 2010 Hi Cassie, I agree completely! I also know that this particular Dr. Gleason is not the white knight she appears to be as she has put together an algorithm for the drugging of small children. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1147666 I will check out the link to NECTAC, looks interesting. Best, Jim On 9/3/2010 5:48 AM, Cassandra Casey wrote: Thanks for this article, Jim. The author has done an excellent job pointing out the reasons why so many kids are being drugged (incompetent physicians, pharma marketing, uninformed parents, etc), and the inherent dangers of this abhorent practice of drugging infants and toddlers. He points out how drugs are being used to control children's behavior. The psychiatrist, Dr Edgardo Concepcion, admits that he had to give the child's behavior a "name" (whatever that might be - autism, bi-polar, adhd, etc. etc. etc.) - and, only then could he justify writing a prescription for drugs) - or, in other words - if you just simply identify the problem as "the child needs help learning to talk", and "his mother needs help in connecting to social support services and help in learning how to parent", then there is no justification to prescribe a drug, and thus no reimbursement from the insurer to pay the doctor. The author has shown clearly how so many doctors are now just looking for one of the "labels" within the DSM that seems to describe the child's behavior, and then how they match that label up with whatever drug is marketed to treat that label. However, I perceive another misperception buried in the article - what I see as a "push" for these "very expensive" mental health programs to undo the damage... Although I applaud Dr Margaret Gleason and Dr Zeanah for their more common sense approach and insights, I don't believe the answer is in expensive "early childhood mental health programs". As you read through the article, you can clearly see that this child needed help in achieving basic developmental milestones (ie - learning to talk so he could communicate effectively), and his mother needed parental guidance in helping her son reach those developmental milestones. The nation's system of Early Intervention is already in place, and help is already available for parents (no matter their income level). Perhaps there needs to be more publicity about this system ?? See: http://nectac.org/contact/ptccoord.asp Best Regards, Cassie ============================================\\ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/business/02kids.html?_r=2 & partner=rss & emc=rss & pagewanted=all Child’s Ordeal Shows Risks of Psychosis Drugs for Young By DUFF WILSON http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/w/duff_wilson/index.html?inline=nyt-per Published: September 1, 2010 OPELOUSAS, La. — At 18 months, Warren started taking a daily antipsychotic drug on the orders of a pediatrician trying to quell the boy’s severe temper tantrums. Thus began a troubled toddler’s journey from one doctor to another, from one diagnosis to another, involving even more drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.